A team of researchers has alleged that their peer-reviewed study examining potential biological links between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and blood-related cancers faced repeated publication hurdles, raising concerns about editorial bias and scientific transparency.
The two papers — both published on February 6 in the journal Oncotarget — explore not only a case study involving blood cancers following vaccination but also the challenges the authors say they encountered while trying to publish their findings.
One of the authors, Panagis Polykretis, Ph.D., said in a podcast discussion with John Campbell, Ph.D., that the struggle to secure publication may be as significant as the research itself.
According to him, the experience reflects broader issues in scientific publishing, particularly when research questions widely accepted narratives.
The first paper examined modified messenger RNA (modRNA) vaccines and their theoretical interaction with blood-forming systems. The study centered on a case involving a previously healthy woman in her late 30s who developed symptoms shortly after receiving her second dose of Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, Comirnaty.
According to the authors, the woman began experiencing symptoms the day after vaccination, including neck and jaw stiffness, tinnitus, nausea, fever, headaches and persistent discomfort.
After months of medical evaluations, she was diagnosed with two blood-related cancers: acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma — a rare simultaneous occurrence.
The patient underwent intensive treatment, including radiation therapy and a bone marrow transplant.
READ ALSO: Study finds higher risk of heart inflammation in teens after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination
Beyond the individual case, the researchers reviewed approximately 30 reported cases in which blood-related cancers were diagnosed soon after COVID-19 vaccination, often within days or weeks. Several cases of lymphoma reportedly appeared near injection sites or adjacent lymph nodes.
However, the authors did not claim the vaccines directly caused cancer. Instead, they outlined possible biological mechanisms that, in theory, could contribute to cancer development in susceptible individuals.
Their analysis focused on the lipid nanoparticles used to deliver mRNA into cells, suggesting that the particles can circulate widely in the body, including in bone marrow, where blood cells are produced.
The authors hypothesized that disruption of bone marrow processes, combined with immune system modulation, could create conditions that allow abnormal cells to proliferate.
They also discussed the synthetic spike protein generated by the vaccine and raised questions about how long it may persist in the body and how it interacts with cellular structures. Additionally, the paper mentioned the possibility of irregular protein translation during mRNA processing, though it acknowledged that the implications of such events remain uncertain.
The researchers emphasized that their findings were exploratory and intended to prompt further investigation rather than establish causation.
In a second paper, the authors detailed what they described as a two-year effort to publish the original case study. According to Polykretis, the manuscript was submitted to 15 journals and rejected 16 times, with most rejections occurring at the editorial level before external peer review.
He said the paper was sent to peer reviewers only three times, suggesting to him that editorial decisions may have limited broader scientific evaluation. In at least one instance, he claimed the paper was accepted after revisions but later rejected on grounds he described as inconsistent with the study’s design.
Polykretis argued that such experiences raise questions about whether certain viewpoints face heightened scrutiny in academic publishing, particularly those critical of widely adopted medical interventions.
The second paper suggests that selective publication practices could contribute to what the authors described as a “constructed scientific consensus,” potentially influencing future research directions, public health policies and medical guidance.