PROTECT YOUR DNA WITH QUANTUM TECHNOLOGY
Orgo-Life the new way to the future Advertising by AdpathwayI'm interested in the "featured in Senate hearing" part. I presume this is related to the very recent diktat on childhood vaccine recommendations, but who presented the paper as evidence for what?
Probably corresponding author Saskia Mostert, 03 June 2026.
External Quote:
Lead author Mostert resigned in 2024 after the Princess Máxima Center announced it would be investigating the paper, she said at a hearing on June 3 before the U.S. Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee subcommittee on investigations on "Plausible Mechanisms of COVID-19 Injections Causing Cancer and Attacks on Scientific Publications and Research."
Retraction Watch website as per OP (https://retractionwatch.com/2026/08...ction-covid-19-vaccines-death-senate-hearing/).
The Retraction Watch article links to a Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs webpage,
"Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Plausible Mechanisms of COVID-19 Injections Causing Cancer and Attacks on Scientific Publications and Research", https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcom...ancer-and-attacks-on-scientific-publications/
The chair was Ron Johnson, a Republican Senator for Wisconsin. Saskia Mostert's testimony is available as a PDF from that webpage, attached below. She doesn't really discuss the methodology or validity of her research, most of her evidence is essentially a diatribe against anyone questioning the retracted paper and other papers with dramatic conclusions which might have implications for public health but which might not be accurate.
Mostert, in her evidence, described the response to the 2024 paper as "blind fury", yet Retraction Watch says
External Quote:
In 2024, the Princess Máxima Center investigated the involvement of two authors, Minke Huibers and Gertjan Kaspers, but did not look at Mostert's work on the study because she was "not able to cooperate with the investigation," the report reads.
The Princess Máxima Center in the Netherlands is where 3 of the 4 authors (including Mostert) worked.
Mostert appears to have avoided
the "blind fury" of her employing institution by... ...not cooperating with them.
Ariel Karlinsky, who first raised concerns about the paper (he was co-creator of the World Mortality Dataset which the research used)
External Quote:
...felt the analysis misused his data and "copied whole blocks of text and mathematical notation"
(Retraction Watch).
He alleges plagiarism, but the Princess Máxima Center did not find that plagiarism occurred (so perhaps its blind fury wasn't boundless). However, Retraction Watch quotes a possible example given by Karlinsky,
External Quote:
There was "no other way to explain how 'compromise between flexibility and simplicity'" in his paper "was tortured to 'a trade-off between suppleness and chasteness,'" he said. Tortured phrases can indicate plagiarism.
The use of synonyms can be used to mask the direct quoting of a phrase; where the intended synonyms, in the context in which they are used, don't quite work (e.g. sound awkward or too different in normal usage to the word they are replacing to native speakers of the language) it can result in tortured phrasing. A bit like some computer translations or AI summaries/ re-phrasings. Not, of course, that there is any evidence that the 2024 authors used AI to rephrase anything from other people's research.
.png)
.jpg)
English (US) · 
French (CA) ·