In the study, which was printed last month, the researchers found that the jabs pose serious harm to human health. They also described the immunological reasons that the vaccines are not effective and highlighted issues with vaccine control and processing. As a result of these dangers, they called for a worldwide moratorium on the vaccines. They also called for them to be pulled from the childhood immunization schedule used by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and to suspend the use of boosters immediately.
In their conclusion, the authors stated: “Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA injectable products on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits.”
The paper drew considerable attention, attracting more than 350,000 views in the month since it was posted, which is well above the 2,700 views a typical paper in the publication receives in a full year.
The paper and its popularity appear to have drawn the ire of vaccine censors. One of the study's authors, Dr. Peter McCullough, said that someone from publisher Springer Nature reached out to him to let him know that the journal would be retracting the study. They provided a flimsy excuse that involved eight points of concern that the authors had already addressed prior to publication.
Thanks to your generous support, we are building the infrastructure of human freedom and actively donating our technology to independent publishers, authors and home schooling organizations. Learn about our game-changing non-commercial AI project here. Support our ongoing efforts to preserve and enhance human knowledge by shopping at HealthRangerStore.com.
Dr. McCullough told The Defender that he believes the journal and its publishers were pressured to pull the study because it casts the vaccines in such a negative light.
“I am suspicious that [Resolutions Head Tim] Kersjes and Springer Nature were pressured by the powerful Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex of coordinated public health organizations, vaccine manufacturers and regulatory agencies to censor our paper to keep critical vaccine safety information from getting to the medical community.”
He said they will try to find another publication that is willing to share this valuable research.
“We rejected the retraction, fully appealed and will report this unethical action to all relevant authorities as we move on to publish elsewhere,” he noted.
This turn of events came as no surprise to the study’s lead author, M. Nathaniel Mead, who said he was concerned from the beginning that the journal would eventually be pressured into a retraction. He described the study as a “ticking time bomb,” adding: “By citing solid evidence and exposing how the industry-sponsored trials misled the public, our evidence-informed paper was an all-out indictment of the COVID-19 vaccine enterprise.”
The study's authors defended their findings
The authors were told that the publication would give them the option to agree or disagree with the retraction, and their choice would be noted on the website. Naturally, they disagreed, writing: “We vigorously reject this opinionated, ex post facto, arbitrary and capricious decision on the part of Kersjes and his Springer superiors.”
The authors also wrote a rebuttal to each of the concerns cited in the forced retraction, providing supporting citations to defend their stance. They also pointed out that multiple reviewers and journal editors were satisfied with their explanations before the study was published.
They noted in their rebuttal that most of the concerns that were cited sounded suspiciously like vaccine industry talking points. One of the study’s authors, Steve Kirsch, wrote on Substack that he doesn’t believe they can say anything in the appeals process to change the journal's mind because facts aren’t important here. Instead, he said, “It’s about supporting the narrative.”
He noted that although the journal tried to insist the vaccines were adequately tested, the researchers have multiple whistleblowers willing to testify in court that the data in the vaccine trials was fabricated.
“The medical journals get to decide what is true and what is not and evidence doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is their perception of reality. There will be no debates. They have spoken,” he concluded.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
