Censored Study of Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated sees Daylight
President Trump needs to launch Vaccine Safety Commission ASAP
by James O. Grundvig
If the goal of identity politics is to drown out public discourse by forming alliances based on race, religion, and social class, then “identity vaccines” should be the term used to expose the massive wealth transfer from U.S. taxpayers to the pharmaceutical industry, by way of the declining health of American children, especially nonwhite populations.
After 30 years of the government immunizing the vaccine makers from harm, the long-delayed, first-of-its-kind study on “vaccinated versus unvaccinated” children has arrived. From five years of designing and conducting the epidemiology survey to more than one censorship roadblock from scientific journals to thwart the study’s findings — a damning indictment against vaccines being a false flag cure-all — it appeared in the public domain.
For six hours on Valentine’s Day, the 34-page study breached daylight for six hours before the url link vanished. Leaked from a source, giving the release the half-life of a firefly, afforded enough time to download the document and share with the study’s author, who confirmed its authenticity.
Vaccination and Health Outcomes: A Survey of 6- to 12-year-old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children based on Mothers’ Reports, by Anthony R. Mawson, et al., reads like dozens of Centers for Disease Control (CDC) population-based studies that found “no association” between vaccines and autism. Except this came out of Dr. Mawson’s School of Public Health Initiative at Jackson State University, Jackson, Mississippi, co-financed by non-profit organizations in Generation Rescue, Inc., and the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute, with not a single government dime spent.
Why hasn’t the CDC ever sponsored such a study? Did the health agency neglect doing so by design? After reading Mawson’s conclusions, that appears to be the case since it would have run counter to CDC’s messaging that all “vaccines are safe.”
Some of the study’s findings are eye opening, such as chronic issues disproportionately affecting children along racial, gender, and social class fault-lines in ways that neither the authors nor sponsors imagined.
“In summary, vaccination, nonwhite race, and male gender were significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors . . . Preterm birth combined with vaccination was a strong and synergistic factor for NDD in the final model, more than doubling the odds of NDD compared to vaccination alone.”
The study defined NDD as “Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and/or a learning disability.”
The Study Accepted, Released, Censored
Frontiers Journal received the study on September 17, 2016. After a two-month peer review process, published it on November 21 for its “68,000 on board editors” from institutions around the world (
www.frontiersin.org), with the National Institute of Health (NIH) and Harvard University being the top two providing the science editors.
Over the course of four days, more than 80,000 views of the study found it important enough to read, going “viral” according to one familiar with its release. Then on November 28, the bottom fell out when Frontiers scrapped the publication. In one week, it went from being accepted, published, and then retracted. The abstract can still be found online.
The paper, however, wasn’t retracted; it was “unaccepted,” according to Mawson via email. That means Frontiers didn’t retract it, since it was never officially published. What’s left for a study after its accepted, reviewed 80,000 times in less than 100 hours? . . . Censorship.
Beyond that clarification, Mawson wrote: “I am not allowed to comment on the paper/work by my Dean.”
Melissa Cochrane, the communications manager for Frontiers Journal, which is headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, replied via email:
“As we have previously noted, this article was provisionally accepted but not published. In response to concerns raised regarding the abstract and the provisional PDF — which were made provisionally available online — Frontiers then reopened its review. Following further manuscript assessment by the Field Chief Editor of Frontiers in Public Health, in consultation with an external expert, the manuscript was subsequently rejected, not retracted as retraction can only occur once a paper has been officially published and indexed.
“The rejection was due to severe limitations in the validity of the results.”
A day later, Ms. Cochrane replied to an email seeking clarification on the “rejection” process, writing:
“The reasons for the rejection were communicated in more detail to the corresponding author but I am unable to give you the reviewer’s comments as the Frontiers’ review process involves an open and collaborative dialogue between the reviewers and the authors, all of whom participate with the understanding and security that Frontiers will keep these exchanges confidential, as explained in our terms of use. You can read more about the Frontiers peer review process here.”
Vaccines Cause Health Issues Big and Small
Some of the unsuspected data pulled from the study, includes:
“Vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media [ear infection], allergies and NDDs.”
“Numerous reports of AOM [acute otitis media] have been filed with VAERS. A search of VAERS for ‘Cases where age is under 1 and onset interval is 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 or 4
or 5 or 6 or 7 days and Symptom is otitis media, revealed that 438,573 cases were reported between 1990 and 2011.”
Since the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) qualifies that “‘Under-reporting’ is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS,” (
https://vaers.hhs.gov/index), the number of ear infection cases is far greater than is recorded in VAERS, by a factor of twenty times, according to one Atlanta-area scientist, who wants to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation.
“The vaccinated were also more likely to have used antibiotics, allergy and fever medications; to have been fitted with ventilation ear tubes; visited a doctor for a health issue in the previous year, and been hospitalized.”
So now vaccines cause a lot more than tics, autism, ADHD, and learning disabilities. To the glee of Big Pharma, they also cause allergies, ear problems, and pneumonia.
Thus, vaccines are akin to a gardener growing weeds to pull them — a robust reoccurring revenue stream.
Vaccines Reprogram the Immune System
“In a final adjusted model, vaccination but not preterm birth remained associated with NDD, while the interaction of preterm birth and vaccination was associated with a 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD (95% CI: 2.8, 15.5),” the study concluded.
For Kevin Barry, father of an autistic teenage boy, and author of Vaccine Whistleblower, the book on the domestic fraud committed by Dr. William Thompson at the CDC, he said,
“Fully vaccinated, premature, boys is a real danger zone, which isn’t a surprise to anyone in the autism community. But the increase in allergies in the fully vaccinated group is additional circumstantial evidence of the adverse effects of tinkering with an immature immune system.”
What isn’t circumstantial is CDC recommending more vaccines to pregnant women, vaccines that haven’t been tested for safety or efficacy.
Why is the Deep State monolith of CDC and Big Pharma pushing for more jabs that target pregnant women and their fetuses? Is it just for greed and money? Or is there more to this plan to vaccine humans from womb and cradle to grave?
CDC clearly knows what Mawson’s study found: Vaccines cause an array of health issues in unborn babies, triggering their immune and nervous systems in unnatural ways.
“Neuro-immunological interfaces of fetal, neonatal and childhood brain development are among the most complex choreographed cell signaling and tissue architecture processes in all of mammalian and human biology. There is no doubt for many scientists and physicians that the vulnerabilities inherent in these complex systems of development are linked. From a systems analysis, it is no surprise to many of us watching this train wreck from afar that injected metals risk both immunological dysregulation and neurological injury,” said Dr. Edward Fogarty in a telephone interview. He is the chairman of the Department of Radiology at the University of North Dakota, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Southwest Campus Building, and is a father of an autistic teenage son.
Censorship of Scientific Research
In learning about the content of the study, Dr. Fogarty said, “As an academic and clinical imager who’s specialty is grounded in the ethics of transparency, it is terribly disturbing that this manuscript is getting censored. It begs the question as to why.” He paused, his voice growing irate, and added, “Nowhere else in academia do we see
the degree of censorship of inquiry than in this arena. In fact, the economic, professional and political risks of anyone driving safety science in this sphere of U.S public health is so great that it has served to muzzle virtually an entire professional class. Concerned physicians who are surgeons, radiologists, pathologists, primary care physicians, and even pediatricians face whispered threats of loss of licensure for even speaking out from within the profession.”
For Anthony Mawson, who has submitted the study to another scientific journal, it is a waiting game. The key difference between his population-based study and that of the CDC, which hired a Danish mercenary scientist to cook data on fraudulent studies, is that Mawson didn’t change the study’s design parameters midstream, or found out what happens if he cut out a swath of data because he didn’t like the results.
Sure, Mawson and his study will be attacked by the paid Big Pharma shills and the mainstream media, saying they “can’t verify the results,” because the study design was an anonymous survey of mothers in four states with the unvaccinated children being home-schooled. But that red herring is baseless, since the CDC used the same survey method in 2015 that produced a stunning 1 in 45 incidence rate of autism in newborn children.
Not liking the results of the skyrocketing incidence rate of autism, CDC’s principal investigator for that study, Benjamin Zablotsky, PhD, said in a telephone interview on November 17, 2015, that his study was “merely a survey” and that the CDC would use its “gold standard” surveillance system that, somehow, produced the same 1 in 68 babies born with autism in 2016 in 2014. But now that alleged CDC fraud of omitting surveillance sites data has been outed, with yet another CDC whistleblower filing a lawsuit in Utah in 2016.
So what are the next steps for the Trump Administration to deliver safer vaccines for America’s children?
One would take Mawson’s study to the next logical level and have the new leaders at the CDC fund a placebo-based vaccinated versus unvaccinated clinical trial, and not a back-tested, epidemiological study as the agency did in Denmark.
“Mawson’s pilot study needs to be expanded and conducted by the highly respected international, independent public health organization the Cochrane Collaboration,” said Kevin Barry, president of the non-profit organization, First Freedoms. “The CDC cannot be trusted to conduct a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study honestly.”
To correct the top heavy vaccine ship that has run aground an entire generation of children, detrimentally impacting the health on millions, President Trump needs to erect the Vaccine Safety Commission ASAP, so a ‘less is more’ approach to the CDC immunization schedule can offer the next generation of children healthier lives.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Zippyjuan
Connect With Us