Less than a full day after being published in the Lancet, a pre-print study that exposed Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccines” as the leading cause of death among the “fully vaccinated” was removed from the journal along with a note stating: “This preprint has been removed by Preprints with the Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.”
Written by leading cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, MD, MPH, the pre-print, which was still awaiting peer review, was also contributed to by Yale University epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch and fellow colleagues from the Wellness Company.
Even though the peer review process on the paper had not even yet begun, the Lancet decided that it had somehow already fallen afoul of the journal’s “screening criteria,” which is just a lame excuse for its editors not wanting the truth to be known.
Much like how Facebook and other social media platforms cite “Community Guidelines” when defending their own censorship efforts, the Lancet is doing much the same thing as a cover for its blatantly anti-scientific removal of the paper from its pre-print server.
Pathologist Dr. Clare Craig says pulled study’s approach is sound
Because Lancet staff members failed to stipulate the substance of their claims that the study had failed its “screening criteria,” we cannot ascertain precisely what about the study’s methodology said staff took issue with, resulting in the paper being pulled.
“A number of the authors of the paper are at the top of their fields so 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,” wrote Will Jones for The Daily Sceptic about the matter.
“It smacks instead of raw censorship of a paper that failed to toe the official line. Keep in mind that the CDC has not yet acknowledged a single death being caused by the COVID mRNA vaccines. Autopsy evidence demonstrating otherwise is clearly not what the U.S. public health establishment wants to hear.”
HART pandemic advisory group co-chair and pathologist Dr. Clare Craig commented on the matter as well, offering her opinion that there is nothing at all wrong about the approach that McCullough et al. took in formulating their paper.
“There may be a bias [in the study] towards reporting the autopsies of deaths where there was evidence of causation and the likelihood of causation might be exaggerated by that bias,” she told the Sceptic.
“For example, 19 of the 325 deaths were due to vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) but these reports may be overrepresented because of the regulators’ willingness to acknowledge such deaths.”
“Nevertheless, it is important that attempts are made to quantify the risk of harm and censorship of these attempts, rather than open scientific critique, does nothing to help reassure people.”
Risch used more flowery language to describe the Lancet‘s behavior, calling it “pure, government-director censorship, even after the Missouri v. Biden injunction.”
Missouri v. Biden is an effort by two Republican state attorneys general, Sen. Eric Schmitt from Missouri and Jeff Landry of Louisiana, to hold the Biden regime accountable for its contributions to the Censorship Industrial Complex that has normalized this kind of blatant censorship of the truth.
“Meanwhile, my colleagues are studying what they call ‘Long Vax,’ which is vaccine-caused damage,” Risch further explained. “But, of course, that is a rare, rare, rare outcome, except that they seem not to be having any problem finding such individuals to enroll in their study.”
By Ethan Huff