Dr. Ram Yogendra
speaker
332 appearances
3 recordings
1 series
first heard May 2025
last heard 13 Aug
Dr. Ram Yogendra’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 2 in all, peaking in Aug 2026 with 2.
Appearances
Yeah. Death threats. Um, Bruce got a lot of death threats on his, uh, on his business line at the lab. Uh, people are scared to go to work. You know, some of our credibility is being mirrored all over the place because, you know, quite frankly, we were looking at an uncomfortable topic, and that's the post-COVID vaccine syndrome or the vaccine injuries. So I'm trying to get the paper published.
Multiple journals are rejecting. They're not even letting the paper into peer review, just publicly. But at the same time, we've got this preprint, we're going around discussing this and people are going, well, it's not peer reviewed. Well, I can't get it into peer review because they're not accepting it. And here's the other challenge behind this.
They'll say, well, you need to get it in a highly respected, high impact factor journal. And now, you know, there's a lot of these predatory journals out there. Unfortunately, many researchers with really good research have to resort to publishing their papers on there because they just don't have an opportunity or a chance to even go through the peer review process.
Then when it does get published, there's a group of, you know, the scientists and researchers that are going to look in and say, well, you publish it in, you know, Bob's international journal of, you know, immunology out of someone's garage. So it completely gets discredited at any of the data. And that is not, not taking, not taken seriously. So that was the challenge that we faced.
Yeah. So we, 2022 trying to get it through 2023 one of the journals said yes but it took us about six months for it to go through peer review because they wrote back to me after six months says we cannot find anyone to peer review the paper
no one will we've sent it out to about i would i want to say they said between 20 and 30 of people experts and they said no one they said it's highly unusual that we have this response um but they finally got it through um there were four reviewers one rejected the paper without any comments one refused to review the paper and the other two I'm fully transparent with this information out there.
So if someone wants to look at my Twitter timeline, I pin this whole ordeal on that. What two other reviewers wrote to us, the reviewer, and gave four out of five stars, said that minor revisions needed and they endorsed it for publication. So Bruce and I are like, well, finally, we're going to get this paper published. And this is August of 2023.
Well, finally, about two weeks later, a specialty editor gets involved and says we are rejecting the paper. And we don't know the reason why. Just said paper is not a fit for the journal. And that was it. And at that point, I was almost two and a half years of just trying to get this to peer review. And to be honest with you, it was just so emotionally taxing. You know, we're self-funded, Bruce.
I mean, Drew, Bruce and I are self-funded. You know, we don't get any pharma money or government money or anything. We spend our own money on this. And it was just emotionally just draining. I see.
Oh, well, the PTSD is still there. And I'll tell you why.
I see it.
So you know what? I didn't know if we were going to ever resubmit the paper again. It's about six journals we went through this. And, you know, when the election happened on November 5th,
um something inside of me said you know what maybe things are going to change not just in this country but in the world and maybe we can have some of these difficult conversations and exactly a week later i submitted the paper to a a well a reputable journal um and I said, all right, let's give it a shot. Let's see if the tide has changed. And this was November 12th now.
I officially submitted the paper back to peer review. Two months later, the journal wrote back to me saying, we are still having a difficulty finding reviewers. In fact, here's the funny thing about this. They sent Bruce Patterson an invitation to peer review our own paper.
That's how desperate, you know, they just couldn't find a reviewer. But finally we did, we went through the peer review process and about, I think it was April 15th, we got notification that the paper had been accepted for the journal. It was a very vigorous peer review process and it should be, you know, science is all about questioning.
We're not sitting here with cheerleaders with pom poms and saying, what a great job. It should go through a grueling, rigorous process. The peer review process was about four weeks. I made sure with the rest of my team that the data was immaculate, pristine. All the T's were crossed. Yes, because we know, and even to this day, I talk to the rest of my team, we're so scared.
Of this that someone is going to sabotage his journal like Bruce is just on edge. Everyone on that paper is just on edge, even though we know we've gotten accepted. I just confirmed approved. So I mean, any day now we should we should have the link to the paper. And it is actually, to be honest with you, a much better paper than the preprint version.
It's significantly better, which is a testament to the peer review process, which is why we need an opportunity to go through the peer review process, which was denied to us for almost four years. But thankfully, and I don't know if it was the tide has changed because of the election and people are able to talk freely. I don't know. I'm merely speculating, but definitely something's changed.
You know, I think it's a good thing. You know, I think for the longest time, as everyone in medicine knows, some of these high-impact journals out there, these quote-unquote reputable journals, there's a medical oligarchy that's out there that controls the flow and dissemination of information. You're either in the cool crowd or you're outside it. And I think we need to break that up.
That whole process needs to be dismantled. I'm not necessarily sure anything will come out of this DOJ inquiry because, you know, these journals, it's very easy for them to say, well, you know, that paper or that study wasn't up to the standard of the journal. So I think it might be tough. But what we can do is get more transparency moving forward.
Showing 281–300 of 332 · page 15 of 17
← Previous
Next →