Retraction Watch strikes again, and Dr. Speicher responds.
Responding to Dr Rolf Marschalek's breaches of scientific integrity.
On November 20, 2025, “journalist” Ellie Kincaid reached out for comment, and I promised a response. It’s been a crazy week being sick with shingles, but as promised, here is my response.
Here is the email that I received from Ellie Kincaid.
Normally, I am happy to have a good scientific discussion with anyone, anywhere, any time. Still, I do not respond to anyone from the scientific cartel working hard to retract peer-reviewed publications that do not fit their narrative. Especially, Ellie Kincaid, whom I knew was only reaching out to get a comment for an upcoming hit piece. ScienceGuardians has done an amazing job uncovering this peer-reviewed cartel.
Response from Kevin McKernan and Dr Jessica Rose
Kevin McKernan and Jessica Rose both responded to the latest hit piece before the Retraction Watch article was published.
Jessica responded first, providing a timeline and her thoughts on the peer-review process.
Kevin clarified why their arguments are methodologically flawed.
The Retraction Watch article can be read here:
Dr David Speicher Responds
The Retraction Watch article is a hit piece and a clear example of the weaponisation of science. Our manuscript has already undergone a thorough peer review, during which both reviewers provided many detailed comments. I have no problem putting our manuscript through a thorough peer-review grind because most times you receive constructive and encouraging scientific feedback that makes it a better paper. This time it was different. While many of their comments/concerns were addressed and led to a better manuscript, there were some comments that we did not agree with thus did not act upon. The purpose of peer review is to provide an unbiased assessment of the scientific merit of a manuscript. It is not the role of the reviewers to act as scientific gatekeepers or to delay the publication of scientific research.
The initial comments from Reviewer 1 were so biased and unprofessional that I submitted a formal complaint on July 14, 2025 with the editor-in-chief. As there is still an ongoing investigation, I won’t provide the details of the complaint. In the latest Retraction Watch report, they published Reviewer 1’s report.
My letter of complaint highlighted the following problems with the review.
Misrepresentation of the Manuscript’s Aim
Bias Toward Predetermined Outcomes
Lack of Understanding of Vaccine Lot Sizes and Data Interpretation
Prejudicial Assessment of Authors’ Credentials
Dismissive and Speculative Language
Inconsistent and Contradictory Critiques
Unsubstantiated Claims and Personal Bias
Failure to Acknowledge Methodological Rigor
Unprofessional Tone and Lack of Constructive Feedback
I thank Retraction Watch for bringing multiple issues related to breaches in scientific and peer-review integrity to our attention. Both Ellie Kincaid’s email and article have informed us of the following information:
Referee 1 is in fact Dr Rolf Marschalek of Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main.
Dr Marschalek leaked his review to Retraction Watch, thereby violating peer-review integrity.
Dr Marschalek is a co-author with Stephanie Kaiser, whose method for measuring the DNA via fluorometry is inherently flawed. We have more than adequately addressed this in the response to the reviewers and in Kevin’s Substack article above.
Dr Marschalek stated that he deems our manuscript “is ‘a mission’ for the ‘anti-vaxx community’ and not a scientific paper”. This language is extremely unprofessional and biased (see the next point). This is a scientific paper, and we clearly described the methods used and presented the data clearly and in an unbiased way. We even erred on the side of caution, flagged the issue, and encouraged other scientists to investigate. This clearly shows that he is not recused from bias.
As for the “anti-vaxx” comment, I find this term extremely unprofessional and derogatory. I am not “anti-vax”!!! I have all my vaccines, including yellow fever, when I worked in Kenya. However, after what I know about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, I would never put one in my body and am glad that I never have. What I am against is any medical product that is rushed to market without proper testing, mandated, and has caused harm. Our paper points to multiple ways these shots can cause harm, and we don’t attribute all of it to the DNA contamination.
Dr Marchalek complained that “They didn’t change all the things I recommended,” he told us, and he “wasn’t satisfied with the revisions.” As an author, I do not need to change everything that a reviewer recommends, and I am allowed to disagree with a reviewer, provided that I can provide a clear and factual explanation as to why a change was not made. Manuscripts are sent to 2-3 reviewers because people have different expertise and opinions. It is the editor’s responsibility to make the final decision to accept or reject the paper based on scientific consensus between the reviewers and the author’s written response to comments and/or corrections made to a manuscript. It is the editor’s decision whether or not the authors addressed the reviewer’s comments completely and accurately. According to Dr Casali’s response to Retraction Watch, our corrections and comments to the review “were deemed by the AE to have properly addressed the issues”. It is not the reviewer’s responsibility to hold the journal hostage by refusing to publish a manuscript simply because they disagree with the political message.
Dr Marchalek clearly has undisclosed conflicts of interest as (i) he was a co-author with Stephanie Kaiser (see above) and a publication trying to disprove the DNA contamination story, and (ii) he has received substantial (at least €1.25 million) from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) to push the mRNA vaccine platform. He should have declared his conflicts of interest and refused to review our manuscript.
Therefore, following the publication by Retraction Watch, I have filed another formal complaint with the journal and with Dr. Marchalek’s institution, highlighting three key breaches of scientific and peer-review integrity.
Releasing of confidential peer-review documents to RetractionWatch when it’s a clear violation of the journal’s policy and COPE guidelines.
Dr. Marchalek’s undisclosed conflict of interest.
Dr. Marchalek’s unprofessional and biased behaviour.
Both the Dr Paolo Casali (Editor-in-Chief) and Dr Jade Boyd (Publisher) have responded that they have received our complaints, but that “the investigation into the concerns raised is in progress. Our investigation includes additional independent expert assessment and review of all associated editorial processes. Since that investigation is currently ongoing, we cannot comment further about the article at this stage.”
Dr Panagis Polykretis has also written to the journal and to Substack.
Kevin just put out a Substack into Dr Marchalek’s research, funding and conflicts of interest.
What I hope for an outcome
In my previous post I called this manuscript “The Hammer” as it has definitely made a dent in the trust in the mRNA platform, but it has also been used to expose the corruption in the peer-review process and the gatekeeping cartel.
While I am not concerned with the journal investigating our manuscript again, as that is part of the journal policy whenever they receive a critique, I hope that Autoimmunity does a fair assessment of the whole peer-review process, including the breaches of integrity on the reviewer’s behalf. The whole cartel and Dr Marchalek’s unprofessional behaviour has put the journal in a difficult position. This scandal is coming to the public’s attention and the journal cannot simply sweep this one under the rug. We can only hope that they respond ethically and responsibly.
As for Retraction Watch, it is ironic that they are under the umbrella of “The Center for Scientific Integrity”, yet their methods are the exact opposite. At the bottom of their articles is the following statement. Perhaps it’s time they lost their charity status for racketeering and the weaponisation of science.
If you are able and wish to support my research further, there are several options.
Courageous Truth is reader supported, consider being a paid subscriber.
Contact me directly via e-mail: research@davidspeicher.com.
Send an e-transfer to support@davidspeicher.com
Support my Give Send Go campaign.
Follow me on X. @DJSpeicher
"The purpose of peer review is to provide an unbiased assessment of the scientific merit of a manuscript. It is not the role of the reviewers to act as scientific gatekeepers or to delay the publication of scientific research." - Exxactlllyyyy. There is so much boundary crossing these days