Study Finding High Death Rate among Vaccinated Infants Gets Censored

What would the vaccine industry do without its censorship wing in the academic publishing world? What if people realized that vaccinated babies have twice the risk of dying in the next few months than those who are left unvaccinated? That is exactly what a scientific study found; and guess what happened next – it got yanked!

On January 15, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) reported that a research study by two of its scientists found a significantly higher mortality rate for infants who are vaccinated in the second month of their life. Vaccinated infants of that age had between 29% and 74% higher risk of dying in the third month of their life than unvaccinated infants of the same age.

The study titled “Increased Mortality Associated with 2-Month Old Infant Vaccinations” was authored by Dr. Karl Jablonowski and Dr. Brian Hooker. Based on data from the Louisiana Department of Health, it found that the more recommended vaccines the infants were administered at 2 months old, the greater their chances of death within a month. And this was the worst if the infants were black and/or female. The study’s abstract says:

Compared collectively, children who received all 6 recommended 2-month vaccines were 68% (68% for blacks and 112% for females) more likely to die in their 3rd month.

Since the study showed the risk to infants’ life associated directly with vaccination, mainstream media had no interest in reporting on it. A few less known publications such as Principia Scientific International reported on the study’s publication in early January. But the research and its authors were dealt a blow when the online science publisher of the research in question Preprints.org suddenly removed it from its website on January 14.

The study’s co-author Karl Jablonowski called the retraction of the paper an act of censorship. CHD cited him commenting:

“There are 318 members of the Advisory Board for Preprints. Not a single one of them has published on vaccine safety. Not a single one of them has published on infant mortality. Not a single one of them would have been chosen to peer-review our article. Its retraction, therefore, cannot be a peer-reviewed nor a scientific decision.”

The notable side of this retraction is the absence of any scientific basis for the study’s retraction. As CHD was told by the publisher, the study was retracted because “the content poses risks to the general public.” In other words, it was based on the personal opinion of the editorial team instead of any specific flaw in data or methodology or other aspect of the research itself.

To nobody’s surprise, the pharma-serving mainstream media ignored the news of the study’s censorship just like it had done to the study itself. Thanks to a few fair and balanced news sources like Just The News that reported on this censorship so that it wasn’t entirely pushed in darkness. Imagine the enthusiasm of media if the same study had found the same high risk of death but for the unvaccinated.