Head on over to Peter McCullough’s Substack for the details and please consider subscribing to his Substack. He’s terrific, a great friend, a great scientist, and a man of great courage.

This is a pre-print so not yet peer-reviewed.

Here is the:

1. Abstract
2. Paper (hosted on the Daily Skeptic)
3. Daily Skeptic rticle about the removal in <24 hours after being posted

The paper had about 30,000 views in 24 hours (about 20 views per minute) before The Lancet removed the paper saying: “This preprint has been removed by Preprints with the Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.”

What is astonishing to me is that they were able to determine that so quickly!!!

Normally, peer review takes months. The Lancet has shown that errors meriting removal can be determined in just 24 hours.

But we don’t have a clue what the errors were because they didn’t tell us and they didn’t tell the authors either. They didn’t even give the authors a chance to respond!!!

They basically unilaterally decided the paper’s conclusion wasn’t supported by the methods and they weren’t interested in any response from the authors before taking action.

The paper shows 74% of deaths post-vax could be attributed to the vaccine being a cause of death. And most of the deaths happened within 1 week of vaccination.

The results are strongly consistent with the Schwab paper where 71% of the deaths appeared to be consistent with a vaccine death:

They basically were looking for the “cleanest” proof of death, but it’s likely that all 71% of the cases (25 out of 35) died from the vaccine, it’s just harder to “prove” that.

The question we all should be asking is why are we first hearing about these cases now? How could all of the CDC’s analyses show no relation to the vaccine? And why aren’t we allowed to see the CDC’s analyses?

Source