Censored Study of Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Accidentally Posted Online

For six hours on Valentine’s day, while some of us were having dinner or watching Netflix, a secret document was becoming less and less of a secret. A 34-page document was suddenly and seemingly accidentally made public.

Vaccination and Health Outcomes: A Survey of 6- to 12-year-old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children based on Mothers’ Reports, by Anthony R. Mawson. It was live and raw. It was for all eyes to view. The study was part of Dr. Mawson’s Public Health Initiative at Jackson State University in Mississippi. Some of the shared financing came from a group called Children’s Medical Safety Research and Generation Rescue, inc. The Government paid nothing.

The CDC / Government has claimed all along that they’ve been the ones heading up vaccine and autism studies and have in fact, “ended” the debate with a loud banging gavel hitting the oak bench podium desk.

So what was in the study? Well, some rather fascinating items, to say the least.

“In summary, vaccination, non white race, and male gender were significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors . . . Preterm birth combined with vaccination was a strong and synergistic factor for NDD in the final model, more than doubling the odds of NDD compared to vaccination alone.”

The study defined NDD as “Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and/or a learning disability.”

And things get worse from there, according to a blog article posted by James Grundvig.

Frontiers Journal received the study on September 17, 2016. After a two-month peer review process, published it on November 21 for its “68,000 on board editors” from institutions around the world (www.frontiersin.org), with the National Institute of Health (NIH) and Harvard University being the top two providing the science editors.

Over the course of four days, more than 80,000 views of the study found it important enough to read, going “viral” according to one familiar with its release. Then on November 28, the bottom fell out when Frontiers scrapped the publication. In one week, it went from being accepted, published, and then retracted. The abstract can still be found online.

The paper, however, wasn’t retracted; it was “unaccepted,” according to Mawson via email. That means Frontiers didn’t retract it, since it was never officially published. What’s left for a study after its accepted, reviewed 80,000 times in less than 100 hours? . . . Censorship.

Beyond that clarification, Mawson wrote: “I am not allowed to comment on the paper/work by my Dean.”

Melissa Cochrane, the communications manager for Frontiers Journal, replied in an email:

“As we have previously noted, this article was provisionally accepted but not published. In response to concerns raised regarding the abstract and the provisional PDF — which were made provisionally available online — Frontiers then reopened its review. Following further manuscript assessment by the Field Chief Editor of Frontiers in Public Health, in consultation with an external expert, the manuscript was subsequently rejected, not retracted as retraction can only occur once a paper has been officially published and indexed.

“The rejection was due to severe limitations in the validity of the results.”

She later change the status to “rejected.”

Here’s a direct copy of the original 34 page study. You can scroll through using the navigation at the bottom of the study.

And here’s a link to Saying No to Vaccines: A Resource Guide for All Ages, by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny.