Source: Natural News
The censorship of science is nothing new. In Canada, for instance, there were serious concerns about the federal government's increasingly strict regulations that prevented scientists from sharing their findings with the public. Censorship, on the whole, is a persistently under-acknowledged problem in our society. The election of Donald Trump certainly showcased the fact that the mainstream media only portrays the narratives they want us to see.
In the latest instance of scientific censorship, an article from a scientific journal was "unpublished," but only after vaccine enthusiasts proclaimed that it needed to be removed. The study, you see, examined the differences in health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. The study's results indicated that "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, allergies and NDDs (defined as Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and/or a learning disability)."
From the mothers' reports, the researchers found that vaccinated children were more likely to have allergies and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs). The team noted that even after controlling for other factors, vaccination remained significantly associated with the presence of an NDD. Indeed, those that were vaccinated were three times more likely to be diagnosed with an NDD such as autism. The combination of preterm birth and vaccination produced an even higher risk of NDD, increasing the chances of it by more than six-fold.
In the abstract, the researchers wrote in their conclusion, "In this study based on mothers' reports, the vaccinated had a higher rate of allergies and NDD than the unvaccinated. Vaccination, but not preterm birth, remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors. However, preterm birth combined with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD. Further research involving larger, independent samples is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children's health."
Baxter Dmitry from Investment Watch Blog notes that the study was "unpublished" from the journal Frontiers In Public Health. Normally, one can still view the cached version in internet archives. But Baxter says this too was removed, noting that "a cached version available on internet archives has also been removed, suggesting there is a serious campaign to stop members of the public from viewing the study." Fortunately, a screenshot of the study was saved before the whole thing was scrubbed off the internet for good.
Prior to being removed from the internet, the study was subjected to massive amounts of scrutiny; apparently in this instance, the use of surveys – which are widely used for data gathering – somehow invites "bias." Some of the colorful public comments included, "This study is of poor design, though not impossible results. Study relies of self-report of moms, inducing bias," and, "Another garbage vaccine study in Frontiers journal. Scientists, stop reviewing/publishing there."
This, of course, is not the first time that a study that showcased the potential ill effects of vaccines has been pulled from the internet. In February, the journal Vaccine temporarily removed, and eventually retracted, a study that linked the HPV vaccine to behavioral issues in mice.
Publishing research that contains information that conflicts with the mainstream narrative continues to prove to be a quick and easy way to find yourself blacklisted and censored by conventional media. This just underscores the importance of independent research and alternative media outlets.