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

Jay Reynolds

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

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.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
This is a chart from the latest paper comparing rainwater samples to laboratory samples of leachate from coal fly ash:



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!
 

skephu

Senior Member
Here's the statement from Frontiers:
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00155/full
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
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
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member
And Retraction Watch is also keeping tabs on Herndon's attempt to re-publish his previously retracted work.

 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
I just posted this comment for the Herndon paper. I referred to my correspondence here previously:

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139/full



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
 

skephu

Senior Member
The editors were quick, the paper has been retracted:
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00156/full
 

skephu

Senior Member
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.
 

skephu

Senior Member
Herndon has posted his correspondence with the editors:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/retraction.html

It appears one of the reviewers had issues the paper:
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.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Herndon has posted his correspondence with the editors:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/retraction.html

It appears one of the reviewers had issues the paper:
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.
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:

MikeG

Senior Member
Herndon has posted his correspondence with the editors:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/retraction.html

It appears one of the reviewers had issues the paper:
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.
This part of Krzyzanowski's letter struck me as important:

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.
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member
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
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
 

skephu

Senior Member
Frontiers says the retraction process is still in progress. As soon as it gets completed, the article text will be removed.
 

skephu

Senior Member
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:
He seems to think that the way to get his bad science accepted is by using force and threats.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
He seems to think that the way to get his bad science accepted is by using force and threats.
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.
 

MikeG

Senior Member
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:
He seems to think that the way to get his bad science accepted is by using force and threats.
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.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
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.
 

skephu

Senior Member
The Univ. of Maryland's provost replied to Herndon's letter:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtq.pdf
Herndon's long reply:
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/rtr.pdf
etc. etc.
 

cmnit

Member
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".
 

cmnit

Member
[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

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:

Critical Thinker

Senior Member
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.


 
Top