Groundbreaking Study Exposing Vaccine Dangers Gets Censored Off The Internet


When Big Pharma pushes lies, they cannot compete in the open and free market of ideas. This is why a recent groundbreaking study exposing vaccine dangers ran into trouble.

It was a simple approach: study the health differences between vaccinated children and their unvaccinated peers. 

However, when researchers concluded that there were health disparities facing vaccinated children, it wasn’t long before their study was removed from the site Open Access Text (OAT), which publishes scientific papers/research.

The study was very neutral in its intentions, even stating in the introduction:

Vaccines are among the greatest achievements of biomedical science and one of the most effective public health interventions of the 20th century. Among U.S. children born between 1995 and 2013, vaccination is estimated to have prevented 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 premature deaths, with overall cost savings of $1.38 trillion.

The authors did nothing out of the ordinary to prompt complete censorship.

According to The Free Thought Project, they reached out to one of the study’s lead authors, Anthony R. Mawson, to comment on the study’s removal from OAT. He said:

I am forwarding your inquiry to our funding agency for comment. I am not at liberty to provide details at this moment.

However, given the paper’s conclusions, it’s not difficult to speculate why it didn’t last online.

According to the study’s results:

Assessment of the long-term effects of the vaccination schedule on morbidity and mortality has been limited,” the study stated, with paragraphs artificially inserted for clarity. In this pilot study of vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschool children, reduced odds of chickenpox and whooping cough were found among the vaccinated, as expected, but unexpectedly increased odds were found for many other physician-diagnosed conditions.

Although the cross-sectional design of the study limits causal interpretation, the strength and consistency of the findings, the apparent ‘dose-response’ relationship between vaccination status and several forms of chronic illness, and the significant association between vaccination and NDDs [Neurodevelopmental disorders] all support the possibility that some aspect of the current vaccination program could be contributing to risks of childhood morbidity.

Vaccination also remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, whereas preterm birth, long considered a major risk factor for NDD, was not associated with NDD after controlling for the interaction between preterm birth and vaccination.

In addition, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD above that of vaccination alone. Nevertheless, the study findings should be interpreted with caution.

First, additional research is needed to replicate the findings in studies with larger samples and stronger research designs. Second, subject to replication, potentially detrimental factors associated with the vaccination schedule should be identified and addressed and underlying mechanisms better understood. Such studies are essential in order to optimize the impact of vaccination of children’s health.

The authors also added:

Although short-term immunologic and safety testing is performed on vaccines prior to their approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the long-term effects of individual vaccines and of the vaccination program itself remain unknown. Vaccines are acknowledged to carry risks of severe acute and chronic adverse effects, such as neurological complications and even death, but such risks are considered so rare that the vaccination program is believed to be safe and effective for virtually all children.

“Mawson and his team,” writes The Free Thought Project, “found vaccinated children significantly more likely their unvaccinated counterparts to be prone to allergic rhinitis (hay fever) [10.4% versus 0.4%], other allergies [22.2% vs. 6.9%], eczema/atopic dermatitis [9.5% vs. 3.6%], a learning disability [5.7% vs. 1.2%], ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) [4.7% vs. 1.0%], ASD (autism spectrum disorder) [4.7% vs. 1.0%], any neurodevelopmental disorder (learning disability, ADHD, ASD) [10.5% vs. 3.1%], and “any chronic illness” [44.0% vs. 25.0%].”


However, there were some ailments did not show any increase in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. These included depression, cancer, and many others.

At the end of the day, whether the study conclusively proves vaccines are dangerous, one thing is certain.

Censoring an alternative view off the face of the internet is no way to embrace the scientific method.

Unsurprisingly, this is not the first time the study was censored.

In 2016, it was taken down. It’s not hard to imagine there may have been political/ideological differences driving the censorship.

Mawson’s study also provided some graphics, seen here:


*Article originally appeared at David Wolfe.

Follow US

Erin Elizabeth


Erin Elizabeth is a long time activist with a passion for the healing arts, working in that arena for a quarter century. Her site is less than 2 years old but has already cracked the top 20 Natural Health sites worldwide. She is an author, public speaker, and has recently done some TV and film programs for some of her original work which have attracted international media coverage. You can get Erin’s free e-book here and also watch a short documentary on how she overcame vaccine injuries, Lyme disease, significant weight gain, and more. Follow Erin on FacebookTwitter, and Instagram.

P.S. You can subscribe to her Youtube Channel for breaking news, free blenders, giveaways and more
Follow US

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

  • KristenM

    “The authors did nothing out of the ordinary to prompt complete censorship.”

    Well, it wasn’t exactly “censorship”, it was retraction, and TWICE! Retraction is usually initiated when the journal editors discover anomalies in the submitted study like statistical incongruities, methodological errors, erroneous conclusions not supported by data, or even outright fraud or misconduct as in the case of Wakefield’s infamous MMR study. What’s funny here is the type of bottom feeding pay-to-publish on-line journals that twice retracted Mawson’s study typically have very low standards for accepting studies for publication.

  • A. Yoo

    Wakefield’s study has never been established as fraud/misconduct/etc.

    Your inaccurate, and libelous, comment about Wakefield illuminates the idiocy of your other comments.