by Cassie B., Natural News:
The CDC believes that journals and scientists who carry out and print research with negative findings about COVID-19 jabs are problematic and must be addressed, emails show.
In one incident, a public health analyst for the Immunization Services Division of the CDC, Colin Bernatzky, pointed to a scientific study carried out by scientists from the U.S. and abroad that reached an unfavorable finding about undergoing repeated COVID-19 vaccination.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
The study, which was peer reviewed and published in the journal Vaccines, concluded that receiving multiple doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines resulted in higher levels of IgG4 antibodies and greater immune system vulnerability.
One of the study’s co-authors, Alberto Rubio Casillas, told The Epoch Times: “COVID-19 epidemiological studies cited in our work plus the failure of HIV, Malaria and Pertussis vaccines constitute irrefutable evidence demonstrating that an increase in IgG4 levels impairs immune responses.”
Not only did Bernatzky have a problem with the study’s conclusion, but he also criticized The Epoch Times for covering it, even while admitting to not being certain whether it was true or not.
In the email, he wrote: “At the very least, it seems like there’s some editorial recklessness going on, especially since the net result is that this research is being viewed as legitimate and is circulating widely. (And if the research is in fact legitimate, it should be on CDC’s radar).”
He said that much of the attention the study received likely came from the Epoch Times‘ coverage of it.
Casillas said that it is important to keep in mind that his team’s study needs to be viewed as a hypothesis rather than an indisputable conclusion, adding that the CDC never reached out to him and that their criticism was not warranted.
“It is important that health experts and the general public understand that we never categorically stated that, for example, such antibodies induce cancer. If you read our work, you will notice that throughout the article we used words that denote the nature of a hypothesis,” he clarified, adding that it is unacceptable to criticize their work based only on one’s opinion.
Bernatzky later provided colleagues with further evidence of what he felt were “potential threats to vaccine confidence” coming from journals and publications. He called out one paper about the impact of COVID-19 vaccines on the immune system for being written by “vaccine skeptics” like cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough. Bernatzky told his colleagues that these “systemic issues” with some scientists and publishers need to de addressed.
Dr. McCullough said he believes that “instead of emailing gossip between each other,” CDC officials should be holding open meetings to learn more about these matters from true professionals. He said this would allow them to “hear directly from the nation’s experts who learned how to treat acute ambulatory COVID-19 and who are now handling the tsunami of patients with COVID-19 vaccine injuries, disabilities and deaths.”
U.S. government has been working hard to silence vaccine critics
While it is not clear exactly how the CDC thinks the scientists who conduct high-quality studies that reveal problems with COVID-19 vaccines and the publications that cover these studies should be dealt with, we do know that the federal government has taken steps to suppress negative coverage of these vaccines in the past.
For example, the Biden administration pressured the social media platform Twitter to “suppress” and “elevate” users according to whether they were in favor of COVID-19 vaccines or not, effectively “censoring info that was true but inconvenient” to their pro-vaccine narrative. They also discredited doctors who spoke out about vaccine dangers as well as regular users.
One such critic was New York Times reporter Alex Berenson, who was censored over a tweet that said, in part: “It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t think of it as a vaccine.” This is something that has been proven repeatedly, but the government does not want people drawing attention to it.
