Weaponization of Conflict of Interest. Frontiers in Toxicology vs Richard Semelka, MD

Of course I wish I did not have to write this blog on Conflict of Interest (COI) in this fashion. I had though for some months been intending to write an article on COI, along the lines of recent peer-reviewed articles on the subject, which illustrated financial COI. I was however blind-sided by the removal of publication of our article on Near- Cure of GDD with DTPA by Frontiers in Toxicology. Their efforts have been for inappropriate and fraudulent reasons, as the below email chain will reveal.. At some point in time, I will write a more extensive piece on this, and I am thinking perhaps as a book on the entire subject of Peer-reviewed authorship in major journals, this would be the chapter on Weaponization of Conflict of Interest.

Journal articles being removed generally occurs when the data is somehow flawed or fraudulent. Some well published removals for fraudulent animal research have been reported in recent years. One was oddly humorous where the authors republished an image described as new findings, which they had published 4 years or so earlier. This was not the case with our article, both myself and my co-author Miguel Ramalho, MD with many years of publishing high impact important articles are extremely attuned to ethics and honesty. It was not also on the basis of clear COI, receiving financial support from some entity that influences our opinion. Ofcourse the classic huge ethical breaches most people are familiar with, physicians receiving even millions of dollars annually to promote medical devices like joint replacements, psychiatric drugs, and the poster child, oxycontin, and not disclosing the financial arrangement, particularly not in presentations. None of this was the case with us.

Also as background I will point out, that a new entity Scholar GPS, which uses AI to generate data on scholarship in medicine, sciences, and possibly all other academic fields, has rated my career as #10 in MRI, # 14 in Medical Imaging, and in the top 0.05% of all scholars in all fields. I tease out of that data, that I have written more on abdominal imaging than anyone in history, more on body MRI than anyone in history, probably in the top 3 of clinical aspects of MRI, and #1 in safety in Radiology.... in history. So Frontiers in Toxicology has fraudulently tarnished the reputation of someone with an enormous level of accomplishment.

The best way to show their misconduct, and the Frontiers weaponization of conflict of interest is to actually show the series of emails between them and me, and my responses:

On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 6:27 AM Research Integrity - Frontiers <research.integrity@frontiersin.org> wrote:

Dear Dr Semelka and Prof. Ramalho,I am Research Integrity Auditor Manager at Frontiers.I am writing to you with regards to your article published in Frontiers in Toxicology:   “Near-cure in patients with Gadolinium deposition disease undergoing intravenous DTPA chelation”, linked here.After publication, we were made aware of potential conflicts of interest that were not disclosed before publication. We have found that the first and corresponding author Richard Semelka is the founder, and the second author Miguel Ramalho is on board of directors of GADTTRAC, a corporation providing care and treatment for patients with gadolinium deposition disease.The article promotes "IV DTPA chelation" which is also a treatment performed by Dr. Semelka in his private clinic.It appears that the authors stand to gain financially from publication of this article, however that fact, or their involvement in GADTTRAC was not disclosed before publication.  This is a breach of our guidelines as in line with Frontiers Conflicts of Interest policy [https://www.frontiersin.org/guidelines/policies-and-publication-ethics], the authors are obligated to disclose on submission any personal, financial, and professional affiliations or relationships can be perceived as conflicts of interest.   We also noted the presence of undisclosed conflicts of interest of the peer reviewers who were suggested by the authors. Reviewer ------ is also on the board of directors of GADTTRAC. Reviewer ------- has dozens of co-publications with both authors of the article. These researchers seem to have been close collaborators for an extended period of time. Again, in line with Frontiers Conflict of Interest policy, recommending reviewers with conflicts of interest known to the author without disclosing these conflicts can be perceived as an attempt to manipulate the peer review process.  Please note that Frontiers follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for cases where we have identified undisclosed conflicts of interest after publication.   We would like to please request that you provide us with an explanation with regard to your undisclosed competing interests. I look forward to hearing from you within the next 7 days.   With best wishes,Maria---Maria Kowalczuk, PhDResearch Integrity Auditor ManagerResearch Integrity TeamThe Yarnwicke119-121 Cannon StreetEC4N 5AT LondonUnited Kingdomhttps://www.frontiersin.org/ref:!00D580JetR.!500Sj0B12JK:ref

--------------- Original Message ---------------

From: Richard Semelka [richardsemelka@gmail.com]

Sent: 07/10/2024, 20:41

To: research.integrity@frontiersin.org; jmpmramalho@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Please explain undisclosed conflicts of interest in your article published in Frontiers in Toxicology “Near-cure in patients with Gadolinium deposition disease undergoing intravenous DTPA chelation”

Dear Maria Kowalczuk, PhD,

My interpretation of conflict of interest is when an author writes a paper on some subject where they receive direct financial benefit from it, and do not report it. The classic example, a paid medical expert (in some fashion, on speakers bureau, etc) for a company, such as Bayer, and describe the value of using a GBCA as an imaging agent, and do not report that they receive $5000 in the last year  .as a member of a speaker's bureau by Bayer.

Now we are members of the nonprofit GadTTRAC, which has the mission of helping patients with Gadolinium Deposition Disease. Neither myself or Dr Ramalho receive financial benefit from GadTTRAC. There is no funding of any kind or any salary. 

The reviewers:  --------- is on the board of GadTTRAC. I suggested the name, because Frontiers requested names of reviewers. This was not an unsolicited request. I suggested his name purely because he would be aware of the entity and that I have not had any collaborative work with him on papers or any other matter that may have financial implications. He was not informed that we had written or submitted this paper, so had no relationship regarding this paper. He was recommended purely because he would be aware of the diagnosis.

---------. In years past we have written papers with -------. He is a highly intelligent radiologist and critical thinker.. We recommended him as a reviewer based on these qualities. He was unaware that we had written this paper or had submitted this paper. We have not written papers with him for atleast 10 years.

When it comes to financial dealings,  the requirement is that the author declare conflict  from an organization if they have received financial support within the last 2 years. 

So the items you bring up are all an extreme stretch as conflicts of interest. I am sure you are aware of recent papers written on the subject  that presenters at meetings have rarely described actual conflicts of interest (which are receiving money from companies). Without looking at that paper I think they reported 85% did not report. 

I hope then this has provided you with adequate response to your query. Yes as an author of over 350 peer-reviewed papers I am well acquainted with requirements... but also know how often authors fall short of this. So, I can understand you therefore reaching out.

We do not receive any money from GadTTRAC and it really is a stretch to say that we somehow benefit from this article.. This would be asking for a level of purity which frankly does not exist, and not even in an extreme ethical situation, exceeding by 2 standard deviations of expectations.

If you want to avoid reviewers who have no contact whatsoever with authors, then don't ask authors to suggest the names of reviewers. We did not volunteer their names or insist they be used. I was asked if there were possible reviewers, and I suggested names of individuals who I felt would be knowledgeable enough to assess this somewhat unique information fairly and impartially. I have experienced many circumstances throughout my career of reviewers who were obviously completely unfamiliar with the material I was writing on, and were unable to review it thoughtfully to improve the work. CAse in point is the article on Demographics of GDD that we submitted to your journal.

I have no objection if you want to issue an erratum that Drs Semelka and Miguel are unpaid board members of GadTTRAC, as absurd as it seems to me I am ok with that.  

On the other side, I do have to question who would be so dedicated to look into even the most miniscule possibility of conflict of interest. I suspect that an attorney from ... a named MR contrast manufacturer... may be one of the individuals bringing this to your attention, as one contacted me about the article. It would be appropriate for you to request of them if they can list the name of all radiologists that they provide financial support to and to show that at all the meetings they presented at, and all their articles, to show that they described they received financial support (and since you had mentioned Dr -------) then rather than the usual 2 year time frame it be extended to 10 years in your request, Anyways 2 years in my opinion is too short.

Also as you brought up the topic of appropriate behavior for authors, this also applies to editors and reviewers. I reviewed the article that was published in the same issue of Frontiers by the team of ------, MD. In that article they randomly inserted a statement to the effect that " chelation does not work". This opinion is based on no material they studied in their paper. As I am certain you are aware, when you write a paper you restrict the Discussion to discussing the material that are the results in the paper, and atleast somewhat close to that, and not randomly bring up an assertion that has nothing to do with the material presented in the work. On top of it, it is flatly incorrect. I wrote  as the reviewer a statement  to the effect, that statement must be removed as it does not reflect anything studied in their investigation. And yet that statement was left in the paper, with no explanation given to me as the reviewer. Now I have served as a reviewer for journals for over 30 years, I have never seen a major point of contention that a  reviewer has brought up be completely ignored, and then still left in the paper, without a response to the reviewer why that statement was left in.

I have submitted another article on the Demographics of GDD to that same Gadolinium tract in Frontiers... that has somehow dragged on for many months, and one or both of the reviewers completely ignorant to the subject, asking absurd questions which we politely responded to, and yet now for a couple of months nothing has happened with it. My suspicion is because ( as I am aware) that the editor selected for this topic of Gadolinium has been at work for a few years on a similar subject, and I think intentionally blocking my work because he wants his article to be the first published in this subject.

So if indeed you are interested in ethics of articles in your journal, these are the two points that actually have merit, and not the absurd issues hunted down by individuals with clear economic or publication reasons to cause issue with our work.

I have indicated that I want to withdraw our article on Demographics of GDD from consideration for publication, because I am certain it is being blocked by your selected editor --------, because he wants his article out first. I will send this article elsewhere. So with this email I am telling you that this article will be withdrawn from consideration, because I am very certain their are unethical reasons for delaying/blocking its publication.

I want you also to look into why that statement of "chelation is ineffective" was left in, if an  experienced reviewer (and very experienced author) instructed them to remove it, since the paper has nothing to do with chelation.

I expect to hear back from you on both those points.

So the take home points that address the issues you brought up that are nebulous at best, and you should instead be questioning the motives of the questioners 

1.what are the motives of those asking the questions?

2. I have fully answered your questions about our potential conflicts of interest. These are not the conflicts of interest that are of the form that actually carry merit, and are not widely understood by authors. These are nuisance, trouble-maker questions. If you want to add the absurd erratum that Drs Semelka and Miguel are non paid board members of GadTTRAC, then you can do it. To be frank had I thought they represented a conflict I would have mentioned it. There does not appear in any literature I am aware of as guidance. It would be different if we were paid. You must then also put in: Request for adding this addendum was made by attorney .... working for (Bayer?) Pharmacy. I want to see that part of it added in. That is extremely crucial, so the readers can see how the requesting individual was actually motivated by true financial gain,and the question is disingenuous.

3. The sentence about "chelation is ineffective for treatment of GDD", that it was left in, actually is an unethical act on the part of the editor ------. I expect then you issue an erratum to the effect: the reviewer  for the manuscript  requested it be removed, but it was left in, and the reviewer never saw a response explaining why it was left in. The editor for the track on Gadolinium was -------, who was also the senior author on this article, and this was an undeclared conflict of interest. To be the editor of a track and also an author in a track is an obvious conflict of interest. This is far, far more important than the issues you brought up with me.

4. I have explained the issues with the reviewers. If you do not want reviewers to have any connection whatsoever with authors, then don't ask authors to provide the names of potential reviewers.

5. I am removing our article on Demographics for GDD, because Frontiers in Toxicology has handled it completely incompetently. The requested reviewer does not write English close to fluently, and does not understand the subject matter (unlike the reviewers I suggested). I had responded kindly and completely to his questions, as best as I could understand them. The article is drifting along, and I suspect it is because the editor Brent Wagner wants to get his article out on Demographics prior to mine. So here is another ethical point: Editors selected for tracks should not be authors on articles in their tracks, and should not edit articles that they may have a conflict of interest bias either in favor or against manuscripts submitted.

I am extremely busy, and I have taken out a lot of time to answer your questions. I expect that you will answer me back also very soon. Since I am so busy, I am not looking for a fight, but if pushed I can assure you, especially from what I have written above, that I am fully prepared to fight. Scholar GPS has recently ranked me as in the top 0.05% of all scholars and all fields for my career, so I do not take these financially motivated attempts to besmirch the outstanding literature I have generated lightly. I am actually perfectly fine with you doing nothing about anything. I have no interest to pursue the unethical conduct of Brent Wagner leaving in the sentence on chelation doesn't work or my strongly held opinion that he deliberately blocked our outstanding manuscript on Demographics, even if he publishes a work on the subject ( even in this Frontiers issue) on this prior to us, because of the conflict of interest set up of having Editors acting as authors, that your journal allows.... unless I am forced to.

I will accept an apology.

Richard Semelka, MD

On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 9:28 AM Research Integrity - Frontiers <research.integrity@frontiersin.org> wrote:

Dear Dr Semelka,Thank you for your comprehensive and timely response to my queries.Your manuscript "Characteristics of Patients with Assumed Gadolinium Deposition Disease" has now been withdrawn from consideration at Frontiers in Toxicology. We will investigate your concerns regarding the handling editor and the peer review process.I have passed your explanation regarding conflicts of interest to our Chief Editor for a decision on the best course of action. With thanks and best wishes,Maria---Maria Kowalczuk, PhDResearch Integrity Auditor ManagerResearch Integrity TeamThe Yarnwicke119-121 Cannon StreetEC4N 5AT LondonUnited Kingdomhttps://www.frontiersin.org/

--------------- Original Message ---------------

From: Richard Semelka [richardsemelka@gmail.com]

Sent: 09/10/2024, 21:35

To: research.integrity@frontiersin.org

Cc: jmpmramalho@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Please explain undisclosed conflicts of interest in your article published in Frontiers in Toxicology “Near-cure in patients with Gadolinium deposition disease undergoing intravenous DTPA chelation”

Maria,

my comments were harsh, but I think appropriate. I did struggle to consider potential reviewers because I wanted to have people I knew to have research experience (Vasco Heredia) and knowledge of the disease (-----) but not close or knowledgeable about the work we were doing. I had thought of -----, who is extremely bright and knowledgeable, but he has worked on papers with me within the last couple of years, so even if he was not aware I was the author, he would have a strong suspicion, so I did not suggest him.

. Suggesting MRI radiologists who I know, the majority doubt that Gd can cause disease in people with normal kidney function, which is incorrect. So they would want to reject the article off-hand.

So I did apply due diligence.

That said ofcourse, when you look at the larger picture of conflict in reviewing or accepting an article for publication, there is no greater conflict of interest than to be the author of an article (Brent Wagner) and then also decide if it should be published (Brent Wagner). If Frontiers intends to be strict about reviewing work for publication, no greater conflict of interest exists than this situation. 

There is a Bible quote for this: do not remove the speck in your neighbor's eye, before removing the plank in your own. 

In principle I am ok with an editor also writing articles, but then you have to be honest about the entire process of peer-review. The peer review then really serves only to make sure that the article is well written if the editor is an author, and does not reflect a classic unbiased review process.

Please forward along  this email to the Chief Editor.

Richard Semelka, MD

Dear Dr Semelka and Dr Ramalho,  Oct 30, 2024, 11:47 AM

Thank you for providing detailed responses to our queries regarding undisclosed conflicts of interest. Your explanations have been considered and assessed by our Specialty Chief Editor and Chief Executive Editor at Frontiers, as part of our post-publication investigation.  

Concerns remain regarding the lack of disclosure of your prominent roles in founding and serving on the Board of Directors of GadTTRAC, as well as offering paid consultations and treatment for Gadolinium Deposition Disease.  

We are also concerned that you suggested a reviewer who is on the Board of Directors of GadTTRAC, without disclosing that you are also serving on the board of this organization, and another reviewer who used to be a very close collaborator. Frontiers policy requests that authors do not suggest reviewers who they may have a potential conflict of interest with, including past co-authors. 

Given the fact that the two reviewers who reviewed the manuscript have undeclared links with the authors, and the other undisclosed conflicts of interest, and following Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s recommendations, we decided to arrange for a post-publication assessment. The conclusion was that the integrity of the peer review process was compromised.  If the Editors had been aware of these conflicts, they would not have accepted the manuscript for publication based on the existing reviews. 

Due to these concerns, and following the recommendations from COPE, we have made the decision to retract your article from Frontiers in Toxicology. Please find the retraction notice below:  

------------  

Following publication, the publisher found evidence of multiple undisclosed conflicts of interest that undermined the integrity of the peer review process. As the scientific integrity of the article cannot be guaranteed, and in adherence to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the article is retracted.   

This retraction was approved by the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors received a communication regarding the retraction and had a chance to respond. This communication has been recorded by the publisher. 

------------ 

Kind regards,

Maria

Maria Kowalczuk, PhD

Research Integrity Auditor Manager

Research Integrity Team

The Yarnwicke

119-121 Cannon Street

EC4N 5AT London

United Kingdom

https://www.frontiersin.org/

 Oct 31, 2024, 7:05 PM

 Maria,

I vehemently disagree with your decision.

I think this is a punitive action on Frontiers part because I raised concern about the article written by the team of -------  on leaving an unsubstantiated  sentence in his article that ''chelation does not work for gadolinium toxicity, when in fact it works very well'. If a separate editor was used on his paper, I would have to suspect there was conflict of interest there. I think this should be investigated. Otherwise how can you explain that the editor would ignore the senior reviewer's request  to remove an unsubstantiated and incorrect

There is no written documentation that suggests recommending a reviewer who serves on a board with you represents a conflict of interest (------). Nor does recommending a reviewer who I had written articles with some 10 years earlier represents a conflict of interest (-----).  Frontiers requested I name reviewers and I suggested individuals who would have knowledge on the subject. There was no insistence on my part to use these reviewers, these are the best reviewers I could think of. Show me guidance where making this disclosure is essential?

Provide me with literature that suggests care for patients with the disease renders someone in conflict of interest with writing on the subject. Essentially everyone who writes a clinical article is therefore in this conflict of interest situation

This is shameful on Frontiers part. I expect you to reverse this decision of yours.

I also expect a response from you within 7 days. The article should stay published. If you insist to say that "Dr Semelka treats patients with Gadolinium Deposition DIsease. He is the president of GadTTRAC, which is a non profit that serves Gadolinium Toxicity patients.   He also recommended reviewers to evaluate the manuscript with whom he has contact either presently or in the past,"

I suspect a response in 7 days.

Richard Semelka, MD

Nov 14, 2024, 5:08 PM

Maria,you have no basis to remove the article. I will go after you if you do that.

Who was the sleuth that came up with the incredible violations we made. I suspect it was Brent Wagner, who I did not realize until this, what others have told me, that he has no integrity.

What is the relationships between Marcello Arbo and Wagner. Did they work together in Texas? There is an older Arbo who is at a university in Texas, maybe an uncle of Marcell? Or some other relation..

That I charge for consultations and for chelation. That is what medical doctors do, they charge patients for their work with them. This study describes itself as looking at clinical patients. Maybe because Arbo is a PhD, and I am not sure what you are, you are not aware that doctors charge patients for medical care.

So that is a frankly ridiculous claim.

Again we do not receive funding from GadTTRAC. GadTTRAC was not involved in any fashion in the article. I also did not want to look like I was advertising GadTTRAC in an article they had nothing to do with.

That therefore is a foolish charge.

I recommended reviewers who I was familiar with and new they had knowledge about chelation. I did not volunteer them, I did not insist they be used. I considered they would be knowledgeable and fair reviewers. Unlike ofcourse ----- and it seems -----..Frontiers should not ask authors to come up with reviewers, unless ofcourse their intent is to use this as a dirty trick to unpublish articles. In any event this obviously is not a conflict of interest situation, it is a stupidity issue on Frontiers part. The great majority of journals do not ask authors for reviewers and do not accept reviewers proffered by authors.

The principle intent of conflict of interest is to describe financial conflicts of interest- which is quantifiable, and clear. You are making the unique attempt of disqualifying authors for claims that seem based on professional or personal benefit. If you want to make this approach for COI then there may be no greater COI than the act of authors attempting to get a major article published in a journal with some impact factor. If an associate professor publishes articles as a first author in a major journal this contributes to them getting a full professor position which therefore represent an increase in personal and professional standing. Using the same foolishness you claim for us, then in your purist sense you should request authors that they write as COI how the article if published will contribute to them getting a higher salary and a higher academic position. Nothing other than first or senior author can achieve that elevated status. That actually is  a real COI based on personal and professional benefit. Not mentioning being on the board of a nonprofit and not earning money from that position contributes nothing in personal or professional gain..

At best you have been an unwitting accomplice to Brent Wagner to get the article written by his great competitor removed from publication. You do not realize the harm that this does to patients, as what we describe is the only treatment that works for them. So removing my article and allowing Brent Wagner's statement to stand 'chelation doesn't work' you actually are contributing to mismanagement and mistreatment of patients.

The simple thing is just stop what you are doing. Leave the article as is. There is absolutely no problem with COI, it is your and Marcello's lack of knowledge of clinical medicine that drives you to think something inappropriate has occurred. I promise you I will be relentless in going after you for unethical behavior. You have relied on Wagner's stirring up of trouble to make ill-informed decisions that will bite you.

Richard Semelka, MD

Nov 18. 3:21 am.

Dear Dr Semelka,

This is to let you know that we are proceeding with retraction of your article. The article will not be removed, but a retraction notice will be published, with the wording included in my previous email.

Kind regards,

Maria

So the above represents the dialogue between Maria Kowalczuk and myself. I think this provides interesting behind the scenes look at the communication involved. The emails are not changed other than I removed the names of innocent physicians who I recommended as reviewers, and also other individuals, the names of whom the reader can guess at. In the end, based on my emails, I was certain they would change their view of removal of our article, but obviously they didn't.

You can decide for yourselves if there were several unreported COIs, as they have written in taking our article down. My understanding, as one of the leading authors in medicine of peer-reviewed articles we obviously had no intention of hiding COIs.

1. So to say there was COI because I billed for chelation and consultation. In a paper clearly described as clinical practice, that is what physicians do: they charge for the medical services they render. So that claimed COI is outright invalid.

2. To say that the reviewers I recommended showed COI, I think I adequately explained above. The first point is that they should not ask the authors to name potential reviewers, because obviously the authors are going to name individuals they know and trust as having the knowledge and integrity to assess the work accurately. So extremely few journals ask authors to come up with potential reviewers. So this is also invalid.

3. So of the multiple omissions of COI the only one left with a shred of validity, is that myself and Dr Ramalho are on the board of GadTTRAC. We received no funding from GadTTRAC of any kind, as salary, or research support, or anything. Since we received no money, I did not see, and still do not see, this as a COI. In fact the reason we have not mentioned it is actually because we did not want to draw attention to this nonprofit to benefit it by the implication it was involved directly in this research. Obviously I want GadTTRAC to be successful to benefit patients, but not by the means of listing it in papers where it was not involved. So our intention for not mentioning it is actually the opposite of what Frontiers claims.

I will address the concept of publication and COI in some future setting. There are some true COIs that occur legitimately in university practice. A major example, that I also benefitted from, is that physicians who publish a lot of peer-reviewed literature receive more paid academic time. So this is paid time to do research. This can amount to 100s of thousands of dollars. Similar undeclared COI that happens all the time is for junior attending physicians to climb the ranks of academia, from assistant, to associate, to full professor, that climb in rank is largely if not exclusively based on academic accomplishment, that is associated with more peer-reviewed papers published So in many centers as few as 8 - 10 peer reviewed articles where the individual is the first or senior author, is enough, along with time spent, to go from assistant professor to full professor. This translates to higher prestige, higher salary, more opportunities to make more money from industry support, etc.

Now in my current role as private practice, there is no organization paying for my research time, I am devoting my time to research, for the love of making novel observations and providing information to benefit patients. I have written about 400 peer-reviewed papers, most major articles. This article on Near-cure of all my papers translated more to direct patient benefit than any other paper I have written. It is also a very well written and involved years of work. So of course not only am I angry for my own sake, but I also am angry that this paper, which served to benefit Gadolinium Deposition Disease patients more, sets back the evolution of disease recognition by the wider medical community by years. I am sorry for that. Of all the papers I have written, none have ever been shown to in any way be incorrect, including well-intentioned observations that in future work were shown to be incorrect. So 36 years of writing peer-reviewed articles this was the first retraction. I think this does reflect the lack of integrity of this team.

It is interesting up until writing this blog I still had in mind that Frontiers in Toxicology reverse their decision. Right now I don't think they deserve a paper of this importance, written by an author of my or Dr Ramalho's level of accomplishments. Many top universities classify journals like this as predatory, and do not consider them in advancement in career. But Frontiers in particular has an approach to reviewers and editors which lends itself to COI, especially by the editors. There are track editors (like Toxicology) who invite topic editors (example Gadolinium). The invited topic editor for a track is requested to come up with 2 additional editors (presumably these then can then be editors of the primary editor's articles), ask authors to come up with reviewers, and expect the topic editor to come up with the names of authors for articles, with the expectation of at least 8 articles on the topic, then the authors recommend their own reviewers. So there are multiple levels of a potential cess pool of corruption and COI. I have not seen this before. Yes they have smeared my reputation by their corrupt interpretation of COI, and have acted as accomplices of the topic editor they selected, and tainted this important article. I am not sure if I will pursue defamation of character. One correction to my email train, I am not sure if I was the reviewer on the article with the line: 'chelation does not work' , Maria claims I was not, but I don't trust her. It is possible that a reviewer on that article sent it to me to get my opinion as a subject expert on Gadolinium toxicity, and I made that observation. That sentence is so burned into my consciousness that I forget the surrounding events. A dark humor observation that Maria had made is that impersonating a reviewer is unethical. This is humorous because reviewing manuscripts takes a number of hours, and there is neither significant recognition or payment for reviewing manuscripts. Physicians who are deficient in accomplishments do use the fact that they review articles as a positive aspect in their curriculum vitae. So I rarely accept reviewing manuscripts, and decline reviewing them, unless it is critical that I perform this function, so the concept of trying to impersonate a reviewer is frankly funny.

If you are interested in addressing issues of dishonesty and hypocrisy of Frontiers with Maria, here is her email address maria.kowalczuk@frontiersin.org

I had asked her what the relationship was between the Track editor and the Topic editor. There is obviously something untoward there. I also asked her to confirm that it was Topic editor, who went to the trouble of sleuthing out 'dirt' on me, including that I charge for medical care. Imagine a doctor receiving money to care for patients, even if he is the world authority? She never responded. This is interesting to pursue.

By chance I met up with a manager of 3 journals in the sphere of Elsevier at a grocery store yesterday (Frontier's is a journal of Elsevier) and she said, as I wrote repeatedly to Maria, the way they handle unintentional absences that for whatever reason, good or not, the journal would like in there, they use an update key to update the article. This is what should have happened with the only legitimate, although insignificant, correction, the issue with GadTTRAC.

Finally, I want to repeat, I am sorry to all the Gadolinium Deposition Disease patients that this article was retracted. This meant an enormous amount to all of you, which I think most realize. This happened because of vindictive and childish retaliation, which Maria and her team were willing accomplices to.. One dark humor aspect to all this, I like how Maria ended her emails with "kind regards"...... really.. "kind regards'' I have two different words as a closing.

At least I also have learned who more of my enemies are (which I had not fully appreciated before) who I had up till now thought of as a colleague, which is helpful knowledge, and to never send another article to Frontiers.. I also want my money back.

Richard Semelka, MD