Masks, fraud, whitewash and censorship zones
Many of the articles we link in our monthly roundups are published on Substack. The first two posted here are about an apparent attack by Nature Magazine on the Substack platform which they claim is acting as a repository for misinformation. Of course, that all depends on who your favourite Fact-Checker is. Maryanne Demasi and Peter McCullough have both been in receipt of letters from the Editor and have both published their responses.
The Nature of hypocrisy: pharma-funded journals smearing independent voices Maryanne Demasi, 1st October 2025
As Maryanne says in her subtitle, “Nature alleges that I endanger public health, but it is the journal — steeped in pharma money — that ought to be looking inward.”
As she states in her opening paragraph, “When an editor from Nature emailed me this week, it wasn’t a neutral request for comment. It was a prelude to a hit piece — filled with defamatory accusations and framed around a predetermined narrative. According to the email, I was being lumped into an “anti-vaccine movement,” accused of “endangering public health,” and “profiting from disseminating misinformation.”
No evidence was provided. No articles were cited. No definition of “anti-vaccine” was offered. No complainants were named. Just blanket accusations intended as a character assassination.”
In her substack article, she dives into the funding of Nature and its financial ties with the Pharmaceutical industry and the sheer hypocrisy of criticising those whose counter-narrative work is repeatedly rejected by the main journals, who then use a free service such as substack to publish articles.
As she says, “I’ve never taken a cent from the drug industry. My work is sustained by readers who choose to support independent journalism.
Yet Nature accuses me of “profiting” — as if being funded by public is more corrupting than raking in thousands, if not millions, from the very companies you’re supposed to scrutinise.
To test how deep the rot runs, I’ve requested that Nature disclose its advertising revenue for the past decade, broken down by pharmaceutical corporations, government agencies, and NGOs.” Maryanne has promised to publish their reply, but her readers are not holding their breath.
Meanwhile, the following day, this appeared from Dr Peter McCullough
Substack: A Forum for Both Sides of the Vaccine Debate Peter McCullough, 2nd October 2025
Apparently, Jack Leeming, an editor for Nature magazine, is working on a story about “how Substack has become a popular place for those involved in the anti-vaccine movement and other areas generally considered to be outside of the scientific consensus.”
In his article, he has reproduced in full his reply to Nature, pointing out amongst other things the breadth of articles on Substack which has authors of all opinions, unlike Nature’s own publications. As for profiteering, he comments that the vast majority of articles are freely available with authors competing in the public space for voluntary contributions to their work.
meanwhile below are a few other articles of note:
The Mask Pushers Are At It Again: They Just Never Give Up, Do They? – The Daily Sceptic Gary Sidley, Daily Sceptic, 28th October
Psychologist and HART member, Gary Sidley, has some tips on how to politely push back on the renewed pressures for masking. The evidence for efficacy is very weak and the evidence for harms is clear, so why do we go along with it?
Study 329: the big fraud is finally under review Maryanne Demasi 29th October
Demasi highlights an important legal challenge, this one against the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (JAACAP), who published a fraudulent paper on paroxetine (GSK’s Paxil) for teenage depression.
The published findings concluded ‘safe and effective’, hiding the evidence from the raw data that it was neither. The lack of efficacy for an antidepressant is bad enough, if it just represented an expensive placebo. But this antidepressant has been widely linked to an increase in suicidal ideation (there have also been calls to examine any link between SSRIs and homicidal behaviour). The journal continued to provide GSK with article reprints for distribution to doctors and refused to retract it even after safety warnings from regulators. Last month a lawyer in the District of Columbia filed a complaint under Consumer Protection Procedures.
Read Maryanne’s report for some of the evidence of fraud.
Fiona Godlee, past chief editor of the BMJ, interviewed for Aseem Malhotra’s film “First do no Pharm”, pointed out that any printed journal gets income not only directly from Big Pharma, but also from charging a high price to the industry sales departments to buy quality printed copies of their articles to hand out at ‘drug lunches’ etc. So hitting the journals is another string to our bow. This case is the reverse of the many retractions of mRNA-critical articles in recent years.
The UK Covid Inquiry: a £200 million Whitewash Jacqui Devoy, Substack, 30th October
If you’ve been following the Inquiry at all, you will probably agree with the title! But well worth reading. Jacqui certainly doesn’t mince her words about the total lack of scrutiny of the care home deaths occurring with a combination of blanket Do Not Resuscitate notices and End-of -Life pathways and drugs.
Censorship zones around hospitals and GP surgeries – the Greens’ all-out war on free speech Michael Robinson, TCW, 31st October
This is the proposed amendment to the Scottish assisted dying bill which would impose “censorship zones not just around abortion clinics but around every hospital and GP surgery in Scotland. Within these zones, it could become a criminal offence to ‘influence’ anyone’s decision about assisted suicide”
Remember successful prosecutions of those praying silently outside an abortion clinic? If the amendment is approved, this could encompass the psychiatrist working on suicide prevention, the hospital chaplain giving hope to the dying and the MacMillan nurse trying to offer choice of good palliative care.
