Saturday, 23 November 2019

An Improved Model Definition of Antisemitism



1. The need for a clear definition of "antisemitism"
A few years back, I blogged about the savvy tactic of the Netanyahu government to accuse virtually all criticism of the Israel occupation policy as antisemitic. Since then, more complex disputes have evolved at higher levels, not least the debate and controversy around antisemitism within the Corbyn led Labour party in the UK. Also in my own country, the thorny issue of how to draw the line between legitimate (not meaning necessarily sound) criticism of decisions made by the government of Israel and judgements that deny jewish people equal rights or has taken public stage, connected to repeated reports of antisemitic harassment and hatespeech in the city of Malmö, and an harassment case regarding Jewish phycisians at the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm. All of these cases have actualised tricky issues on how to define the line between legitimate political criticism against acts of the Israeli government, and (ethno)racist harassment or hatespeech targetting jewish people.

The issue has become extra complicated with the rise of a new "nationalist" far-right conservative political (more easily, Fascist) movement  across Europe. Albeit targetting muslims and "migrants" has been a main theme in the political rhetorics in these circles, antisemitic themes and tropes are commonplace. This regards, of course, the now well-known cases of the Fidesz-ruled Hungary, and the PiS-ruled Poland (both countries with a long history of widespread antisemitism in the culture, no matter the regime). But also in Sweden, where antisemitic attitudes have a comparably weak hold, open hatred against Jews and open antisemitic attitudes have been a standing occurrence from the Sweden Democrats party, even its highest circles of leadership. Even political pundits linked to the more traditional conservative side of politics have been starting to flaunt obvious antisemitic tropes in their public statements. The perhaps most well-known and obvious case being the former op-ed editor, now mainly op-ed writer, of the Göteborgsposten daily, and ideaological consultant of the Moderaterna classic conservative party, Alice Teodorescu, who shortly before the Swedish general election of 2018 labelled holocaust survivors who went public with parallels between the current political development in Europe and Sweden and that in 1930's Germany as "agents of the political left", ironically proving said holocaust survivors right by using the classic trope of porttraying Jews as spokespersons and forerunners of a leftwing conspiracy.

In this landscape, it has become increasingly difficult to navigate, as the Israeli government marks any criticism as antisemitic, obvious antisemitic hatespeech, tropes and images within the Palestine movement and other critics of Israel are shrugged off as legitimate criticism of Israel, while many feel an increasing need to protest against the increasing antisemitism from the new fascism and politically conservative right. As the fight over the concept of antisemitism continues, Jews as well as all anti-racists are being caught in the middle.  At the heart of the problem is that there is no well-designed and generally approved definition of "antisemitism". In fact, I was stunned to find out, the only thing there is, is a "non legally binding working defintion" issued by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. As no alternative determination of the concept exists, this definition has been used (though not officially adopted or approved) by the European Commission and Parliament, and adopted by the federal US government.

However, the definition has also drawn criticism for confusing the line between legitimate political criticism of the Israeli government, and hatespeech, harassment etc. targetting jews. I agree with portions of this criticism and, in addition, as a philosopher, I find the definition poorly constructed from a technical point of view. In this post I will therefore use the IHRA working defintion as a stepping stone for presenting a more accurate and better constructed defintion. The result, I will call a "Model Definition of Antisemitism", thereby signalling that I believe this suggestions to move the work of defining "antisemitism" from the "working" stage to the stage of presenting an actual prototype for use in legislation and political and moral judgement.

2. Improving the IHRA Working Definition
The IHRA definition starts off with a generic characterization of "antisemitism", and this is the part that a philosopher would call an actual definition:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
Immediately following this rather vague statement (what counts as "hatred", and what "manifestations" are implied?) comes a generic clarification, which must be sen as part of the diefinition.

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Thus far, the definition looks pretty ok. However, one unclarity can be found in the first two sentences of the second quote. Together, these may be read to imply that the state of Israel is "a Jewish collectivity", not only that criticising the Israeli government's actions in terms of condemnation of "jews" is antisemitic. This muddle is unfortunate. Of course, jews may be citizens of any country, and the state or government of Israel cannot be assumed to represent jews everywhere, and citizens of Israel need not be jews (so the collectivity of Israel is thereby not "Jewish", albeit a lot of israelis are jewish and Jewish culture is central to israeli life).

Additionally, these descriptions fail to make a distinction that, if ignored, often causes confusion in debates on whether or not some phenomenon or person is antisemitic. This is the distinction between, on the one hand, a person harbouring antisemitic ideas, and, on the other, some manifestation communicating, expressing and/or spreading antisemitism. For instance, when I pointed out on Twitter how Alice Teodorescu's inciting attack on holocaust survivors fitted several counts of the IHRA definition of "antisemitism", I had a storm of responses from her supporters that it was preposterous to suggest that she is antisemitic. This is, of course, is completely irrelevant when assessing her statements – a person may express antisemitism without being antisemitic. At the same time, if the antisemitism of some manifestation is pointed out but the person behind them continue to use them, this will be empirical evidence supporting the idea that this person actually endorses antisemitism.

To improve the definition in this respect, I therefore suggest the following revision:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews, or rhetorical and physical manifestations directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. This perception may be held by a person, and communicated through different types of manifestations. While criticism of the government of Israel similar to that leveled against any other government cannot be regarded as antisemitic, manifestations that has such criticism take the form of targeting Jews or Jewish people rather than political decisions and holders of political offices is antisemitic. Antisemitic manifestations frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

 Following this opening, generic characterization, the IHRA working definition then adds a list of examples of what may be included in contemporary antisemitic manifestations. In tghis quote, I have added numbers for more easy referral to items on the list, in the original the items are seprated by dots:

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
3. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. 
6. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. 
7. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. 
8. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. 
9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. 
10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. 
11. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

It is important to note that this kind of list is, from a conceptual analytical standpoint, an entirely different animal than the proper definition given earlier. A list like this is more like an amendment, or implementation guide, and not really part of the definition itself. The list must therefore not serve to arbitrarily expand the concept, as it has already been characterised in the generic definition. Moreover, the list shoud ideally be brief, and items that could be subsumed as instances of other items should be taken off the list to avoid confusion. With these aspects in mind we may match the items on the list against the revised generic characterisation, and the other items of the list. I will start with the question if some items can be sorted under others.

Of the items, 1-4 seem perfectly legitimate. No. 5, however, while being an accurate example of typical antisemitic manifestations, it falls under the domains of items 2-4, as one of many specific examples. Likewise, item no. 6 falls under item 2 and 3. Furthermore, item no. 11 seems to be a particular instance of item 3, especially if item 3 is clarified to include states. Finally, item 10 would seem to sort under item 4. A first revision of the list in view of making it more coherent and brief, would therefore read: 

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to: 

1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion

 2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. 

3. Accusing Jews as indivuals or a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by another Jewish person, group, institution or state, or even for acts committed by non-Jews

4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

5. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

6. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. 

7. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. 




We come now to the question if all the remaining items can be supported by the generic characterisation. Here, I find only one item problematic, namely no. 5. The problem with this item is that it is perfectly possible to hold the political philosophical view that no people of any kind have any right to self-determination without being antisemitic in the sense of the generic characterisation. This view is a general scepticism to the notion of the nation state as a moral (rather than practical) category. This view implies that also Jewish people lack such a right (thus falling under item no. 5), but without in any way treating Jewish people worse than any other people, or discriminate against jews. What would be antisemitic would be to afford a right of self-determination to other peoples, but not to the Jewish people. A case in point would, for example be, if the Palestinian people is afforded a right to self-determination while the Jewish people is denied such a right (conversely, affording the right to the Jewish people but not to the palestinian people would be "anti-palestinianism"). But if the item is rephrased to that effect, it will fall under item 6 (regarding double standards). Therefore, my suggestion is that also item 5 on the revised list is removed.

3. A Model Definition of "Antisemitism"
The outcome of this little exercise is, then, the following proposal for a model definition of the notion of "antisemitism". This definition provides a more coherent, brief and applicable guide for determining whether or not some phenomenon is antisemitic or not. For example, the Teodorescu statement about holocaust survivors who bear witness of the 1930's being "agents of the political left" clearly falls under item 2, and possibly also under item 4 (if historical facts regarding the Holocaust include its political precedence. many of the examples from islamist propaganda, as well as propaganda within the Labour party of the UK (such as classic antisemitic trope images that have been used for centuries for antisemitic purposes). But claims from any of these parties regarding the justification of, e.g., Israeli settler policy on occupied land, or the "shoot to kill" policy of IDF forces at the border between occupied territory and Israel proper would not be antisemitic at all. I believe this definition, unlike that of IHRA, to be fit for incorporation into actual legal statute, as well as policy declarations that guide the actions of international institutions, states, business as well as NGO's.


Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews, or rhetorical and physical manifestations directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. This perception may be held by a person, and communicated through different types of manifestations. While criticism of the government of Israel similar to that leveled against any other government cannot be regarded as antisemitic, manifestations that has such criticism take the form of targeting Jews or Jewish people rather than political decisions and holders of political offices is antisemitic. Antisemitic manifestations frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
 
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to: 

1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion

 2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. 

3. Accusing Jews as indivuals or a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by another Jewish person, group, institution or state, or even for acts committed by non-Jews

4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

5. Applying double standards by requiring of the state of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. 

6. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. 


*

Sunday, 27 May 2018

Welcome Retraction Decision from the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, and Hopefully Future Policy Revisions to Be Announced


I have posted two times (here and here) about the deeply misguided decision by the editorial management team of the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics not to retract a fraudulent, obviously "antivaxx" propaganda piece, article. On invitation, I have also summarised my opinion on this matter at the Daily Nous philosophy blog. In all of these posts, I have strongly underscored the otherwise very promising track and strong reputation of this journal, the importance of this for the critical place of global health and developing country perspectives in bioethics scholarship, and my strong wish for a revised course by the IJME editorial management. It is therefore with the greatest satisfaction I have been reached by the news that the same management has now revised its judgement, and decided to retract the article in question, inviting publicity also from the widely read Retraction Watch blog.

The retraction note is rather brief, but open and honest, and it speaks well of the integrity of the editorial management that it does not try to hide its own mistakes, or that the retraction occurred only as a result of pressure from the journal's editorial board and external commentators. It signs off by promising further elaborations in coming editorials. My hope is that these will set out clarified policies and routines that ensure that the journal in the future will keep strictly within its own declared area expertise and scholarship of "all aspects of healthcare ethics and the humanities, relevant to and/or from the perspective of India and other developing countries". This simple policy will save the IJME from any further scandals of the sort it has just escaped, and be a pillar for what I hope will be a further positive route of development of this otherwise excellent journal.

However, on one point, I strongly disagree with the position set out by the editorial management, and that is its apparent decision to continue to hide the identity of the proven fraudulent author that used to call him-/herself "Lars Andersson", falsely claiming affiliation to Karolinska Institutet. The editors are hereby promoting further research fraud by this person, undermining both other journals and research institutions from protecting themselves against this person's future activities. It also impedes appropriate disciplinary action to be taken by the academic or other institution to which the person formerly known as "Lars Andersson" is indeed affiliated. Finally, it impedes any analysis into the vested or other conflicts of interests linking to this person's activity to attempt to peddle fraudulent antivaxx articles. The argument by the editors, that it has promised the author to keep his/her identity a secret is not only invalid. The action makes the editors complicit in any further research fraud undertaken by this person. The promise itself is morally void, as the editors had no business making it in the first place, their primary obligation being to the research community, and not to proven research fraudsters. It is my sincere hope that the further elaborations on editorial policy promised, possibly by help of further dialogue with the journal's editorial board, will lead to revision of judgement also regarding this particular point.

***

Wednesday, 23 May 2018

Indian Journal of Medical Ethics Troubles Deepen as Editorial Team Responds to Criticism


Only the other day, I posted about "highly problematic" publication ethical decisions of the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, and even more problematic positions taken when challenged. After having raised the issue in some closed facebook groups in my field, the initial concerns I had about the direction taken by the journal, have now deepened considerably.

First, the entire managing editorial team – excluding the main editor of the journal, Amar Jesani – has now responded for a second time to the criticism of the Karolinska Institutet president Ole-Petter Ottersen, in a facebook post. I'm quoting it verbatim here, and adding screenshot below as proof of authenticity:

IJME Working Editors Respond to Prof Ole Petter Ottersen, President, Karolinska Institute, Sweden.
Response to the blog post of Prof Ole Petter Ottersen, President of the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden: http://blog.ki.se/…/comments-from-indian-journal-of-medica…/
Prof Ottersen has raised important issues on the role of journals and of research institutions in ensuring ethical research and informing medical practice. However, his attack on The Indian Journal of Medical Ethics in the name of publication ethics is flawed, and indicates a reluctance to engage in discussion on the scientific issues. He has also conveniently ignored the Karolinska Institutet’s own role in permitting misconduct by its researchers.
Good editorial practice:
While journals should make every effort to confirm the author’s identity and affiliation, this is not routine editorial practice even among well-established journals. The Journal of Internal Medicine (published by Wiley) and Vaccine (published by Elsevier) have carried material by “Lars Andersson”, without checking his institutional affiliation and despite his use of a non-institutional id.
Editors’ accountability:
The comment by “Lars Andersson” ( http://ijme.in/…/increased-incidence-of-cervical-cancer-in…/ ) was reviewed by an external, international subject expert, an external statistician, a working editor with expertise in research methodology (Mala Ramanathan) and the manuscript editor (Sandhya Srinivasan) before being accepted for publication. When we were notified of the deception regarding the author’s identity and affiliation, we immediately removed the KI affiliation from the journal. We have explained our justification ( http://ijme.in/articles/statement-on-corrections/… ) for retaining the article on our website, and maintaining the author’s anonymity.
The need to enable scientific debate:
Prof Ottersen does not explain how anonymity prevents scientific debate on an analysis of publicly available data. And he does not explain how “false affiliation” is relevant in the context of the IJME article which no longer carries any affiliation. He says that “leading researchers with intimate knowledge of the vaccination field have identified serious flaws in the published report and its conclusion, thus questioning the quality of the review process”. However, neither he nor these unnamed researchers have stated what those flaws are. The attack on IJME for maintaining the author’s anonymity ​appears to be to avoid scientific debate. We invite critical commentaries on the paper by “Lars Andersson” towards advancing the scientific debate on the issue at hand.
The suggestion that false affiliation and anonymity are preventing scientific debate is a red herring. Does Prof Ottersen’s indignation comes from his inability to personally target the person questioning the HPV vaccine?
The need for institutional accountability:
We suspect that, in addition to using the author’s anonymity as a red herring to prevent scientific debate on the article, KI has reasons to whip up sentiments against IJME to hide glaring failures of governance in the institute in relation to "Lars Andersson".
Between 2014 and 2017, two internationally reputed journals, JoIM and Vaccine, published correspondence from "Lars Andersson" who reported affiliation to KI. The letters in JoIM were in response to a paper in the same journal. A perusal of the JoIM articles shows that "Lars Andersson" had filed a complaint of research misconduct in 2016 against six authors of this paper, five of them affiliated to KI. The complaint was with KI for about a year, after which it investigated these allegations without confirming the identity of the complainant. Let alone a journal published from India, KI did not verify, on its own, the existence of a person on whose complaint it was acting. It would not be wrong to assume that the complainant made a prima facie case for the allegations; without this, KI would not have launched the investigation. In this background, and with KI providing legitimacy to "Lars Andersson", how could JoIM and Vaccine have suspected that "Lars Andersson" did not exist in KI? And how could this question have ever occurred to IJME?
The prevention of deception by an author on the name or affiliation requires the joint efforts of many stakeholders, including journals. While IJME has taken full responsibility for what has happened, the attacks on it in the name of publication ethics cannot wish away the ongoing governance failure in the KI, and cannot be used to prevent scientific debate on an article which nobody has proved to be unscientific, except by innuendo.

Sunita V S Bandewar, PhD, MHSc (Bioethics), Independent Senior Research Professional; Working Editor, IJME. Email: sunita.bandewar@gmail.com
Rakhi Ghoshal, PhD, Assistant Professor, United World School of Law, Gandhinagar INDIA, Consultant Researcher, King’s College, London, UK; Working Editor, IJME. Email: rakhi.ghoshal@gmail.com
Vijayaprasad Gopichandran, MD, PhD, Primary Care Physician, Reproductive Health Cliic, Rural Women's Social Education Centre, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu; Assistant Professor, Department of Community Medicine, ESIC Medical College and PGIMSR, Chennai, INDIA; Working Editor, IJME. Email: vijay.gopichandran@gmail.com
Sanjay A Pai, MD, Working Editor, IJME. Email: sanjayapai@gmail.com
Mala Ramanathan, MSc, PhD, MA; Working Editor, IJME. malaramanath@gmail.com
Sandhya Srinivasan, MA, MPH, Independent Journalist, Mumbai; Consulting Editor, IJME. Email: sandhya199@gmail.com
Screenshots (click to enlarge):


This response demonstrates the obvious fact that the editorial team of IJME is apparently unaware of the most elementary principles of academic publication ethical principles. They are unaware of the importance of why proven research fraudsters should have their publications retracted, and they believe that the importance of being able to correctly identify authors and their academic affiliations of research articles is "a red herring" (see my former post for some of the most obvious reasons for why it is not). This leads me to conclude that the editorial team lacks the necessary competence to manage a well regarded bioethics journal. Which helps to explain why IJME has gone so sadly astray.

However, it does not end there. In the closed Facebook group Bioethics International - a forum for explicit professionals and dedicated researchers in bioethics, or advanced students on track to become any of those, a number of additional points were importantly raised, in addition to the ones in my original post. First, the fact that IJME decides to publish an epidemiological article in a politically highly contested field, where research fraud from "antivaxxers" have been numerous, in an ethics journal. The whole point of having journals organised by fields is that this can guarantee appropriate scientific competence among the journal editorial management, e.g., to select suitable reviewers for manuscripts, and to appropriately evaluate reviewer comments. This is very obviously not the case regarding the fake author paper in the IJME: One of the working editors that is named as having handled the paper, Sandhya Srinivasan, does not hold a PhD, while the other, Mala Ramanathan, is a reproductive health specialist with nil research competence in the topical area of the paper (albeit she does hold an Msc in statistics according to informal reports). The only quality screening of the paper was made by one unnamed external expert on statistics, andMala Ramanathan. That is, no research expertise on vaccination, on HPV and cervical cancer, or on epidemiology ever assessed the paper, despite the fact that this was the topic of the article, and the fact that there is plenty of expertise available in those fields. This is, I would say, serious and willful editorial mismanagement of the publication process of a bioethics journal.

In the further discussion in the same Facebook group, several members of the editorial team engaged themselves, and demonstrated some further causes for concern, besides what has already been mentioned. First, there were repeated assurances about Amar Jesani, the IJME editor who was responsible for the decision not to retract the fraudulent article, and who also made the initial, ill-conceived response to Ole-Petter Ottersen, having the highest of ethical competence and integrity. When people reacted to that with the appropriate "so what, that does not justify what he's done", the working editors started to rave about a lot of other journals being conned too, basically trying to say that, because of that, the IJME would be right not to retract a proven fraudulent article. All of this, of course, just adds to the already amassing reasons to view the IJME as an unserious academic journal, that has sadly departed from its formerly very promising track for becoming a well regarded publication forum in bioethics. I sincerely hope that the journal's editorial board can swiftly step in and set this sad development right, and if it so does, I will be happy to revise my judgement.

But before I end, there is a final twist to the ongoing scandal. As is made clear by the editor, Amar Jesani's first response to Ole-Petter Ottersen, he now is aware of the real identity of the fraudulent author calling him-/herself "Lars Andersson" and claiming affiliation to Karolinska Institutet in order to peddle an antivaxx junk article to what has now proven to be a substandard journal. However, instead of disclosing this identity – what expertise this author supposedly possesses and what research affiliation he or she holds – the editor Amar Jesani continues to keep this a secret. As I said in my former post, the bogus after-the-fact excuse that the author must be shielded from criticism isn't worth the paper it was written on. In addition, as this is a proven research fraudster, it is in the publiuc interest and the interest of the entire research community, to be informed about who this person is. What is worth noting, however, is this: Amar Jesani very obviously finds the combination of the following three actions very important to sustain: (1) let a fraudulent antivaxx article stay in an ethics journal, (2) shield the proven fraudulent author of this article from public exposure, (3) have is editorial team do its best to deflect further critical inquiry into this matter, especially critical assessment of Jesani's own actions. I just let that stay there as food for thought until this matter develops further.

***