{"id":16927,"date":"2025-10-02T20:33:49","date_gmt":"2025-10-02T18:33:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/monde25.info\/index.php\/2025\/10\/02\/hypocrisy-of-nature-and-the-censorship-of-france-soir-when-scientific-and-public-institutions-stifle-the-dissenting-voice\/"},"modified":"2025-10-02T20:33:49","modified_gmt":"2025-10-02T18:33:49","slug":"hypocrisy-of-nature-and-the-censorship-of-france-soir-when-scientific-and-public-institutions-stifle-the-dissenting-voice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/monde25.info\/index.php\/2025\/10\/02\/hypocrisy-of-nature-and-the-censorship-of-france-soir-when-scientific-and-public-institutions-stifle-the-dissenting-voice\/","title":{"rendered":"Hypocrisy of Nature and the censorship of France-Soir: when scientific and public institutions stifle the dissenting voice"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

In a world where science and information should be pillars of democracy,\u00a0two recent cases<\/strong>\u00a0highlight\u00a0blatant hypocrisy<\/strong>. On the one hand, the journal Nature, long a bastion of peer-reviewed research, accuses independent journalists of \u201c<\/span>endangering public health<\/span><\/em>\u201d while pocketing millions from the pharmaceutical industry. On the other, in France, the Ministry of Culture\u00a0<\/span>is not renewing the CPPAP accreditation of\u00a0<\/span>France-Soir<\/span><\/em><\/a>\u00a0on the\u00a0<\/span>basis of a sloppy and unsigned administrative note<\/span><\/a>, which analyzes barely 0.6% of the media\u2019s articles and cites a now-retracted study. These cases, although geographically distant, draw a disturbing parallel: the stranglehold of elites on scientific and media discourse, with disregard for facts and transparency.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nature, the magazine that preaches Integrity while hanging out with the devil<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\n

It all began with a\u00a0<\/span>scathing thread<\/span><\/a>\u00a0published on October 1, 2025, on X by Maryanne Demasi, an Australian investigative journalist with a PhD in biomedical sciences. A former ABC anchor and fellow of the Brownstone Institute, Demasi denounced an attempt at \u201ccharacter\u00a0<\/span>assassination<\/span><\/em>\u201d orchestrated by Nature, the world’s most prestigious scientific journal.<\/span><\/p>\n

In an email sent by an editor of the journal, she is accused of belonging to an \u201c<\/span>anti-vaccine movement<\/span><\/em>,\u201d of \u201c<\/span>endangering public health<\/span><\/em>\u201d and of \u201c<\/span>profiting from the spread of misinformation<\/span><\/em>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\"A
Email from Jack Leeming of Nature Careers to Maryanne Demasi<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

No evidence is provided: no articles cited, no named complaints, no clear definition of the term \u201c<\/span>anti-vaccine<\/span><\/em>.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>\u201c<\/span>Just blanket accusations aimed at character assassination<\/span><\/em>,\u201d<\/span><\/a>\u00a0Demasi writes.<\/span><\/p>\n

This isn’t an isolated case. The same email was sent to figures like Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA technology and a member of the CDC’s (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) Immunization Advisory Committee. Demasi sees this as\u00a0a systematic smear campaign<\/strong>\u00a0against independent voices scrutinizing the pharmaceutical industry. And for good reason: Nature is deeply embedded in the very conflicts of interest it claims to combat. The journal publishes vaccine research while raking in advertising revenue and sponsored content from the manufacturers themselves, such as Janssen (Johnson & Johnson), Merck, and AstraZeneca. On its website, Nature touts these \u201c<\/span>pioneering partnerships\u201d<\/span><\/em>\u00a0to \u201csupport science,\u201d without ever quantifying the extent of this funding.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Advertising<\/p>\n

Demasi even requested disclosure of the magazine’s advertising revenue over the past decade, broken down by pharmaceutical corporations, government agencies, and NGOs\u2014a request that remains unanswered.<\/span><\/p>\n

The hypocrisy culminates in the \u201c<\/span>Proximal Origin<\/span><\/em>\u201d scandal. In March 2020, Nature Medicine (a subsidiary of Nature)\u00a0<\/span>published a paper concluding<\/span><\/a>\u00a0that\u00a0SARS-CoV-2 could not have originated in a lab<\/strong>. Internal emails and Slack chats, however, reveal that the authors seriously doubted this theory and admitted that a lab origin was not excluded. Hundreds of scientists are now calling\u00a0this paper a \u201c<\/strong><\/span>political tract<\/strong><\/span><\/em>\u201d disguised as science,<\/strong>\u00a0and thousands have petitioned for its retraction\u2014which the journal has refused to do.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Article<\/p>\n

Demasi ironizes: \u201c<\/span>Scientific consensus\u201d<\/span><\/em>\u00a0and \u201c<\/span>peer review\u201d<\/span><\/em>\u00a0are brandished as assets, but \u201c<\/span>consensus can be manufactured, and peer review is not a shield against corruption<\/span><\/em>.\u201d This \u201cconsensus policing\u201d\u00a0includes\u00a0censoring <\/span>the database on more than 700 peer-reviewed studies on\u00a0the risks of mRNA vaccines<\/strong><\/span><\/a>\u00a0(myocarditis, thrombosis), as Nicolas Hulscher denounces, accusing Nature of a \u201c<\/span>blackout\u201d<\/span><\/em>\u00a0against vaccine critics\u2014a shame for a journal that legitimizes tools like PubPeer, accused of harassment and funded bias.<\/span><\/p>\n

This hypocrisy extends to the handling of scientific fraud. In July 2025,\u00a0<\/span>Nature published a glowing article on Elisabeth Bik<\/span><\/a>, a microbiologist and PubPeer contributor, calling her a \u201c<\/span>fraud detector<\/span><\/em>\u201d for retractions like the 2006 Lesn\u00e9 study on Alzheimer\u2019s.\u00a0<\/span>Yet, Bik<\/span><\/a>\u00a0is\u00a0<\/span>accused of egregious methodological errors<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, such as in\u00a0<\/span>a 2025 HAL report<\/span><\/a>\u00a0by Charles Vidal and Didier Raoult demonstrating that her claims of image duplication at the IHU M\u00e9diterran\u00e9e Infection were based on biased analysis (only a 3% difference via GIMP and FAST Feature Detector). Omitting her past at uBiome (raided by the FBI for fraud in 2024), Nature also ignores the harassment complaints filed by the IHU against Bik and PubPeer, which \u00a0ScienceGuardians called a \u201c<\/span>censorship platform<\/span><\/em>.\u201d An anonymous scientist quips: \u201c<\/span>This is really not what you expect from a reputable journal like Nature, it’s no longer science, but propaganda<\/span><\/em>.\u201d These omissions fuel suspicions of conflicts of interest, with funding such as the Einstein Foundation Prize ($200,000 for Bik and PubPeer, sponsored by Springer Nature) and NIH-pharma contracts, contrasting with\u00a0<\/span>the May 2025 US decree requiring scientific transparency<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\"Article
Scientific Integrity Crisis: Nature, Bik, and PubPeer Face Accusations of Information Pollution<\/em><\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>
\u00a0<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In her detailed blog, Demasi backs up these accusations:\u00a0critical studies are dismissed or buried, while pro-industry findings pass unchallenged<\/strong>. She cites her own investigations into journal-pharma links, retractions of \u201c<\/span>inconvenient<\/span><\/em>\u201d studies (such as those on hydroxychloroquine), and the use of \u00a0industry-funded \u201c<\/span>fact checks\u201d to discredit politically sensitive findings. Worse still,\u00a0<\/span><\/em>Nature provides a platform<\/span><\/a>\u00a0for figures like Lonni Besan\u00e7on, a data visualization researcher with no medical credentials (PhD in human-computer interaction, no training in epidemiology or biomedical ethics), presented in 2025 as a \u201c<\/span>champion of scientific integrity<\/span><\/em>.\u201d Omitting his stalker behavior\u2014vulgar tweets like \u201c<\/span>Your mother has gone Boomrang<\/span><\/em>\u201d or \u201c<\/span>Leave your mother out of this<\/span><\/em>,\u201d documented by Science Guardians and targeting experts like Didier Raoult\u2014the Nature article portrays him as a hero without mentioning his systematic attacks on the IHU and its studies on hydroxychloroquine, nor his alliances with the \u201c<\/span>harassment sphere<\/span><\/em><\/a>\u201d exposed by\u00a0<\/span>France-Soir<\/span><\/em>. A psychiatrist diagnoses\u00a0narcissistic traits<\/strong>, explaining\u00a0this aggressiveness that pollutes the scientific debate<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0discourages dissenting voices<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\"Besancon\"
How could Besan\u00e7on, a researcher without medical legitimacy, orchestrate a campaign to discredit renowned scientists like Professor Raoult?<\/em><\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\n

\u201cWhen those who profit from pharmaceutical partnerships claim to police what is ‘outside the scientific consensus,’ public trust in science collapses<\/em>,\u201d she concludes.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>

\u00a0<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
France-Soir<\/strong><\/span><\/em>, the French media targeted by a phantom administrative note<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\n

Thousands of miles away, a striking parallel is emerging with\u00a0<\/span>France-Soir<\/span><\/em>, a French online media outlet known\u00a0for its citizen journalism<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0critical analyses of the management of the COVID-19 crisis<\/strong>. On June 26, 2024, the Joint Commission for Publications and Press Agencies (CPPAP)\u00a0<\/span>refused to renew its accreditation<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, thus depriving its donors of tax relief and threatening its economic survival \u2013 layoffs and non-renewal of fixed-term contracts in sight. The Ministry of Culture justified this decision by arguing that\u00a0<\/span>France-Soir\u00a0<\/span><\/em>lacks general interest<\/strong>\u00a0and is \u201c<\/span>dangerous for the health of the French<\/span><\/em>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\"France-Soir\"
Can a media outlet like France-Soir be dangerous to health, as the Ministry of Culture claims?<\/em><\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>
\u00a0<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The basis for this accusation?<\/strong>\u00a0A\u00a0<\/span>28-page memo<\/span><\/a>\u00a0from the Directorate General of Health (DGS), sent by Gr\u00e9gory Emery, a doctor with no listed scientific publications,\u00a0and unsigned<\/strong>. This memo, dated May 7, 2024, and titled \u201c<\/span>Analysis of publications in the health section of the online site francesoir.fr<\/span><\/em><\/a>,\u201d claims to examine 14 articles on vaccines, but cites only 13 out of a total of 2,048 published in the health section\u2014less than 1% of the corpus. It accuses\u00a0<\/span>France-Soir<\/span><\/em>\u00a0of disseminating\u201d <\/span>false information<\/span><\/em> \u201c about the dangers, ineffectiveness, and costs of vaccines, without respecting the standards of scientific debate or legal procedures. Among the grievances: promotion of hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19, discouragement of HPV vaccination, and biased interpretation of official data. But the memo is full of flaws. First, her analysis is superficial: Emery did not contact\u00a0the editors for a prior scientific debate<\/strong>, violating the principles of the scientific method. Second, she cites a false\u00a0and probably fraudulent\u00a0<\/span>study\u00a0<\/span><\/a>by Pradelle and Lega<\/span><\/a>\u00a0, two Lyon academics, published by a journal of the Elsevier group. This study\u00a0<\/span>falsely claimed that 17,000 people would have died from taking hydroxychloroquine during Covid-19<\/span><\/a>. It\u00a0<\/span>was retracted or discredited for its methodological biases<\/strong><\/span><\/a>,\u00a0<\/span>notably following several letters of concern to the editor<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

France-Soir<\/span><\/em>\u00a0retorts that its articles are based on peer-reviewed studies and experts such as Professor Christian Perronne (cleared by the Order of Physicians) or Professor Michel Goldman, and that it opens its columns to pro-vaccine advocates such as Dr. Laurent Alexandre. A previous note from the DGS (September 2022), prepared by a consultant without scientific expertise (Harold Ferraguti of BearingPoint), had already served as the basis for the CPPAP’s refusal to renew in 2023. This non-renewal led to\u00a0<\/span>legal reprimands for censorship and abuse of power. The uneven response time (six weeks for the DGS, four for the media) and the ignorance of\u00a0<\/span><\/a>France-Soir<\/span><\/em>‘s detailed counter-arguments\u00a0complete the picture of a biased procedure.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n\"Decision\"
Decision of the Paris Administrative Court \u2013 January 13, 2023 in favor of France-Soir<\/em><\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>
\u00a0<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
A striking parallel: institutional censorship and conflicts of interest<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\n

The common thread between Nature’s approach to Demasi and Malone, and that of the authorities towards\u00a0<\/span>France-Soir<\/span><\/em>\u00a0is clear:\u00a0institutions that self-proclaim themselves as guardians of scientific and media truth stifle dissenting voices with baseless accusations, while protecting their own interests<\/strong>. Nature invokes a \u201c<\/span>consensus<\/span><\/em>,\u201d fabricated to denigrate journalists like Demasi who criticize the authorities and the studies published in Nature,\u00a0without citing a single source<\/strong>! While the journal and the Nature group themselves publish studies funded by pharmaceutical giants.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Similarly, the DGS and the Ministry of Culture brandish a botched note \u2013 unsigned, superficial, riddled with errors like the retracted Pradelle Lega study \u2013\u00a0<\/span>to describe\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>France-Soir<\/strong><\/span><\/em>\u00a0as \u201c<\/strong><\/span>dangerous to health<\/strong><\/span><\/em>\u201d, without analyzing even 1% of its content<\/strong><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

In both cases, the lack of transparency is glaring: Nature refuses to disclose its pharmaceutical revenues, the DGS fails to sign its note, makes a partial and piecemeal analysis and ignores the rights of the defense.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

And the stakes are the same: undermining public confidence in science and in the free press<\/strong>\u00a0.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As an article in France-Soir<\/span><\/em>\u00a0points out,\u00a0<\/span>this \u201c<\/span>political censorship<\/span><\/em>\u201d aims to \u201c<\/span>kill the media and erase its critical voice\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/a>, aligned with citizen journalism that trusts the discernment of readers. Demasi, for her part, warns of a \u201c<\/span>system\u201d<\/span><\/em>\u00a0where powerful magazines, linked to the industry, deploy \u201chatchet men\u201d to discredit independents<\/strong>, rather than\u00a0engaging in debate on the facts<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/h5>\n
Towards urgent reform: for liberated science and a liberated press<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\n

Despite a decision by the Council of State validating the bias of the decision not to renew in 2024, the CPPAP orders a new decision to be taken, will not renew the accreditation of\u00a0<\/span>France-Soir<\/span><\/em>\u00a0, thus endangering its financial sustainability. For his part, Demasi\u00a0calls for an investigation at the highest level<\/strong>, with the NIH under the direction of Jay Bhattacharya, to\u00a0track down conflicts of interest and selective censorship<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

These cases are a reminder that\u00a0freedom of expression and scientific integrity are not negotiable.<\/strong>\u00a0In the face of institutions that prefer control over transparency, it is time to support independent media and journalists like Demasi \u2013\u00a0not out of ideology, but out of a commitment to the truth<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Because, as France-Soir<\/span><\/em>\u00a0writes\u00a0, \u00ab\u00a0<\/span>a public debate rather than censorship<\/span><\/em>\u00a0\u00bb is the only antidote to real disinformation.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n