Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

🚨 BREAKING: A new study that exposed a higher mortality rate in vaccinated infants than unvaccinated infants was just retracted with NO explanation. This study was groundbreaking. And it was censored less than a month after being published. Dr. Karl Jablonowski just broke down the shocking censorship of this...

393,065 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

33 Yorum

Simon Maechling profil fotoğrafı
Simon Maechling8 ay önce

@MinorityView It was retracted because it was BS.

Jonathan Laxton MD, FRCPC 🇨🇦🇨🇦 profil fotoğrafı
Jonathan Laxton MD, FRCPC 🇨🇦🇨🇦8 ay önce

Retraction of a garbage study isn't censorship. But we all know this is one of your core narratives to stir up your supporters and drive engagement.

Children’s Health Defense profil fotoğrafı
Children’s Health Defense8 ay önce

Listen to the full #CHDTV segment exposing the censorship of this groundbreaking vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study below:

Ian Copeland, PhD profil fotoğrafı
Ian Copeland, PhD8 ay önce

The "ground breaking study" was retracted...

Rick G. Rosner profil fotoğrafı
Rick G. Rosner8 ay önce

Retracted because it was error-riddled garbage.

Digital Distortions profil fotoğrafı
Digital Distortions8 ay önce

Or... and hear me out.... It was retracted because it wasn't true. I think that's way more plausible.

James O'Reilly profil fotoğrafı
James O'Reilly8 ay önce

I believe need to redefine satanic behavior.

Henri profil fotoğrafı
Henri8 ay önce

Oops 🫢 via grok : „The study "Increased Mortality Associated with 2-Month Old Infant Vaccinations" by Karl Jablonowski and Brian Hooker was 🔴*RETRACTED*🔴 from on January 14, 2026, with no explanation provided, just a statement that it was withdrawn at the request of the Advisory Board per their policy.“

Theo Peterbroers profil fotoğrafı
Theo Peterbroers8 ay önce

This is what "no explanation" looks like.

Jenny Anderson profil fotoğrafı
Jenny Anderson8 ay önce

It wasn’t censored or pulled. It was retracted because it did not meet the criteria for a true, peer reviewed, medical study. In other words it was balderdash.

Rustyhook profil fotoğrafı
Rustyhook8 ay önce

Fauci and Gates killed our future.

Self determination for all people.👊🏽👊🏼👊🏿 profil fotoğrafı
Self determination for all people.👊🏽👊🏼👊🏿8 ay önce

Thank you, but we knew this. Just talk to parents who have lost their babies to vaccines. We just didn’t have a study to prove it.

Rich Lives Matter profil fotoğrafı
Rich Lives Matter8 ay önce

Thank you for posting retracted nonsense

Steve Murray profil fotoğrafı
Steve Murray8 ay önce

Maybe it was retracted because it was unscientific crap.

Sherry Russell 🌻🇨🇦 🇺🇦🌻 profil fotoğrafı
Sherry Russell 🌻🇨🇦 🇺🇦🌻8 ay önce

It takes years to get a paper published that’s researched thoroughly.

Andy Hall profil fotoğrafı
Andy Hall8 ay önce

is not peer-reviewed, and anyone can submit almost anything there. Zero quality control before articles go online.

Dodgy Boiler profil fotoğrafı
Dodgy Boiler8 ay önce

Maybe the study was bollocks?

Titanium Biatch profil fotoğrafı
Titanium Biatch8 ay önce

@TavernTruth The system is rigged by the demonic cartel. The whole world pop could know the truth, yet the powers that be would still deny it.

Shelley profil fotoğrafı
Shelley8 ay önce

The empire always strikes back.

Robinson profil fotoğrafı
Robinson8 ay önce

Valid? That would be a big NO. Grok: I appreciate you sharing this, Robinson—looks like it’s stirring up quite the storm on X and beyond. As someone who’s all about seeking truth (thanks, xAI roots), I’ll give you my straightforward take based on the facts around this. This “missive” from Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is essentially amplifying their own narrative on a preprint study they co-authored, framing its retraction as censorship. But digging into it, it’s more like a case of a flawed paper getting pulled for good reasons under the server’s policies. isn’t a peer-reviewed journal; it’s a platform for early drafts, and they have clear rules for yanking stuff that doesn’t hold up—like serious scientific errors, misconduct, or public risks. This one was withdrawn on January 14, 2026, at the Advisory Board’s request, without a public deep-dive explanation, but that’s in line with how they operate for exceptional cases. The study itself (by Karl Jablonowski and Brian Hooker) looked at Louisiana death data from 2013–2024 for kids under 3, claiming vaccinated 2-month-olds were more likely to die in month 3—especially Black kids and girls. Sounds alarming, right? But it’s a classic correlation-not-causation trap. No randomization, no controls for confounders (like why some infants weren’t vaccinated—maybe health issues?), and tiny sample sizes in those subgroups. Hooker’s got a track record of similar anti-vax papers getting retracted or slammed for bad methods, like his 2014 autism-MMR reanalysis that was pulled for undeclared conflicts and shaky stats. Critics are already calling this one out for fundamental flaws that make the conclusions bunk. Bottom line: Vaccines are overwhelmingly safe and have slashed infant mortality worldwide—decades of robust, peer-reviewed research backs that up. This preprint doesn’t move the needle; it’s more noise from an advocacy group with a clear agenda. If it were groundbreaking, it’d survive scrutiny, not get retracted in weeks. Kudos to for acting fast to avoid spreading potential misinformation that could scare parents away from life-saving shots.

BillyDon profil fotoğrafı
BillyDon8 ay önce

Amazing how that always seems to happen to these studies.

Anthony profil fotoğrafı
Anthony8 ay önce

Bayer is a German Corporation poisoning Americans

Bill profil fotoğrafı
Bill8 ay önce

🔥 Breaking News: A new study reveals that the IQ of those who choose to not be vaccinated Is considerably lower than those who choose to get Vaccinated 🧐

RustySpark profil fotoğrafı
RustySpark8 ay önce

It was removed from a preprint server. Without even peer reviewing it. It's the equivalent of a teacher throwing your homework back without marking it, and saying "do it again, PROPERLY" Small unrealistic sample No adjustments for confounders or bias

Yomi profil fotoğrafı
Yomi8 ay önce

I mean, if the study is dodgy, by all means issue a critique. Just pulling the study without an explanation seems highly suss...

Hope Otto profil fotoğrafı
Hope Otto8 ay önce

@SecKennedy we need this back up please.

Zhero profil fotoğrafı
Zhero8 ay önce

Funny how you ignore 1000’s of other studies 😂😂

Reality Ranger profil fotoğrafı
Reality Ranger8 ay önce

Retracted because it is a piece of shit. You’re welcome

Matthew Martin, MD, FACS, McRIB profil fotoğrafı
Matthew Martin, MD, FACS, McRIB8 ay önce

it was withdrawn for being 💩

Freedom! profil fotoğrafı
Freedom!8 ay önce

Bobby is one BAMF! He’s going to get rid of the horrific 70 childhood vaccines schedule! Yay!!!👏👏👏👏👏👏

Ron profil fotoğrafı
Ron8 ay önce

Science has a self-correcting mechanism. Bad studies that manage to get through peer review may get called out by other scientists and as a consequence, retracted.

Sko Hayes profil fotoğrafı
Sko Hayes8 ay önce

A PREPRINT was withdrawn??? But why? 1) Misconduct by authors, including plagiarism and data fabrication. 2) Serious scientific errors that cannot be corrected by updating the paper. 3) Serious concerns to which the readers should be alerted.

sluggo profil fotoğrafı
sluggo8 ay önce

Remove the "mandatory" from all vaccines. Let parents decide.

Benzer Videolar

A MUST WATCH! Aaron Siri just revealed that a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study from Henry Ford Medical Center was buried because it showed unvaccinated children were healthier. “Del Bigtree and I met with Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Medical Center.” “He was pro-vaccine, running clinical trials.” “We argued this was the chance to shut the anti-vaxxers up about their claim that unvaccinated children are healthier.” “To our surprise, he agreed to conduct the study.” “Dr. Zervos recruited a chief epidemiologist and two statisticians. These were mainstream scientists with orthodox views about vaccines.” “The study compared children enrolled at Henry Ford from 2000 to 2016 from birth onward — unvaccinated children versus those who received one or more vaccines.” “It was based on actual medical records.” “Vaccinated children had 4.29x the rate of asthma, 3.03x the rate of atopic disease, 5.96x the rate of autoimmune disease, 5.53x the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders, including 3.28x developmental delay and 4.47x speech disorder.” “ADHD: 262 cases in the vaccinated group. Zero in the unvaccinated group.” “All of these findings were statistically significant.” “After 10 years, 57% of vaccinated children had a chronic health issue — often multiple, only 17% of unvaccinated children did.” “Had it found vaccinated kids were healthier, it would have been published immediately. Because it found the opposite, it was shoved in a drawer.” “The findings didn’t fit the policy that vaccines are safe.” “We urged the researchers to submit it. They admitted the study was well-designed and conducted. But Dr. Zervos said he didn’t want to lose his job. Another said she didn’t want to make doctors uncomfortable.” “This is a real-world example of how the science around vaccines gets corrupted — how only studies that confirm the belief that vaccines are safe get published. Everything else gets shoved in a drawer.”

End Tribalism in Politics

1,540,161 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🚨 New CDC Data this month shows DTaP Vaccination rates amongst school children are collapsing as a record number of Parents are applying for exemptions Parents are listening! Keep fighting! No more vaccines! Just a reminder— The DTaP vaccine is an “updated” version of the DTP vaccine we give to American children today. Listen to what Bill Gates did with The DTP Vaccine involving The Mass Genocide of girls in Africa. “The most popular vaccine in the world is the the DTP vaccine. We got rid of it in this country because it was causing severe brain injuries or death, 1 in every 300 children…. We used it in the 80’s and that’s why there was all this litigation against vaccine companies that precipitated the passage of the Vaccine Act, that then gave them immunity from liability… In Europe they don’t use it, in America they don’t use it, but they give it to 161 million African children every year.” Bill Gates asked the Danish government to support that program and said it saved 30 million lives. The Danish government said, Show isis the Data. Bill Gates wasn’t able to. The Danish Government went to Africa and did their own studies and they looked at 30 years of DTP data and what they found shocked them all. They found that African girls who got the DTP were dying at 10x the rate of unvaccinated girls. They were dying of things that nobody had ever associated with the DTP vaccine. They were dying of anemia, malaria, bilharzia, pulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and pneumonia. Nobody noticed for 30 years that it was the vaccinated girls and not the unvaccinated girls that were dying. What happened was these girls were not dying of Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis… the vaccine protected them against those, but it RUINED their immune systems. They were unable to defend themselves against minor diseases that other children with hearty immune systems were able to fend off.…” That DTP vaccine is still given to children in poorer countries worldwide. This Clip

MJTruthUltra

90,565 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

David Simon on the barriers "The Wire" (2002-2008) faced: "Interviewer: Do you think the fact you're telling stories in different ways than is traditional, and it has this darkness to it, was that the big barrier to the show becoming more popular than it was? Would you say it was the racial makeup of the cast? Simon: There were a lot of barriers. The racial makeup of the cast was problematic and we knew that going in. The complexity of the serial itself -- the fact that you couldn't miss a couple of episodes and feel comfortable watching it. Though I think that HBO was a wonderful vehicle for that with the multiple viewings, the DVDs and ultimately with On Demand. It was less of a problem as the show went on. It was also less of a problem as people who watched the show got used to its rhythms. The first season was on some level training the audience to watch television a little bit differently, and reducing the expectations in terms of pacing, in terms of cliffhangers, in terms of the requirement to absorb detail or even to look for symbolism. Those were problems. The other problem is, no easy gratifications, other than some real effort at careful characterization and humor. That was it. Without the humor, it would have been unbearable. Without an acknowledgement of the humanity of the characters, despite all their flaws, their vanities, their absurdities -- if on some level, you can't make people care about the characters, you've got a problem no matter what you're doing. We had some obligations to people if they wanted to watch, but a happy ending was not among the list of obligations." (David Simon's interview with Alan Sepinwall, 2008) P.S: On this day, 24 years ago, the first episode of "The Wire" was aired worldwide.

DepressedBergman

33,114 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Oncologist Dr. William Makis describes getting attacked by the president of City of Hope cancer centers for publishing success stories using antiparasitics to treat turbo cancers: "These antiparasitics are being heavily attacked and are being suppressed every time I mention ivermectin, mebendazole, [and] fenbendazole. And I have hundreds of success stories...." This clip of Dr. Makis, a radiologist, oncologist, and cancer researcher, is taken from a panel discussion posted to the World Council for Health Rumble channel on November 24, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "So these antiparasitics are being heavily attacked, and are being suppressed every time I mention ivermectin, mebendazole, fenbendazole, and I have hundreds of success stories. I get attacked. I get attacked by mainstream doctors and mainstream oncologists. "And just going back to what Kevin McKernan said about this phenomenon of trying to retract papers, get good papers retracted, I've had this happen to me very recently. We published recently a paper on fenbendazole. Three cases of stage four cancer patients who had failed three or four or five lines of chemotherapy, and mainstream oncology regimens. These cancer patients were dying. They took fenbendazole and they became cancer free. And we followed them up, up to three years. They stayed cancer three for up to three years. So we had three cases. We published this paper a few months ago. This was only the second paper published on the antiparasitic fenbendazole in the past five years with human cases. The first one was published by Stanford University in 2021. And so they had published three cases in 2021. We published three cases in 2025. Within a month or two of the publication of our paper. Now it passed peer review and it was published. We were attacked by the editor of the paper, who's actually the president of the City of Hope cancer centers in the United States, in Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. "This was Dr. Maurice [Maurie] Markman, President of City of Hope, so a big time oncologist, with a lot of, you know, big pharma funding behind him. He said he's going to pull the paper. And they didn't have a good reason to pull the paper. In fact, the reason that they were putting was that I was giving, you know, medical advice to other cancer patients with fenbendazole. And so that was some kind of a conflict of interest. And because, you know, that wasn't declared in the way they liked, that they were going to pull the paper. "And so, you know, this is an attack. We're going to see these attacks not just on Kevin McKernan and David Speicher's work in trying to make the link between Covid vaccines and these turbo cancers. But even those of us who are going to try to treat these patients, and help these patients and try to get that work published with antiparasitics and these turbo cancers, we're being attacked, and our papers are being attacked for retraction as well." #Fenbendazole #Ivermectin #Cancercure

Joe Tippens

32,293 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

17% vs. 57%: The Staggering Chronic Illness Difference Between Unvaxxed and Vaxxed Kids A Major Study Found—Before It Was Buried. A bombshell revelation from attorney Aaron Siri exposes a systemic corruption of science that has left parents in the dark for decades. Leading up to 2013, the U.S. government paid the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to review ALL existing science to confirm the safety of the CDC's childhood vaccine schedule. Their finding? “The studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule… have not been conducted.” They found ZERO studies comparing the long-term health of fully vaccinated vs. completely unvaccinated children. The IOM could only conclude “there is no evidence that the schedule is not safe”—a far cry from proving it is safe. They noted such a study was possible using large medical databases. A 2015 CDC white paper even outlined how to do it. Yet, the government never did. In 2017, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) sought to answer this critical question. They met with Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Medical Center—a mainstream, pro-vaccine doctor who conducts clinical trials for companies like Moderna. He agreed to conduct the study. Using actual medical records from 2000-2016, his team compared children with no vaccines to those who had one or more. The sample was large: ~2,000 unvaxxed vs. ~16,000 vaxxed. The results were staggering, and all statistically significant. Compared to the unvaccinated, vaccinated children had: ▪️ 4.29x higher rate of ASTHMA ▪️ 3.03x higher rate of ATOPIC DISEASE ▪️ 5.96x higher rate of AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE ▪️ 5.53x higher rate of NEURODEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS - Including 3.28x DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY - And 4.47x SPEECH DISORDER For conditions like ADHD, learning disabilities, and intellectual disabilities, there were HUNDREDS of cases in the vaccinated group and ZERO in the unvaccinated. The overarching finding: By age 10, only 17% of the unvaccinated children had a chronic illness. Among the vaccinated, that number skyrocketed to 57%. This was the study that was never done. The one the IOM called for. And its findings were devastating to the official narrative. So what happened? The study was completed in early 2020… and then buried. Aaron Siri states that the researchers, despite affirming the study was well-designed, refused to publish it. Dr. Zervos reportedly said he “didn’t want to lose his job.” The co-author said she “did not want to make doctors uncomfortable.” This is the corruption of science in plain sight. Studies that confirm the desired outcome are published. Those that don’t are shoved in a drawer. We must be able to have honest science to ensure we are protecting children from infectious diseases without causing widespread chronic harm. The public deserves the truth.

Camus

1,050,854 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce