Long Post-Vaccination Censorship

 This article discusses the experiences of Eyal Shahar regarding the rejection of his letters about Covid mRNA vaccines and the influence of censorship on scientific discourse.

1. Background Context:

• Four years have passed since the introduction of Covid mRNA vaccines, which are said to have saved lives. Shahar reflects on his attempts to share insights and critiques about these vaccines through letters to biomedical journals, all of which have been rejected.

2. Rejection of Letters:

• Shahar notes that his letters have been systematically rejected by various prestigious journals, including the Journal of Infection and The Lancet. He suggests that the rejections may stem from the journals' reluctance to publish potentially controversial findings.

3. Discussion of Findings:

• Shahar references a study from Austria that explores the healthy vaccinee bias, where vaccinated individuals are generally healthier than the unvaccinated. He argues this affects the evaluation of vaccine effectiveness and raises questions about the accuracy of current mortality data related to vaccination.

4. His Letter’s Content:

• In the letter he submitted to the Journal of Infection, Shahar calls for a deeper analysis of vaccine outcomes over extended time periods post-vaccination. He critiques the methods used to assess mortality rates associated with Covid and proposes that further investigation is warranted.

5. Response from Journal:

• Shahar shares an impersonal rejection from the Journal of Infection, noting that it lacked specificity and was crafted for rejected manuscripts rather than letters. This raises questions about the editorial processes for letters versus more formal submissions.

6. Statistical Analysis:

• The article presents data related to Covid and non-Covid mortality based on vaccine doses received. Shahar emphasizes that matching vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals on various demographics helps to eliminate certain biases in the findings.

Eyal Shahar's experience reveals ongoing challenges regarding the publication of scientific criticism, particularly related to Covid vaccines. His rejections may reflect broader issues of censorship within academic publishing, suggesting a need for more open discussions and analyses of vaccine data to ensure transparency in the scientific community. 

https://brownstone.org/articles/long-post-vaccination-censorship/