This is Part 1 of my investigative series looking into how certain experts in science and medicine, who have not gone along with the ‘official Covid narrative,’ have experienced their reports being abruptly removed from publication or have been rejected from the start.
Dr Peter McCullough, MD, MPH, one of the most cited physicians in the world, an eminent practitioner of internal medicine, a cardiologist and epidemiologist, co-wrote a report with Dr Jessica Rose, Ph.D., virologist and epidemiologist in Canada, called ‘A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products.’
The report relied solely on the data supplied by the US VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), which was created by the US Food and Drug Administration and Center of Disease Control in 1990, to receive reports about adverse events (AEs) that may be associated with vaccines.
McCullough, along with Rose, examined the cardiac adverse events, mainly looking at myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) following injections of the first or second dose of the three Covid vaccines- Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen. Not only was their analysis of the VAERS’s data highly alarming, but the response they received from the scientific publishers, was equally disturbing.
Their report passed peer-review and was fully welcomed and accepted for publication by Dr Hector O. Ventura, editor-in-chief of the journal, Current Problems in Cardiology, on September 22, 2021. It was published online, ahead of print, on October 1, 2021, and on Elsevier- the world’s largest medical publisher.
However, on October 15, it was ‘temporarily removed’ from both Elsevier and the online version of the periodical, without prior notice given to the authors. A week later, Diana Goetz, associate publisher at Elsevier, informed the authors that the paper was to be permanently removed from the site. This news came only five days before the pivotal FDA meeting, to review whether to give approval for the Pfizer vaccine to 5–11-year-olds.
The main findings of the Myocarditis report:
The report highlighted: ‘It is vital to recall that children have a negligible risk for COVID-19 respiratory illness, and yet they are a high-risk group for myocarditis with vaccination.’
*2021: up to and including July 9, 2021
The surge in myocarditis cases in the US in 2021 (post vaccine rollout) can evidently be seen in comparison to previous years. Also, it’s clear looking at the graph below that younger age groups are much more affected by cardiac adverse events, primarily myocarditis.
Dr McCullough spoke to me with regards to the alarming findings of their report and in his opinion of Elsevier’s “cowardly acts of censorship.” He went on to say that “myocarditis is serious- I’m telling you as a cardiologist..There is clear cut evidence of heart inflammation being far greater than what we’d see with hospitalized Covid-19.”
McCullough cited the Tracy Høeg et al study, where a “child is more likely to be hospitalized from myocarditis from the vaccine than from Covid-19.” And “after second shot there’s been a recorded explosive increase in myocarditis.”
The study stated, ‘For boys 12-15 without medical comorbidities receiving their second mRNA vaccination dose, the rate of CAE is 3.7 to 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization.’
Based on the VAERS data below, strikingly, it’s young males who have been experiencing myocarditis, much more than any other age group and gender. I asked Dr McCullough the reason for this, his response was “there must be an interaction between the spike protein and human androgens or male hormones.”
In my October 26th interview with Dr McCullough, he explained that “this week is the FDA review for the Pfizer vaccine in children aged 5-11, so there couldn’t be a more important time to have a peer-review available for the world as well as for US leaders in Covid-19 to review.”
“We were shocked and appalled that Current Problems in Cardiology and its publisher, Elsevier took the paper down from the publication site..papers can only be withdrawn according to rules and the publication contract. They can only be pulled down if they’re scientifically invalid or have incorrect information-none of these criteria existed in this paper.”
He went on to offer the reason given by Elsevier for the removal of the report, “they didn’t think the paper was fully invited by the editor.” McCullough went on to make the serious claim, “Elsevier is illegally attempting to censor this paper- right at the moment when it’s needed the most, when the vaccine manufacturer is going to the US FDA and seeking approval for emergency authorisation use for children aged 5-11.”
It’s worth noting, Elsevier’s article removal policy, copied from their website.
Article removal: legal limitations
In an extremely limited number of cases, it may be necessary to remove an article from the online database. This will only occur where the article is clearly defamatory, or infringes others’ legal rights, or where the article is, or we have good reason to expect it will be, the subject of a court order, or where the article, if acted upon, might pose a serious health risk. In these circumstances, while the metadata (Title and Authors) will be retained, the text will be replaced with a screen indicating the article has been removed for legal reasons.’
It’s very hard to see how McCullough and Rose’s report met the criteria stated above, resulting in the abrupt removal of their report by Elsevier.
I sent a list of questions to Diana Goetz, associate publisher from Elsevier, about the removal of the report but she did not reply.
McCullough explained, “I still have not had anyone confront me or challenge me on these findings, or even an email exchange. The only thing that’s happened is events like this one with Elsevier, where they are, in a sense, cowardly and shameful acts of censorship- where the individual is attempting to censor out of fear…or attempting defamation- you can tell this not anywhere close to a collegial science interchange.”
When I asked him what his next steps going forward would be with Elsevier, he responded, “they will be named in a lawsuit- and there will be tremendous consequences. I can’t imagine the amount of negative press that Elsevier will receive with this overt act of censorship that’s timed perfectly to try and influence a decision regarding vaccination in children particular when the data indicates that children will be harmed more by the vaccine than helped.”
Vaccine failures
Dr McCullough went on to talk about the failures of the vaccines in preventing the transmission of Covid-19 and in making things “much worse.” He cited an observational study by Chau et al “where the vaccinated can spread and pass the virus to one another- which showed that the vaccines are nearly completely useless.” He cited a study done in China showing the estimated viral loads were x1000 times higher with the Delta variant than with prior variants in the unvaccinated era (before the vaccine rollout).
Myocarditis is a SAE (Serious Adverse Event)
Dr McCullough informed me that he told America on national TV, back in June, when the CDC and FDA had recorded 200 cases of myocarditis that it was neither rare nor mild. Myocarditis is a SAE (Serious Adverse Event) because “it can lead to either hospitalization, death, disability, or what could have caused death.” As of October 15, the case figure has jumped to a shocking 10,304 individuals. He stated, “I think it’s disingenuous that our public health officials from the CDC and the FDA have categorized this syndrome as both rare and mild.”
“The Trusted News Initiative was a railroading of the world into mass vaccination.”
When I asked what he thought about the apparent war on information going on right now- given the current climate of censorship, McCullough’s response was “it’s very clear there are vaccine stakeholders. There are entities that have staked everything in the pandemic response on the vaccines and this includes world governments and departments of public health- a large powerful consortium of vaccine manufactures and entities relating to them, the bankers, the stockholders, major media. In fact, this was announced with the Trusted News Initiative, which basically stated that this consortium was so powerful that it was going to overtly censor any information that would lead to vaccine hesitancy, no matter how unsafe the vaccines were- that meant squashing any information on vaccine safety and any information on treatment of Covid-19, so individuals could not understand that there was a treatment option.”
McCullough made it clear that in his opinion, censorship of the science by Elsevier and Current Problems in Cardiology is what he had experienced first-hand.
Alarmingly, on the same day of the interview, on October 26th, the FDA panel voted to formally recommend that children aged 5-11 be authorized to receive Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine under emergency use authorization. At the meeting, Dr Eric Rubin of Harvard University admitted “We’re never going to learn how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it, and that’s just the way it goes.”
