Wafik El Deiry, the anti-qualified Science Guardian

On 12 January 2025, The Cancer Letter informed about the changes in the leadership of the NIH National Cancer Institute (NCI) in USA:

“W. Kimryn Rathmell has stepped down as NCI director, opting to hand her resignation to the Biden administration over facing the uncertainties that Trump and his team are expected to usher in starting next week.”

The article says that

“Wafik El-Deiry, Harvey Risch have been interviewed”.

Well, these candidates actually make perfect sense.

The historian Timothy Snyder described Trump’s appointments already in November 2024 as such:

“Trump’s proposed appointments — Kennedy, Jr.; Bondi; Musk; Ramaswamy; Hegseth; Gabbard; Noem — are perfect instruments. They combine narcissism, incompetence, corruption, sexual incontinence, personal vulnerability, dangerous convictions, and foreign influence as no group before them has done. These proposed appointments look like a decapitation strike: destroying the American government from the top, leaving the body politic to rot, and the rest of us to suffer.”

Risch and El Deiry fall into the same category. Snyder also describes such candidates as “not just completely unqualified for this role” but as “anti-qualified“, meaning they will intentionally destroy what they were expected to successfully operate: “just the sort of person enemies of the American republic would want in this job.”

Wafik E-Deiry is professor at the Brown University, and Harvey Risch is professor in Yale, both work in oncology. Either of these two would be a disaster for US biomedical research, thus a perfect pick from Trump.

Risch joined early own chloroquine quacks Didier Raoult and Vladimir Zelenko (now deceased) in pushing hydroxychloroquine as COVID-19 cure, an approach also President Trump personally endorsed back then. Yale University had to distance itself from Risch’s bullshit in July 2020.

Most prominently though, Risch teamed up with the fellow antivaxxer Peter McCullough, together they used to push first hydroxychloroquine, then ivermectin as a cure for COVID-19 (e.g., Ladapo et al 2020, Alexander et al 2021, McCullough et al 2021a, McCullough et al 2021b, the latter paper was renounced in an editorial note). The cardiologist McCullough once used to be vice-chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and professor at Texas A&M University, but he had no academic affiliations already before the pandemic, which is probably why he was not suitable as a candidate for NCI director. Read about McCullough here:

Together Risch and McCullough published this paper, claiming that COVID-19 vaccines were murdering people:

Nicolas Hulscher, Paul E. Alexander , Richard Amerling , Heather Gessling , Roger Hodkinson , William Makis, Harvey A. Risch, Mark Trozzi , Peter A. McCullough A Systematic REVIEW of Autopsy findings in deaths after covid-19 vaccination Forensic Science International (2024) doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112115

The review paper was retracted against authors’ protests in June 2024 for “Inappropriate citation of references”, “Inappropriate design of methodology“, “Errors, misrepresentation, and lack of factual support for the conclusions” and “Failure to recognise and cite disconfirming evidence“.

The associated preprint with SSRN/Lancet was removed by the publisher already one day after its publication in July 2023.

In 2022, Risch, McCullough and fellow antivaxxers and ivermectin quacks Pierre Kory and Robert Malone attended Raoult’s farewell party in Marseille, as the dirty old man was forced into retirement as IHU director.

You will agree, Risch is perfectly anti-qualified and would be a perfect match for the unhinged anti-vaxxer Robert F Kennedy Jr, whom Trump wants to install as US Secretary of Health, to make measles, mumps and especially polio great again.

Now, to the other candidate, Wafik El Deiry, who featured in Friday Shorts reporting several times already.

El Deiry seems to be friends with the Stanford University professor Jay Bhattacharya, whom President Trump nominated as head of the NIH. Bhattacharya’s anti-qualification is evident in his Great Barrington Declaration, which opposed to COVID-19 containment measures and advocated to let the virus run wild so the “herd immunity” can be achieved. Read here:

As the result, masses of people died from COVID-19 in USA during Trump’s first term, in fact the disaster cost his the re-election in 2020. Biology later proved the incoming NIH director Bhattacharya wrong, this SARS-CoV2 virus decided not to care about his learned concept of “herd immunity” and kept making those previously infected (or even vaccinated) sick. Luckily, with time the virus mutated to become much less dangerous.

The following must have served as El Deiry’s proof of anti-qualification, a preprint from 15 April 2024. There, El-Deiry claimed that COVID-19 vaccines would cause cancer:

Shengliang Zhang, Wafik S. El-Deiry SARS-CoV-2 spike S2 subunit inhibits p53 activation of p21(WAF1), TRAIL Death Receptor DR5 and MDM2 proteins in cancer cells bioRxiv (2024) doi: 10.1101/2024.04.12.589252 

“Spike protein from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, potentially promotes cancer by interfering with anti-cancer activities, according to a recent peer-reviewed study from Brown University. […]

The study authors, led by Dr. Wafik El-Deiry, director of the Cancer Center at Brown University, exposed cancer cells to spike protein subunits. They found that the spike subunits may promote cancer survival and growth by blocking a cancer suppressor gene known as p53.”

The Epoch Times

Wafik El-Deiry himself was quoted:

“We saw enhanced cancer cell viability in the presence of SARS-CoV-2 spike S2 subunit after treatment with several chemotherapy agents”

The preprint was swiftly debunked by Science based Medicine blog. Soon after, this study appeared as peer-reviewed paper on 3 May 2024 in the trash journal Oncotarget, where El-Deiry was about to become Editor-in-Chief, as it was announced on 1 July 2024. At that time, his predecessor and Oncotarget‘s owner and founding editor Mikhail Blagosklonny was dying from cancer, likely exacerbated by his rapamycine anti-aging treatments (read October 2024 Shorts). The journal specialised on publishing fraud and papermill garbage, maybe due to its editorial board members’ own scientific record.

El Deiry shares the EiC job with Andrei Gudkov, a colleague of Blagosklonny’s at Roswell Park Cancer Center in New York. Oncotarget‘s editorial board is a who-is-who of US biomedical cheaters, the vast majority are male and there don’t seem to be any editorial board members with dark skin. Many are verifiable zombies of bad science: Carlo Croce, Guido Kroemer, Pier Paolo Pandolfi, Michael Karin and Antonio Giordano. The rare women are not kosher either: Dafna Bar-Sagi (Sabatini and Schlessinger associate, read May 2024 Shorts), Cory Abate-Shen (see PubPeer), and Carol Prives for example. Out of two highlighted Nobel Prize laureates one is Gregg Semenza (11 retractions). Pharma industry is represented by John C. Reed.

There is even some entity called Donald Trump! Not the future boss of El Deiry’s future boss, but a CEO of some Inova Schar Cancer Institute, of course with a PubPeer record.

Which brings us to El-Deiry’s other anti-qualifications. Most or maybe all of his published cancer research contains data manipulations, presently almost 60 papers on PubPeer. The evidence was initially collected anonymously by Claire Francis, later on other sleuths, especially Elisabeth Bik and Actinopolyspora biskrensis (aka Cheshire on X, who isn’t really anonymous, certainly not to El Deiry) joined the treasure hunt.

El Deiry’s reaction so far was narcissistic whining and open threats to have PubPeer shut down for “terrorism”, which is why his appointment as NCI director will be particularly dangerous.

Here is El-Deiry’s earlier contribution to his own journal:

Or this:

Niklas Finnberg, Andres J P Klein-Szanto, Wafik S El-Deiry TRAIL-R deficiency in mice promotes susceptibility to chronic inflammation and tumorigenesis The Journal of clinical investigation (2008) doi: 10.1172/jci29900 

Some more examples from PubPeer and in other journals, all with El-Deiry as last author:

The rest is similar or worse. Obviously I can’t guide you through all of ~60 PubPeer threads here. But for example, this was flagged in 2019, I specifically sent it to El-Deiry in July 2022. Not even a correction so far:

Zhaoyu Jin , Wafik S. El-Deiry Distinct signaling pathways in TRAIL- versus tumor necrosis factor-induced apoptosis Molecular and Cellular Biology (2006) doi: 10.1128/mcb.00257-06 

El-Deiry told me in July 2022:

“I invite you to meet and talk about our science because there is no fraud […] They are mistakes. I am not in contact with some of the people from 20+ years ago. 

I can tell you the people who worked with me are honorable and have integrity. We always do our best. […] You say “I have a growing list” in PubPeer but I also have a growing list of scientific contributions. […]

I talk to the scientists in my group about scientific rigor and reproducibility on an ongoing basis. […] You think it’s strange that conclusions are not affected. It is about how we do science.”

There were more emails, which made clear the man really sees himself as a paragon of good and honest science, a victim of persecution, and it is those who criticise his papers who are bad people. Discussing with El-Deiry is like playing chess with a reproachful pigeon.

In August 2020, El-Deiry announced on PubPeer to correct this paper, even shared the correction text which he claimed to have sent to the editor:  

Elisabeth Bik noted the problems with El Deiry’s proposed correction:

The paper was never corrected, but PubPeer users later found more data manipulation in it:

El-Deiry also told me:

“I have been turning down consulting on a regular basis to avoid conflict of interest.”

That is exactly why he sits on boards of biotech and healthcare companies, I found proof for Caris Life Sciences, Imunon and Ocean Biomedical, the latter company is founded by the Yale professor Jack Elias, another questionable scientist (read August 2024 Shorts).

Here an example of Elisabeth BIk’s sleuthing:

Amriti R. Lulla, Michael J. Slifker, Yan Zhou, Avital Lev, Margret B. Einarson, David T. Dicker, Wafik S. El-Deiry miR-6883 Family miRNAs Target CDK4/6 to Induce G Phase Cell-Cycle Arrest in Colon Cancer Cells Cancer Research (2017) doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-17-1767 

Here something Sholto David found:

Seok-Hyun Kim, Hiroshi Nakagawa, Arunasalam Navaraj, Yoshio Naomoto, Andres J.P. Klein-Szanto, Anil K. Rustgi, Wafik S. El-Deiry Tumorigenic conversion of primary human esophageal epithelial cells using oncogene combinations in the absence of exogenous Ras Cancer Research (2006) doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-06-2104 

Here an example of what Cheshire found, a vintage one:

On X, El-Deiry was challenged by Cheshire about his PubPeer record of bad science. He reacted with: “Shame on you.” After Elisabeth Bik reminded him of COPE guidelines, El-Deiry gave a lenghty reply about “circumstances” which make it “not always easy or feasible” for him to correct his “errors“. He then educated Bik that “Historically science was more forward looking” and expressed his concern that little “progress on improving rigor and reproducibility” was made because “not everyone has the same capabilities to address concerns“. El-Deiry then pointed to the real criminals:

“I’m also concerned about a number of issues from time and effort needed to address things after many years where people have moved on, the fact that some people (or journals) are maliciously targeted, I don’t like the anonymous nature of something like PubPeer that isn’t regulated and can do reputational damage and I’m also concerned about public trust in science. People come to misguided conclusions about the integrity of science, the prevalence of misconduct, and generally lose trust in the system.“

When your entire career is built on dishonesty and your entire social circle consists of a science mafia, you do sincerely believe that it is the honest people who are the problem.

El Deiry once used to be lead the Taylor & Francis journal Cancer Biology & Therapy. As my colleague reported, this resulted in “nearly a quarter of his articles published in his own journal from when he started as Editor-in-Chief in 2001.” Here El-Deiry celebrates publishing his own recent paper in Oncotarget, where he has been just appointed EiC:

From the Acknowledgments of Zhang et al 2024:

“A manuscript entitled “TAS102 synergizes with regorafenib against colorectal and gastric cancer cells” was originally submitted to the AACR journal Clinical Cancer Research in May, 2020 and to Nature’s Scientific Reports in June, 2020. After additional modifications, the manuscript was resubmitted in October, 2023 but due to an unusually prolonged and cumbersome process with numerous delays, the manuscript was sent to Oncotarget along with the latest modifications.”

You see, El Deiry openly admits his papers are nowadays rejected even by Scientific Reports, so he has to publish them in his own Oncotarget. Sad.

This one was also published in the same journal and flagged by Claire Francis in April 2024:

Hairong Cheng , Bo Hong , Lanlan Zhou , Joshua E Allen , Guihua Tai , Robin Humphreys , David T Dicker, Yingqiu Y Liu , Wafik S El-Deiry Mitomycin C potentiates TRAIL-induced apoptosis through p53-independent upregulation of death receptors: evidence for the role of c-Jun N-terminal kinase activation Cell cycle (2012) doi: 10.4161/cc.21670 

El-Deiry swiftly threw the first author and the bus and told his critics to contact her. And:

“The paper was being analyzed as the PI was under an open attack by PubPeer going through apparently numerous publications over decades (100’s) to conclude impropriety. The PI who is being targeted in a public was by those who are anonymous is having reputational damage as a result because the attacks are coming faster than anyone can respond. Moreover, the PI has no resources to cover the time to investigate the issues but can say he believes the researcher who was first author of the paper is a person of integrity. The PI did not assemble figures as that is done by the primary researchers in his lab.”

Wait, it gets even better!

“You don’t have the right to publicly damage the reputations of scientists in the way you have been doing. It is clear that my lab and publications have been willfully singled out and targeted in the past week for motivations having nothing to do with the integrity of science or the search for truth. Such barbaric unregulated assault on hard-working people is shameful because of the way it is being done. You don’t have the right to damage people’s reputations that are built over decades in this public way anonymously. There are elements of terrorism, bullying, defamation and acts that should be illegal in a civilized society and certainly within academia. You and the rest of the evil PubPeer mob have been harassing me and bombarding me with email around the clock including on holiday with my family where you have ruined my little time I could spend with them.”

On another PubPeer thread, El-Deiry posted something similar.

Wafik, the victim of bullying, blackmail and terrorism:

“This is a form of blackmail and terrorism that the scientific community will deal with. We are not naive, or guilty of anything remotely deserving of what you as an anonymous accuser is doing in the public square. […} I will not let you destroy a career of publishing scientific papers dating to when I was in College in 1981. I never expected to be subjected to this type of terrorism, bullying and blackmail by anonymous accusers who are unregulated. “

These comments and similar ones were soon replaced with this letter by El Deiry, where he accuses PubPeer community of “blackmail“, “academic terrorism” and “tarnishing reputation of innocent individuals” and repeatedly asserts that PubPeer comments are driven by “political motivations“:

The self-professed free speech devotee ended his letter with:

“I also urge government officials and those who care about justice and science to consider the injustice of what appear to be politically motivated attacks on science and scientists under the guise of free speech.“

El Deiry started to post that letter whenever a paper of his was criticised on PubPeer. Like here:

Joshua E Allen, Gabriel Krigsfeld, Patrick A Mayes, Luv Patel, David T Dicker , Akshal S Patel, Nathan G Dolloff, Evangelos Messaris, Kimberly A Scata, Wenge Wang, Jun-Ying Zhou, Gen Sheng Wu, Wafik S El-Deiry Dual inactivation of Akt and ERK by TIC10 signals Foxo3a nuclear translocation, TRAIL gene induction, and potent antitumor effects Science Translational Medicine (2013) doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3004828 

The letter also repeatedly invoked a “statute of limitations“, so it is rather strange that El Deiry demanded that a paper not even a year old was to be declared as too for an investigation:

Maximilian Pinho-Schwermann, Benedito A. Carneiro, Lindsey Carlsen, Kelsey E. Huntington, Praveen R. Srinivasan , Andrew George, Vida Tajiknia, William MacDonald, Connor Purcell, Lanlan Zhou, Andre De Souza, Howard P. Safran, Wafik S. El-Deiry Androgen receptor signaling blockade enhances NK cell-mediated killing of prostate cancer cells and sensitivity to NK cell checkpoint blockade bioRxiv (2023) doi: 10.1101/2023.11.15.567201 

Neither “decades after original publication” nor “peer-reviewed” in this case of 2023 preprint, but anyway:

“The damage is incalculable as what PubPeer is doing appears to have no statute of limitations and no assessment of significance of concerns. The damage goes beyond tarnishing reputation of innocent individuals. It wastes valuable time for individuals who are busy making a difference in the field as far as positive impact. […] it is next to impossible to address some concerns just pointed out as a result of being targeted decades after original publications that were peer-reviewed were published.“

El Deiry’s letter

The letter was indiscriminatingly posted on most of the threads, for old, medium and new papers. But no reaction in the following case, maybe the evidence of shameless image forgery is too difficult to denounce as politically motivated. As it happens, this journal was founded and run by El Deiry’s late friend Blagosklonny:

David T. Dicker, Jeremy M. Lerner, Wafik S. El-Deiry Hyperspectral Image Analysis of Live Cells in Various Cell Cycle Stages Cell Cycle (2007) doi: 10.4161/cc.6.20.4912 

El Deiry’s accusations were eventually modified on PubPeer, but on X he continued decrying “injustice, bullying and blackmail” and of course a “political agenda” and “academic terrorism” by PubPeer:

When El Deiry heard about the papers of Nobel Prize laureate and Stanford professor Thomas Südhof being discussed on PubPeer, he went complaining straight to the future NIH director Bhattacharya:

As it happens, Südhof hates PubPeer and its users also, whom he also accuses of anonymity regardless of whether they sign their comments or not. Unlike El Deiry, Südhof doesn’t suspect a political motivation, but a financial one.

Once again, the PubPeer critics were charged as “terrorists”, on top of “bullies”. Again, PubPeer was declared as illegal. Elsewhere on X, El Deiry called for PubPeer to “be outlawed”:

Why yes, the perfect man to supervise science under Trump. El Deiry then set up his own anti-PubPeer, called Science Guardians. The irony is that while El Deiry denounces the anonymity of his PubPeer critics like Elisabeth Bik (sic!), the identity of his fellow Science Guardians is secret, the website says nothing who is behind the project, except this:

“ScienceGuardians is operated by a dedicated team of highly skilled data and IT professionals who have undergone extensive training in academic publishing, ethics, and integrity. While not publishing authors themselves…”

No, it makes no sense.

At some point, the clinical oncologist remembered about informed consent:

“I don’t agree with being targeted in a public way which is damaging to a reputation built over 4+ decades. You do not have a right to do that or my consent.”

On X, El Deiry ranted about PubPeer performing an illegal “human experiment” on him:

The final joke: El Deiry, author of around 60 papers with manipulated data, openly boasts on social media about his Photoshop skills.

I believe El Deiry is actually a more likely candidate that Risch for NCI director. Not because one of these two is more ethical than another, they both don’t even know what ethics or decency are.

But I think many US cancer research elites whose word will have weight, may feel awkward about a chloroquine-pushing covidiot like Risch but feel that El Deiry is a man just like them. A narcissistic cheater whose entire scientific career is built on bullshit and data manipulation. A fellow soul.

Note: some of the above material already appeared in Friday Shorts

---