Debunked: J. Marvin Herndon's "Geoengineering" Articles in Current Science (India) and IJERPH

In the retraction of Herndon's previous paper, the Editor, Dr. Paul Tchounwou, stated this as one of the reasons for the retraction:

External Quote:
The author did not attempt to compare his results to chemical compositions of other potential sources.
As Editor of Frontiers, Dr. Judi Krzyzanowski should have recognized that she was allowing the same fallacy to re-occur under her tenure. Either she didn't care or didn't make an attempt to look into the retraction of Herndon's previous publication. In either case, she failed in her position as editor to produce sound science.
 
This is a chart from the latest paper comparing rainwater samples to laboratory samples of leachate from coal fly ash:

upload_2016-7-14_19-51-39-png.19922


Take a note of the scale at the bottom, and then look at, for example, the aluminium to barium ration at the top. The variability is enormous. His "internet readings" (black dots) vary between a ratio of 1 and a ratio of over 100. And the "EU lab range" for coal fly ash leachate ranges between just over 0.001 and almost 1,000. That's almost six orders of magnitude: basically any slightly dusty water sample anywhere on earth is likely to fit into that range!
 
Here's the statement from Frontiers:
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00155/full
External Quote:
Expression of Concern: Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification

Frontiers Editorial Office

An expression of concern on
Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification
by Herndon, J.M. (2016). Front. Public Health 4:139. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139

With this notice, Frontiers states its awareness of several complaints and serious allegations surrounding the article "Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification" published on 30 June 2016. Our Chief Editors, Joav Merrick and Anwar Huq, will direct an investigation in full accordance with our complaints procedures. The situation will be updated as soon as the investigation is complete.
 
To clarify what is happening, Frontiers abides by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)
guidelines regarding their publications and how allegations such as this are handled.

Here is a link to the downloadable guidelines:
http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines

The point at which an "expression of concern" is issued, the process after such and expression is made, and the reason for such a statement is detailed in the process for retraction:
http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction guidelines_0.pdf
 
And Retraction Watch is also keeping tabs on Herndon's attempt to re-publish his previously retracted work.

External Quote:

Retraction Watch
Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Controversial chemtrails paper flagged by journal


A journal has published an expression of concern (EOC) for a 2016 paper providing evidence for a long-standing conspiracy theory about the dangers of cloud trails from jet planes.

A similar paper by the same author was retracted last year by another journal.

Both papers focused on the "chemtrails" emitted from jet planes, which conspiracy theorists have long believed contain toxic coal fly ash rather than harmless ice crystals, as the government claims. According to apress release about the 2016 paper, released by author J. Marvin Herndon, a geophysicist and "independent researcher" at the Transdyne Corporation in San Diego, California, the paper presents evidence the chemtrails contain coal fly ash, linked to a number of health problems.

But many people disagree with the findings — Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado, Denver, criticized the paper on his blog.

External Quote:

On his blog, Beall points out that the new study is a similar to the one retracted by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (a journal published by MDPI) in 2015. The retraction notice for that paper cites some errors with the science, and notes that the "language of the paper is often not sufficiently scientifically objective:"

Beall added Frontiers to his list of possibly predatory publishers in 2015.

A Frontiers spokesperson referred us to the EOC.

Herndon rejected his previous retraction, writing in 2015:

…there is no demonstrated legitimate basis for MDPI AG to have retracted said article; MDPI AG should promptly republish it with the author's corrections…

We've reached out to Herndon, and will update the post with anything else we learn.
 
I just posted this comment for the Herndon paper. I referred to my correspondence here previously:

External Quote:
[Broken External Image]:[URL]http://journal.frontiersin.org/Design/Images/default_profile_32.jpg[/URL]


John Boyd Reynolds On 4-9-2015, after the retraction of Herndon's paper in IJPREH, I sent him and the IJPREH editor citations of previous research showing that the elements he was finding in rainwater were historically found in comparable amounts by numerous studies (ie. Warneck, 1999), some dating back to Antarctic ice cores 183 years old. Herndon was made aware of the ordinary components of tropospheric aerosols yet again ignored them in this paper. Anyone wishing to see that correspondence may ask me for a copy. So, my esteemed alumnus Dr. Herndon did not neglect this out of ignorance but rather by will.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139/full



Jay Reynolds said:
I just sent this information to Dr. Herndon and Dr. Tchounwou with a request that they forward the info to Dane Wigington. They can't say they don't know!
==========================
thechief762 . <thechief762@gmail.com>
7:22 AM (0 minutes ago)
to mherndon, paul.b.tchounw.
Drs. Tchounwou and Herndon,

I see that Dr. Herndon is publicly stating, " keep in mind the dust has not settled on the retraction matter"

http://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/...te-subject-of-conspiracy-theorists-retracted/

For your edification I'm attaching several historical references for elemental analyses of rain and snow.
These include Antarctic ice cores 183 years old, the 1930's, 1960's and 70's. So, as you can see the dust has been settling for a very long time! I hope this information will be useful to you and am sure that with the vast resources out there you can confirm my own review of the subject many other ways.

Dr. Herndon, I would still enjoy seeing the data I requested from you a week ago to add to my collection. Finally, please share my references with your friend Dane Wigington as he has long been stating that zero aluminum should be found in rainwater.

Sincerely,
Jay Reynolds

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 1:03 PM, thechief762 . <thechief762@gmail.com> wrote:
Dr. Herndon,
I would like to see the San Diego rain water analysis data and collection method which you mention in your recent IJERH paper,
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9375-9390; doi:10.3390/ijerph120809375

"The author personally collected rainwater samples for chemical analysis and compared those data to corresponding average values of experimental leachate chemical analyses [10], which as shown below provides a firm basis for identifying the particulate substance being emplaced as an aerosol in the troposphere as coal fly ash. Because of persistent spraying, rainwater devoid of spray contamination was not available."

How may I access that information?

Jay Reynolds
6 Attachments
View attachment 14892
===============================================

View attachment 14893
================================================


View attachment 14894
==============================================

View attachment 14895

=================================================

View attachment 14896

======================================================

View attachment 14897
Click to expand...
 
The editors were quick, the paper has been retracted:
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00156/full
External Quote:

Retraction: Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification
Retraction:
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.
 
I must say though that the retraction note is unsatisfactory. It should have explicitly pointed out the problems with the paper, not just say "the complaints were valid" when those complaints are unspecified.
 
Herndon has posted his correspondence with the editors:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/retraction.html

It appears one of the reviewers had issues the paper:
External Quote:
The paper should have been rejected on the basis of the remarks of reviewer 2, who quite adequately summarises the issues involved.
from: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtg.pdf

On the other hand, Judi Krzyzanowski claims both reviewers accepted the paper but there was a 3rd reviewer who removed themselves. She does not seem to agree with the retraction. (http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtc.pdf)

Both Herndon and Krzyzanowski complain that they were not presented with the actual complaints. This is somewhat justified, but the flaws of the paper are actually so basic that anyone with any familiarity with the scientific method should immediately see them.
 
skephu said:
Herndon has posted his correspondence with the editors:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/retraction.html

It appears one of the reviewers had issues the paper:
External Quote:
The paper should have been rejected on the basis of the remarks of reviewer 2, who quite adequately summarises the issues involved.
from: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtg.pdf

On the other hand, Judi Krzyzanowski claims both reviewers accepted the paper but there was a 3rd reviewer who removed themselves. She does not seem to agree with the retraction. (http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtc.pdf)

Both Herndon and Krzyzanowski complain that they were not presented with the actual complaints. This is somewhat justified, but the flaws of the paper are actually so basic that anyone with any familiarity with the scientific method should immediately see them.
Click to expand...

Herndon expects the conspiracy to be taken as a given(as it were) and implies [states] that the reviewers were part of the conspiracy. How convenient.

"When the editor asked the complainer permission to publish the complaint, that individual backed off."

PS: Do we know who that was and whether they really "backed off"? I'll check Herndon's link.

PPS: That complainant's name seems to have been redacted.
 
Last edited:
skephu said:
Herndon has posted his correspondence with the editors:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/retraction.html

It appears one of the reviewers had issues the paper:
External Quote:
The paper should have been rejected on the basis of the remarks of reviewer 2, who quite adequately summarises the issues involved.
from: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtg.pdf

On the other hand, Judi Krzyzanowski claims both reviewers accepted the paper but there was a 3rd reviewer who removed themselves. She does not seem to agree with the retraction. (http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtc.pdf)

Both Herndon and Krzyzanowski complain that they were not presented with the actual complaints. This is somewhat justified, but the flaws of the paper are actually so basic that anyone with any familiarity with the scientific method should immediately see them.
Click to expand...

This part of Krzyzanowski's letter struck me as important:

External Quote:
My reply to Dr. Alam, having not read this yet, requested that Dr. Herndon be provided with the complaints and given an opportunity to reply. Further, I suggested that complainants should have the right to publish an open rebuttal letter or article of their own displaying why/how the results or premise of the article are flawed.

I believe this is the only way to have open and transparent science or editorial process, and it is a technique used by many of the best journals (including Science, Nature, etc.). I believe that this format would fit well within your mandate of transparency and openness—for instance your unique "open" peer-review process. I find it strange that you allow an author to see the reviewers' names with their comments, but not allow an author (or guest editor) to see the names or comments of those who wish to have an article redacted.
It seems to me that the "open" process Krzyzanowski advocates is simply a mandate to publish without adequate peer review.

I can understand the principle of an "open and transparent science or editorial process," but it shouldn't be a blank check for poor reasoning and evidence.
 
JFDee said:
If you look at the original article, can you spot the retraction notice? Hint: it's not really prominently displayed ...
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139/full
Click to expand...

It seems that the publisher did not indicate that the paper has been retracted on the original paper, but instead they left the original (retracted article) up without any indication of the retraction and posted separately that the article was retracted. It is puzzling that they would leave the original (retracted) article up without any indication of the retraction (other than in the sidebar that is not readily apparent unless one is looking for it), which, as we know, will continue to be cited by the chemtrail conspiracy crowd as scientific 'proof' that there is irrefutable evidence that 'they are poisoning us' or whatever the spin of the day is.
Capture.JPG
 
Herndon continues to complain about the retraction by writing letters to officials at the University of Maryland where the editor signing the retraction is employed. First he wrote a letter to the dean, and now to the provost:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/retraction.html

From his latest letter:
External Quote:
Notice has been filed in Canada and in the United States of intent to file lawsuits
naming coal fly ash as the likely substance being sprayed into the air we
breathe. Because of the widespread and pervasive nature of the spraying, those
intended lawsuits may be just the tip of the iceberg. Dr. Huq, I allege, has now
subjected the University of Maryland to potentially staggering liability. No one
has the right to poison humanity, including its most vulnerable: pregnant
women, children, the elderly, and those with compromised respiratory and
immune systems. No one has the right to hide the evidence of such poisoning
and its potentially adverse health consequences, especially those involved with
public health.
I think it is safe to say that you have never been involved with a problem of the
scale of crimes against humanity. But for a brief period of time your problem in
principle can have a simple solution. If I were in your shoes, I would advise Dr.
Huq that the University of Maryland does not engage in the kind of actions he
took and suggest that, if those actions were taken in error, he has 48 hours to
correct the error before being fired for cause.
Respectfully, I would say that likewise you have a narrow window of time to
correct said errors before the matter escalates beyond the University of
Maryland.
He seems to think that the way to get his bad science accepted is by using force and threats.
 
skephu said:
He seems to think that the way to get his bad science accepted is by using force and threats.
Click to expand...

By doing this, Herndon paints himself into a corner where he digs a very deep hole. The more he does it, the wider his paranoid conspiracy grows, with ever more people being involved. That will result in what some of the believers calls "critical mass", but not a mass who believes what he says, a mass that considers the belief even more in the realm of crackpottery.
 
skephu said:
Herndon continues to complain about the retraction by writing letters to officials at the University of Maryland where the editor signing the retraction is employed. First he wrote a letter to the dean, and now to the provost:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/retraction.html

From his latest letter:
External Quote:
Notice has been filed in Canada and in the United States of intent to file lawsuits
naming coal fly ash as the likely substance being sprayed into the air we
breathe. Because of the widespread and pervasive nature of the spraying, those
intended lawsuits may be just the tip of the iceberg. Dr. Huq, I allege, has now
subjected the University of Maryland to potentially staggering liability. No one
has the right to poison humanity, including its most vulnerable: pregnant
women, children, the elderly, and those with compromised respiratory and
immune systems. No one has the right to hide the evidence of such poisoning
and its potentially adverse health consequences, especially those involved with
public health.
I think it is safe to say that you have never been involved with a problem of the
scale of crimes against humanity. But for a brief period of time your problem in
principle can have a simple solution. If I were in your shoes, I would advise Dr.
Huq that the University of Maryland does not engage in the kind of actions he
took and suggest that, if those actions were taken in error, he has 48 hours to
correct the error before being fired for cause.
Respectfully, I would say that likewise you have a narrow window of time to
correct said errors before the matter escalates beyond the University of
Maryland.
He seems to think that the way to get his bad science accepted is by using force and threats.
Click to expand...

Wow. "Fired for cause" within 48 hours and a "narrow window of time" before the matter escalates.

And he expects the school to just roll over?

Best case, they ignore him. Worst case, they pick up the phone and call the university attorneys to deal with him.

Wow.
 
I see that the Provost's office passed the letter down to a subordinate which Herndon took as a slap in the face.

http://nuclearplanet.com/rtp2.pdf

However, one thing I only now realized is that in Herndon's original letter to the provost, he completely neglected to mention anything at all about his 2015 IJERPH paper which was retracted. I take that as an attempt to persuade by neglecting to tell the complete story. It is unethical for a scientist to submit information when he has been made aware that it is false, even if he doesn't agree with those reasons.

Additionally, today I was thinking about what a great opportunity which has been lost. Because Herndon has hidden the real reasons for why his papers have and will continue to be rejected/retracted, and because those same reasons have not been transmitted to the public at large. I'm sure that many chemtrail believers wouldn't pay attention, care or understand, but if the Herndon affair had been a 'closed loop' in which the coal ash hypothesis were shown false or even shown lacking at least one rabbit hole might have been plugged up.

You may not realize but many studies which don't agree with a hypothesis never get published, it happens all the time.
By doing so, they don't enter the literature at all and later scientists who therefore don't know repeat the experiment.
This case is actually worse because an experiment was conducted improperly and subsequently retracted yet even that should have yielded something if only Herndon would stop the paranoid recalcitrance.
 
The Univ. of Maryland's provost replied to Herndon's letter:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtq.pdf
External Quote:
In reviewing and assessing your email complaint of July 28, we do not find that the allegations against Dr Huq and/or Dr Clark constitute scholarly misconduct as defined and prohibited by the University's policy.
Herndon's long reply:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtr.pdf
External Quote:
.. by taking the bureaucratic tact that you did, I allege, you knowingly and willingly acted to deceive the citizens of Maryland, the scientific community, and the public of evidence on the existence and health risks of a public health threat potentially affecting millions of people that I described in my peer-reviewed, published, and unwarrantedly retracted Frontiers in Public Health article... (...)
Your bureaucratic whitewash of the actions of your subordinates in the instant matter, I allege, makes you an accomplice in said alleged crimes against humanity. (...)
etc. etc.
 
The self-appointed "maverick" Herndon took the liberty of removing TWICE from his Wikipedia entry a paragraph, edited by yours truly, quoting a recent experimental neutrino study (including Italian physicists). This peer-reviewed paper falsifies (per Popper) Herndon's "georeactor" theory. I'm sick and tired of this "maverick".
 
[Herndon] was able to publish another paper on JGEESI (Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International), this time with coauthors (Open Access):
http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract/25532

External Quote:

Fifty Years after "How to Wreck the Environment": Anthropogenic Extinction of Life on Earth

J. Marvin Herndon 1*, Mark Whiteside 2 and Ian Baldwin 3

1 Transdyne Corporation, 11044 Red Rock Drive, San Diego, CA 92131, USA.
2 Florida Department of Health in Monroe County,1100 Simonton Street, Key West, FL 33040, USA.
3 Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 85 North Main Street, White River Junction, VT 05001, USA.

Aims: Fifty years ago geoscientist Gordon J. F. MacDonald penned a book-chapter entitled, "How to Wreck the Environment", in which he described how a nation might alter the environment so as to covertly inflict harm on an enemy nation. Our objective is to review MacDonald's suggestions of environmental warfare strategies in light of subsequent technological advances, and in the context of actual deployment of the war methods he described.
Methods: We review the interdisciplinary, historical, scientific and medical literature.
Results: MacDonald discussed overt and covert weather warfare based upon seeding clouds to cause rainfall. Subsequently, a method was developed for inhibiting rainfall by jet-emplacing pollution particulates where clouds form. For at least two decades citizens have observed such particulate trails occurring with increasing frequency. Forensic scientific investigations implicate toxic coal fly ash as their main constituent. Around 2010, the aerial particulate spraying ramped-up to a near-daily, near-global level. Presumably, a secret international agreement mandated the aerial spraying as a 'sunshade' for Earth. However, aerial spraying, rather than cooling, heats the atmosphere, retards Earth's heat loss, and causes global warming. MacDonald also discussed destroying atmospheric ozone and triggering earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, activities now possible with high-frequency ionospheric heaters.
Conclusions: The U. S. military's ongoing decision to weaponize the environment for national security purposes was accurately forecasted by MacDonald. But he failed to realize that national militaries could and would be co-opted by a secret international agreement the consequence of which, however unintentional, was to wage war on planet Earth, on all its biota, and on its natural, biogeochemical processes. Unless and until politicians, news media, scientists, and others in our society face the truth of what is happening before their very eyes and collectively demand a halt to these covert technological activities, we will march onward – to the first anthropogenic-caused mass extinction.
The paper takes for granted the coal fly ash "theory", and actually looks more of an op-ed than a review article.
Available also from his own site:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/macd.pdf

Sadly, among five JGEESI reviewers only one asked for more proofs, beyond mere opinions:
http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history/25532
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are stories about journals publishing for profit, studies that would not pass muster were they to be peer reviewed by actual experts/scientists. Herndon's work has been retracted many times after experts have weighed in and pointed out the falsified data, poor techniques and conclusions that are not supported by the evidence therein.

Journal retracts paper on "chemtrail" threat to San Diego
This Guy's 'Scientific' Articles on Chemtrails Keep Getting Retracted But how did they get published in the first place?
Author loses 2nd paper on supposed dangers of chemtrails

An interesting article about another 'researcher' who used falsified data and whose results were unable to be replicated, that Harvard is now calling to have his papers retracted.

Harvard Calls for Retraction of Dozens of Studies by Noted Cardiologist
Some 31 studies by Dr. Piero Anversa contain fabricated or falsified data, officials concluded. Dr. Anversa popularized the idea of stem cell treatment for damaged hearts.

External Quote:

A study published in the journal Circulation by Dr. Anversa was retracted in 2014 after co-authors wrote to the journal saying the data in the paper were not data they had generated. Dr. Anversa left Harvard and Brigham and Women's in 2015.

Despite the troubling questions that had been raised about the stem cell work, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute began a clinical trial of injected stem cells for patients with heart failure.

The study is still enrolling patients. And there are still companies selling stem cell therapy for damaged hearts.

In the past few years, however, skeptical researchers moved on to other prospects for heart treatment. "The field has backed off a lot," Dr. Molkentin said.

Some scientists wondered how a questionable line of research persisted for so long. Maybe, Dr. Molkentin said, experts were just too timid to take a stand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

John J.
Is "Improved Instrumental Techniques...", Nolan, Vallee, Jiang, Lemke 2022 a useful paper?
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
Z.W. Wolf
Z.W. Wolf
Mick West
Emails From a Pilot Regarding Starlink and Other Objects
Replies
3
Views
2K
Leekster
Leekster
NorCal Dave
Claim: A UFO crashed in 1933 Italy and the US Recovered it
Replies
34
Views
7K
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
Mick West
Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence
Replies
5
Views
14K
MikeG
MikeG
skephu
Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media
Replies
3
Views
5K
Critical Thinker
Critical Thinker

Latest posts

Back
Top