Imagine a world where a vast amount of wealth, that is still just a fraction of the profit made by a company, is easily distributed to buy anyone's cooperation, change anyone's opinion, to cause anyone to lie, and you have a form of corruption that is nearly unstoppable.
Switzerland: The Tide Has Turned ... Justice must be served (2 minute Video)
“The game is up. The leaders of our world now know that the injections are lethal and have maimed millions. - They are extremely concerned that their own families have been poisoned and maimed. There is consensus that justice must be served.”
To what extent it was genuinely peer reviewed may be hard to determine. Articles in journals such as these are not regarded as legitimate by mainstream researchers.
This doesn't mean the content of the article is wrong. There is plenty wrong with the corrupted mainstream journals. It would not be surprising if predatory and newly established, not corrupted, non-mainstream, but not predatory, journals generally do a much better job of handling contentious issues than mainstream journals.
However, it is a mistake to portray this article as being published in a "peer reviewed journal", without further qualification, since this normally means a mainstream journal indexed in PubMed whose articles can be accepted as references in articles in those mainstream journals.
Imagine a world where a vast amount of wealth, that is still just a fraction of the profit made by a company, is easily distributed to buy anyone's cooperation, change anyone's opinion, to cause anyone to lie, and you have a form of corruption that is nearly unstoppable.
Switzerland: The Tide Has Turned ... Justice must be served (2 minute Video)
“The game is up. The leaders of our world now know that the injections are lethal and have maimed millions. - They are extremely concerned that their own families have been poisoned and maimed. There is consensus that justice must be served.”
https://twitter.com/JohnMappin/status/1631979909282136064
Unfortunately the journal this is published in, "Journal of Clinical & Experimental Immunology", is not indexed in PubMed:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/ . Its name is similar to two indexed journals: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/?term=Clinical%20and%20Experimental%20Immunology&titles=all&search=journals .
This journal is published by Opast Publishers https://www.opastpublishers.com/journal/journal-of-clinical-experimental-immunology . I think it is reasonable to regard this as a predatory journal, based on Opast being mentioned in various lists of predatory publishers: https://www.google.com.au/search?as_q=opast+predatory&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&tbs= .
To what extent it was genuinely peer reviewed may be hard to determine. Articles in journals such as these are not regarded as legitimate by mainstream researchers.
This doesn't mean the content of the article is wrong. There is plenty wrong with the corrupted mainstream journals. It would not be surprising if predatory and newly established, not corrupted, non-mainstream, but not predatory, journals generally do a much better job of handling contentious issues than mainstream journals.
However, it is a mistake to portray this article as being published in a "peer reviewed journal", without further qualification, since this normally means a mainstream journal indexed in PubMed whose articles can be accepted as references in articles in those mainstream journals.