Children's Health Defense
A systematic review of autopsy-related literature following COVID-19 vaccination found that 73.9% of the 325 deaths were linked to the shots, suggesting “a high likelihood of a causal link” between the shots and death.
The review, published on June 21 in the peer-reviewed journal Forensic Science International, was first posted on July 5, 2023, on The Lancet preprint server, SSRN, an open access research platform.
However, Preprints with The Lancet removed the study from the server within 24 hours, “because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology,” according to a statement on the SSRN page, The Daily Sceptic reported.
The paper had been viewed over 100,000 times.
Authors submitting papers to Lancet journals for review post their work to the SSRN to make it publicly available while it undergoes peer review.
University of Michigan researcher Nicolas Hulscher authored the study, along with Dr. William Makis, Peter A. McCullough, M.D., MPH, and several of their colleagues at The Wellness Company.
The authors said autopsies should be performed on all deceased people who have received one or more COVID-19 vaccines and that vaccinated people should be clinically monitored for at least one year following vaccination. They called for further research into the issue.
McCullough told The Defender:
“Our study faced unprecedented censorship from the Lancet SSRN preprint server and was taken down after massive downloads by concerned physicians and scientists across the globe.
“Lancet did not want the world to know that among deaths that were autopsied after COVID-19 vaccination, independent adjudication found that the vaccine was the cause of death in 73.9% of cases.
“The most common fatal vaccine syndromes were myocarditis and blood clots. Investigative journalists should probe Lancet to uncover who was behind unethical suppression of critical clinical information to the public.”
Makis announced the publication of the “Lancet censored” paper on X last week:
BREAKING NEWS: Our LANCET CENSORED Paper is now peer reviewed and available online!
"A Systematic REVIEW of Autopsy findings in deaths after COVID-19 vaccination"
"325 autopsy cases"
"We found that 73.9% of deaths were directly due to or significantly contributed to by… pic.twitter.com/HCXfeXh0Gk
— William Makis MD (@MakisMD) June 21, 2024
McCullough also noted the project was approved through the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health and used a standard scientific methodology to evaluate the studies for inclusion in the review.
The authors subsequently posted on the Zenodo preprint server, while the review underwent peer review at Forensic Science International. It was downloaded over 125,000 times.
Preprint servers were established to address inefficiencies in academic publishing. The peer-review process typically takes months or more, delaying the real-time sharing of scientific findings with the public.
Also, many journals are proprietary and can only be accessed through expensive personal or institutional subscriptions.
Preprint servers offer a location for scientific reports and papers to be available to the public while the paper goes through peer review — making scientific findings available immediately and for free and opening them up to broader public debate.
There is no peer-review process for preprints, although there is a vetting process.
Preprint servers are intended to be neutral and to post all research conducted with a clearly explained and reproducible methodology, according to Vinay Prasad, M.D., MPH, who reported last year that his COVID-19-related work was subject to similar censorship.
Thirty-eight percent of Prasad’s own lab’s submissions to preprint servers were rejected or removed — even though those same articles eventually were published in journals and extensively downloaded.
Preprint servers have become “gatekeepers” for what science gets published, Prasad said.
When The Lancet took down the paper, The Daily Sceptic’s Will Jones wrote that given the credentials of the authors, “It is hard to imagine that the methodology of their review was really so poor that it warranted removal at initial screening rather than being subject to full critical appraisal. It smacks instead of raw censorship of a paper that failed to toe the official line.”
The Lancet Preprints did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment…
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE… (childrenshealthdefense.org)
Home | Caravan to Midnight (zutalk.com)
