Retraction As A Tool Of Censorship
Corrupt outlets have a narrative to maintain
The Daily Beagle recently reviewed our article covering how fluoride in the water supply lowers the IQ of children. Part of the article cites a number of studies, one of which was a study performed back in November 2020, titled “Fluoride exposure and intelligence in school-age children: evidence from different windows of exposure susceptibility”.
The Daily Beagle published the article in August 2022, exposing deep seated corruption within government, healthcare, and scientific reporting, regarding fluoride in the water.
The study — which had been peer reviewed, and was public for 2 years, uncontested…
…was forcefully retracted by the corrupt BMC Public Health editor, after they made up claims there was “inconsistencies in methodology” and “major misinterpretation” (read: their narrative did not agree with the editor’s twisted worldview), demonstrating zero concrete examples. This was in November 2022, less than 3 months after The Daily Beagle published the article exposing fluoride harms.
The fact it only occurred after it gained public traction shows the retraction was politically motivated for selfish gain. If the methodology was that truly flawed, it ought have been spotted during peer review, and not simply withdrawn at the behest of one person after it embarrassed government cohorts.
Not The First Time Publishing Fraud Has Occurred
Other data has been retroactively withdrawn, retracted or maliciously tampered with after The Daily Beagle reported on it.
For example, when The Daily Beagle presented evidence myocarditis has a 50% fatality rate within 5 years, the NIH deleted it, and then falsified the date in a failed attempt to fraudulently backdate the change, but got caught by The Daily Beagle.
The ONS also fraudulently fudged datasets to cover up murders by the state when the wider media reported on those, as well.
Retraction, Withdrawal As A Tool Of Censorship
Anything inconvenient to the profitable murder narrative gets retracted or withdrawn in a desperate attempt to remove credibility.
A Japanese study showing mRNA shots cause cancer, despite being approved, was retracted only after it gained publicity, showing once again, it is about public perceptions and not integrity or rigour.
Their basis for retraction? The insane excuse that correlation (not causation) could not be proven, even though the vaccine cultist’s favourite lie is correlation isn’t causation (‘officer, I couldn’t have shot you, my bullets just happen to correlate with your bullet holes, correlation isn’t causation’)…
…even showing the mere correlation is enough to trigger rampant censorship by vaccine cultists. Once again, we see it is a forced decision; the authors disagree with this retraction. There’s no proposal on remediation, just a handed down judgement.
‘Expression Of Concern’ = We Don’t Like What You’re Talking About
Another peer-reviewed paper got labelled with an ‘expression of concern’ because it correctly concluded excess deaths hadn’t dropped (and therefore showing the shots do not work).
As this finding gained publicity, the publisher had to act in a desperate bid to preserve the vaccine narrative, by misleadingly claiming it has ‘a correction’ (an expression of concern is not a correction; it is a concern):
The BMJ’s attempt at suppression is a bit more honest compared to other outlets: they express concern at the messaging. That’s right, the narrative isn’t to their liking, and they tattled on the authors as well (obviously in a desperate bid to get them fired or re-assigned):
They then go on to desperately try to “correct” readers not to dare interpret the data as reflecting negatively on the shots, in order to preserve their vaccine cult narrative, and literally try to contradict the evidence by claiming the shots work so well they reduce all the excess deaths that it… hasn’t actually reduced:
That’s such an incredible display of either major conflict of interest, that you’d draw the absolute opposite conclusion from the data.
There’s an increase in mortality post-poison shot rollout, but the shots work so well they reduce deaths by increasing the total number. Got it?
The Lengths Editors Will Go To In Order To Get Censorship
Note these editors typically have ties to the vaccine industry, and thus their own paypacket is at risk when these criticisms come through. Why waste time controlling reviewers when you can just control the handful of editors who can arbitrarily pull rank and retract?
And if they don’t get their way, use approaches like quitting your job and protesting, because that is how research (and not politics) is conducted.
Censorship Aims For Papers That Criticise Vaccines
Here’s some examples:
WITHDRAWN: Original Antigenic Sin in COVID-19: Hoskins Effect and Vaccine
Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines (Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, AKA the Wakefield paper)
Retraction Note: Murine hypothalamic destruction with vascular cell apoptosis subsequent to combined administration of human papilloma virus vaccine and pertussis toxin (read: HPV shots cause harms)
RETRACTED: Association of prior HPV vaccination with reduced preterm birth: A population based study
[Withdrawn] Spontaneous Abortions and Policies on COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Use During Pregnancy
[Retracted] The relationship between multiple sclerosis and recombinant hepatitis B vaccine
RETRACTED: The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy [correctly exposes the fact the shots were rushed through without safety data]
WITHDRAWN: Vaccine hesitancy in the University of Malta Faculties of Health Sciences, Dentistry and Medicine vis-à-vis influenza and novel COVID-19 vaccination [It was most likely withdrawn because it reveals the fact even medical professionals don’t want to get the poison shot]
There’s no doubt many more out there; either already retracted, or yet to be retracted due to obscurity. Many authors are bullied into withdrawing their work, or rewording it in such a way they remove the explicit criticisms of either the government narrative or vaccines, so we don’t even have a complete picture.
The sheer amount of censorship surrounding anything directly critical of status quo shows they cannot refute using evidence, but instead use retraction as a tool of censorship in order to discourage people finding the truth.
What do you think, dear reader?
Related Articles To Read
Found this informative?
Help inform?
Thoughts, dear reader?
The truth, in relation to healthcare and other matters, is coming out everywhere. The 'globalists' (for want of a better term) can generally rely upon the media simply not to report it.
Your article illustrates clearly another layer of the overall strategy: truths which ARE reported can be ignored provided they gain no traction. But if they do, then they must be retracted.
Thank you for your research and analysis.
'Excess Deaths' in the UK compared to pre-2020 stands at PLUS 8%.
+1% would cause concern. +2% would be extremely worrying and require a Public Enquiry!
8% is OFF THE SCALE but, because we all know why this number is so massive, the authorities hide the facts to allow the expensive deadly injections to continue to be marketed so the profits can be shared!
Plus 8% in Excess Deaths = No action!
If Pfizer et al, accepted LIABILITY Excess Deaths would slowly level off. I say 'slowly' because the damage has already been injected into unsuspecting vax recipients, who believed the lies and propaganda. Be warned the next Scamdemic is being prepared by the CORRUPT but defunct World Health Organisation who seem to favour MonkeyPox (MoneyPox) over Bird Flu. Both of which have been made more dangerous in laboratories using Gain of Function (DoD Bioweapon) technology.
You have been warned - NO MORE mRNA VACCINES, they are dangerous and can kill!
Unjabbed Mick. I'll live longer without corrupt medical intervention.