To paraphrase a commenter to the below video, this censorship would be the top story of the day if it weren’t for censorship.
Peter McCullough, M.D., is an American cardiologist. He was vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and a professor at Texas A&M University. He is editor-in-chief of the journals Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiorenal Medicine. He is one of the most highly respected and published cardiologists in the U.S.
Dr. Jessica Rose is a Canadian researcher with a Bachelor Degree in Applied Mathematics and a Master’s degree in Immunology from Memorial University of Newfoundland. She also holds a Ph.D. in Computational Biology from Bar Ilan University and two Post Doctoral degrees: one in Molecular Biology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and one in Biochemistry from the Technion Institute of Technology.
After the preliminary draft of their report was peer-reviewed and approved for publication, it was posted by the publisher on its NIH website. Shortly thereafter, the publisher, Elsevier, without giving a reason, suddenly withdrew the publication. There is now a notice posted that states simply:
The Publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated.
That “temporary” removal has turned into a permanent removal. Elsevier has notified Drs. McCullough and Rose that their article will not be republished. Oddly, Elsevier gave no reason for the removal other than explaining that it is their sole prerogative to do so.
But we are not left to guess why the report was removed. All one needs to do is read the report, and it will be clear why the publisher removed it. I tracked down the report and read it. The report revealed the following startling facts.
Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group.
The publisher decided that fact, supported by empirical evidence, cannot be allowed. The long arm of the pharmaceutical companies reached out and let their influence be known.
Another fact that the report revealed was that the incidence of myocarditis among teenagers is much worse than even the raw statistics obtained from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting Service (VAERS) indicate. The report states:
Because of the spontaneous reporting of events to VAERS, we can assume that the cases reported thus far are not rare, but rather, just the tip of the iceberg. Again, under-reporting is a known and serious disadvantage of the VAERS system.
In prior blogs, I have reported that the VAERS system only reports about 1% of the actual adverse events.
VAERS is a reporting system that shows correlation. Further analysis is required to prove causation. Drs. McCullough and Rose did that further analysis and opined that the VAERS data indicates a cause and effect between the vaccinations and teenage myocarditis. Their report indicates:
It is noteworthy that ‘Vaccine-induced myocarditis’ was in fact used as the descriptor by medical professionals as the reason for the myocarditis in the VAERS database.
The report concluded:
Thus, due to both the problems of under-reporting and the known lag in report processing, this analysis reveals a strong signal from the VAERS data that the risk of suffering CIRM [COVID-19-Injection-Related Myocarditis] – especially males is unacceptably high. Again, children are not a high-risk group for COVID-19 respiratory illness, and yet they are the high-risk group for CIRM.
Dr. McCullough’s paper revealing that the COVID-19 vaccines cause myocarditis in children was mysteriously withdrawn on the eve of the FDA meeting to decide the emergency authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine for 5 to 11year-old children. Some powerful interests did not want an authoritative scientific paper showing that COVID-19 vaccines cause myocarditis in children to get in the way of the emergency authorization.
Elsevier, the largest scientific publisher in the world, now claims that they withdrew the paper because they never invited it for publication to begin with. That is a lie. Not only did Elsevier invite the paper they sent it for peer review.
Dr. McCollough is now suing Elsevier. McCullough is not just a medical expert, he is a publishing expert. He is one of the most published physicians in the world and the editor of his own publication. Elsevier does not have a legal leg to stand on. McCullough opines that Elsevier will get slaughtered in court. McCullough hopes to find out during the litigation discovery process who it was that pressured Elsevier to withdraw his paper.