BREAKING: Department of Justice Launches Inquiry Into Top Medical Journals Over Pandemic Bias, Fraud, and Corruption

DOJ Letters Target Prominent Members of Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex over Financial Conflicts, Wrongful Retractions, and Suppression of Vaccine Safety Data

by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

According to NBC, at least three major medical journals—CHEST, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and Obstetrics and Gynecology—have received letters from the U.S. Department of Justice questioning their editorial practices. The letters, sent by interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, raised legitimate concerns about bias, lack of transparency, and whether these journals fairly presented competing scientific viewpoints—especially on topics like COVID-19 policies and treatments. The consistent direction of bias was to suppress any new studies of combination early therapeutics and reports on poor efficacy and side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. Essentially, the journals became vaccine promotional vehicles. None of the major journals published manuscripts that concluded the risks outweigh the benefits of vaccination, despite more comprehensive papers published elsewhere arriving at the truth. As a result, the medical readership and public at large were duped into believing the COVID-19 vaccines were “safe and effective” yet nothing could be further from the truth. Here are two extensively referenced analyses that found COVID-19 vaccines were ineffective and unsafe for human use:

1. Mead, M. N., Seneff, S., Wolfinger, R., Rose, J., Denhaerynck, K., Kirsch, S., & McCullough, P. A. (2024). COVID-19 Modified mRNA "Vaccines" Part 1: Lessons Learned from Clinical Trials, Mass Vaccination, and the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, 3(2), 1112–1178.

2. Mead, M. N., Seneff, S., Rose, J., Wolfinger, R., Hulscher, N., & McCullough, P. A. (2024). COVID-19 Modified mRNA "Vaccines": Lessons Learned from Clinical Trials, Mass Vaccination, and the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, Part 2. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, 3(2), 1246–1315.

While some journals pushed back—claiming editorial independence—others, like The Lancet, which apparently did not yet receive a letter, went so far as to label the inquiries “harassment.”

For years, we have seen top-tier journals prioritize ideology over open scientific debate. In fact, most of the major publishers, including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Sage Publications and Taylor & Francis, have formed a cartel under the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers. The Cartel controls two-thirds of global journal publications, enforces unpaid peer reviews, restricts manuscript submissions, and delays scientific progress—all to protect their multi-billion-dollar profits. This resulted in a recent class action lawsuit against the Cartel for “tremendous damage to science and the public interest.”

Nearly half of medical journal editors have financial conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies, while 59% of peer-reviewers for major medical journals received more than $1 billion from drug companies from 2020 to 2022:

The Journal Cartel's corruption extends to censoring critical pharmaceutical product safety data in accordance with the Biopharmaceutical Complex, likely costing lives:

A prime example of this corruption is when Cartel member Elsevier blatantly violated COPE guidelines by censoring our study “A Systematic Review Of Autopsy Findings In Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination” — shortly after successful peer review and official acceptance — likely because it demonstrated a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death. Our study had just become the #1 trending research paper worldwide across all subject areas before Elsevier abruptly intervened:

You can now read our paper in the non-biased and transparent journal Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law.

Many other studies that contradicted the official corrupted narrative have faced the same fate of wrongful retraction after full publication:

1. Mead MN, Seneff S, Wolfinger R, et al. Retraction: COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign [retraction of: Cureus. 2024 Jan 24;16(1):e52876. doi: 10.7759/cureus.52876.]. Cureus. 2024;16(2):r137. Published 2024 Feb 26. doi:10.7759/cureus.r137

2. Hazan S. Microbiome-Based Hypothesis on Ivermectin's Mechanism in COVID-19: Ivermectin Feeds Bifidobacteria to Boost Immunity [retracted in: Front Microbiol. 2023 May 11;14:1216170. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1216170.]. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:952321. Published 2022 Jul 11. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2022.952321

3. Hazan S, Vidal AC, Hulscher N, Goudzwaard A, McCullough PA, Steinberg AA. Cardiac findings in a phase II double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial of combination therapy (HAZDPac) to treat COVID-19 patients [retracted in: BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2025 Feb 18;25(1):112. doi: 10.1186/s12872-025-04554-6.]. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2024;24(1):710. Published 2024 Dec 19. doi:10.1186/s12872-024-04376-y

4. Gautret P, Lagier JC, Parola P, et al. RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial [retracted in: Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2025 Jan;65(1):107416. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2024.107416.]. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;56(1):105949.

5. Rose J, McCullough PA. WITHDRAWN: A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products. Curr Probl Cardiol. Published online September 30, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2021.101011

This corrupt web of suppression, fraud, and retractions demands a legal reckoning:

The targeting and censorship of scientific studies, particularly when done systematically or for financial or ideological gain, could potentially have serious legal ramifications:

1. Fraud and Misrepresentation

Potential Legal Violation: Journals or reviewers may engage in fraud if they intentionally suppress or retract studies based on misleading or false pretenses. Examples include:

• Retracting studies under the guise of ethical or procedural issues when no such issues are substantiated.

• Suppressing research that challenges commercial interests, thereby misleading the public about the safety or efficacy of certain products (e.g., pharmaceuticals).

Applicable Laws: Federal and state fraud statutes, such as:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail Fraud): Applies if traditional postal services or courier systems are used to further the fraudulent scheme.

• 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud): Covers schemes executed through electronic communications, including email and online platforms, to suppress or discredit legitimate research.

2. Anti-Trust Violations

Potential Legal Violation: If a group of publishers, journals, or organizations (dubbed the "Academic Publishing Cartel") colludes to suppress competing scientific narratives or alternative viewpoints, this could constitute anti-competitive behavior.

Applicable Laws: Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7), which prohibits monopolistic practices and conspiracies to restrain trade.

3. Defamation

Potential Legal Violation: If the "science sleuths" or journals publish untrue statements about the integrity or validity of researchers or their studies, this could constitute defamation.

Applicable Laws: State defamation laws, which protect against reputational harm caused by false statements.

4. Violation of Retraction Guidelines (Breach of Contract or Good Faith)

Potential Legal Violation: Retractions that violate the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, journal policies, or contractual agreements with authors could result in lawsuits for breach of contract or bad faith actions.

Applicable Laws: Contract law and tort law (e.g., duty of good faith and fair dealing).

5. Obstruction of Justice and Public Health

Potential Legal Violation: Systematically suppressing research that highlights public health risks (e.g., vaccine side effects) could be construed as obstruction of justice or even endangerment if the suppression results in harm to the public.

Applicable Laws: Federal statutes related to obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503) and public endangerment.

6. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)

Potential Legal Violation: If the coordinated censorship, suppression, and fraudulent retraction of scientific studies is part of an organized pattern of activity involving fraud, obstruction, or extortion for financial gain, it could rise to a RICO violation.

Applicable Laws: RICO Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968), which targets ongoing criminal enterprises that engage in a pattern of racketeering activity.

Given the overwhelming evidence of corruption, censorship, and financial conflicts of interest within the Journal Cartel, the DOJ’s letters are not harassment — they are a necessary first step toward restoring integrity to scientific publishing. For too long, powerful publishers have suppressed critical research, misled the public, and prioritized corporate profits over public health. If violations of fraud, anti-trust laws, or obstruction are confirmed, full legal action should follow.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.