After the paper was scrutinized on librarian Jeffrey Beall’s blog and social media last week, Frontiers in Public Health issued an expression of concern (EOC). The paper was published June 30, and retracted yesterday, in a relatively rare case of rapid action by a journal.
Last year, we reported on another retraction of a paper about chemtrails by the same author — J. Marvin Herndon, a geophysicist and self-described “independent researcher” at the Transdyne Corporation in San Diego, California.
Here’s the retraction notice:
Herndon JM (2016) Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification. Front. Public Health 4:139. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139
The journal retracts the 30 June 2016 article cited above. Based on information discovered after publication and reported to Frontiers in July 2016, the article was examined, revealing that the complaints were valid and that the article does not meet the standards of editorial and scientific soundness for Frontiers in Public Health. The retraction of the article was approved by the Field Chief Editor of Frontiers in Public Health and the Specialty Chief Editor of Environmental Health. The author considers the retraction to be unwarranted and therefore does not agree to the statement.
Conspiracy theorists have long believed that “chemtrails” released by jet planes consist of coal fly ash rather than harmless ice crystals, as the government has claimed.
Herndon told us more about his study:
The present paper presents three independent lines of evidence pointing to coal fly ash as the aerosolized particulate matter. It also points to the possibility that toxic methylmercury and ozone-killing compounds are being added to the environment.
…any organization that would engage in harming humanity on such a wide scale would not hesitate to lie and coerce editors to retract public health information. At some point, I posit, those who ordered and conducted the spraying will face court justice for crimes against humanity. It is a safe bet that all such defendants will claim ignorance of adverse health effects.
Herndon requested the journal to include the following text in the retraction notice:
The author considers this retraction unwarranted, made upon the basis of undisclosed allegations that appear to be part of a concerted effort to hide evidence of a serious, global threat to public health and environmental health as explained in the correspondence about this retraction posted at http://www.nuclearplanet.com/retraction.html
Pseudonymous science blogger Neuroskeptic took to twitter to criticize Frontiers, the journal’s publisher:
— Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic) July 17, 2016
Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our new daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.