<!–

–>

July 27, 2023

One of the primary aims of science, as it is ideally understood in high schools and universities, is to lift us from ignorance. 

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”); } }); }); }

It generally advances by utilizing the tools of reason and the critical evaluation of evidence to make explicit a more comprehensible understanding of the physical world. Such a process also includes sharing data for peer analysis in an effort to arrive at the truth concerning some matter of fact or make successive approximations to it.

However, our present quest for such lofty goals has run into serious obstacles that thwart science’s revelations and processes.  And, although these obstructions have been ongoing for a number of years, some modern scientific publications have ironically proven themselves to be one of its greatest impediments.

On July 5, 2023, Dr. Peter McCullough among other clinical specialists published a systematic review of autopsy findings involving victims who died post-COVID vaccine on The Lancet journal’s preprint server.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”); } }); }); }

They identified…“678 studies and, after screening for our inclusion criteria, included 44 papers that contained 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case…Most deaths occurred within a week from last vaccine administration.  A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed by COVID-19 vaccination…” 

Dr. McCullough explains that the systematic review went through two sets of checks on the preprint server and that it was getting surges of downloads.  But the very next morning, The Lancet shut it down.  The study got censored.

Why?

The Lancet’s response is that the “study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.” Curiously, they don’t say how.  

Dr. McCullough says: 

“This act of medical censorship occurred after the paper met all the criteria for listing on the Lancet Preprint Server… This speaks to the importance of our findings as the largest summary of autopsies after COVID-19 vaccination. Elsevier and Lancet are trying to suppress critical scientific observations on COVID-19 vaccine safety. Their actions are reprehensible.”