TELL FRONTIERS TO PUBLISH MAWSON OR LOSE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE INDEX

frontiersinpublichealth

Just one week after it was accepted for publication, the below study showing increased autism diagnoses in vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children was pulled from the journal’s website. Please send the letter below to the publisher urging reinstatement of the study’s publication: editorial.office@frontiersin.org

Dear Frontiers,

I write to protest your ongoing censorship of legitimate scientific research accepted by one of your medical journals currently indexed in the US National Library of Medicine’s archives. That research lends credence to the fact that vaccines are causing the autism epidemic, a concern voiced repeatedly by President-Elect Donald Trump.

On November 28th, Frontiers in Public Health deleted the scientific abstract of Vaccination and Health Outcomes: A Survey of 6- to 12-year-old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children based on Mothers’ Reports by Mawson et al. This study found that the odds of a diagnosis for autism or other related neurological disorder was significantly higher in vaccinated children than in unvaccinated children. The abstract was deleted after the study was already accepted for publication – a violation of your open access policies.

You are now considering blocking the paper’s publication even after post-peer review acceptance, thanks to online attacks from Twitter users who have neither read the study nor produced any inside knowledge about the study that would prove its findings to be invalid. You also lied to its readers that the publication was “provisionally accepted,” yet the abstract before it was deleted simply listed the study as “accepted” alongside a digital object identifier before it was taken down: http://www.autisminvestigated.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Screen-Shot-2016-11-28-at-09.36.00.png

Your guidelines also state that a study is not uploaded online until after final acceptance: http://home.frontiersin.org/about/review-system

Particularly disturbing is that this is happening in spite of the election of Donald Trump, who said in last year’s Republican Debate that “Autism has become an epidemic.” He subsequently elaborated:

“Just the other day, two years old, two and a half years old, a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back, and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.

I only say it’s not — I’m in favor of vaccines, do them over a longer period of time, same amount.

But just in — in little sections. I think — and I think you’re going to have — I think you’re going to see a big impact on autism.”

This study helps confirm what President-Elect Trump expressed concerns about. The same Twitter users who slammed Mr. Trump for his vaccine remarks are also trying to bully you into not publishing this vaccinated versus unvaccinated study. Please do not let that happen.

Any journal or academic publisher that retroactively deletes a study accepted for publication from public domain and reverses its decision to publish based on political pressure from social media is undeserving of index in the National Library of Medicine. In January, President-Elect Trump will be in charge of all US federal agencies, including NLM that currently lists your publications.

Sincerely,

[your name here]

screen-shot-2016-11-28-at-09-36-00

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

47 Thoughts on “TELL FRONTIERS TO PUBLISH MAWSON OR LOSE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE INDEX

  1. Lawrence on November 30, 2016 at 12:04 pm said:

    I would have thought, given your study in Epidemiology, that even you would realize the problems with this “study” – including selection bias, small sample size, anonymous reporting, non-confirmation of submissions, no access to medical records, etc.

    • Many, many studies are small and rely on self-reported data – I don’t hear your ilk complaining about them. When you people don’t like the results from your own studies, you throw them in the garbage. When you don’t like the results of studies conducted by genuine scientists, you bully journals into retracting them.

      But if Frontiers ends up retracting this study, their days in the National Library of Medicine are numbered. Either way, your efforts will be for nothing.

      • Lawrence on November 30, 2016 at 10:11 pm said:

        “My efforts?”

        And no, “many” legitimate studies do not rely on self-reported data, and they certainly don’t rely solely on online questionnaires either, from a population which it is already known has a bias against vaccines.

        And I just love watching your continued tilting at windmills – I’m sure your “threats” have the journal editors just shaking in their shoes….

        • Yeah, your efforts.

          So in other words, some legitimate studies do rely on self-reports; you also admit you don’t like the results because they lend support to healthcare practices you don’t like. That rubbishes your whole argument for a retraction, which is only supposed to happen when the results are proven to be based on error or fraud – not because you don’t like what the study says. You keep it up with these political faketractions, and you’re not going to undermine vaccine skeptics. You’re just going to undermine peoples’ faith in medical journals at a time when mainstream media has already lost whatever credibility it had left. You can’t say peer-reviewed journals are the only reliable source for scientific research and at the same time show total contempt for the peer review process by staging academic boycotts on Twitter and blogs.

          And as I’ve said before – if this journal’s editors are smart, they’d be nervous.

          • Larry Fitz on December 1, 2016 at 3:04 am said:

            Even if I was the most ardent anti-vaxxer in the free world this is quite possibly one of the worst surveys (yes, it’s NOT a study) I’ve ever seen and I’m seen almost MILLIONS in my 30 years of research. From the sample size, to the sample crowd (mostly homeschooled mothers with anti-vax leanings who came to the online survey via anti-vax sites) to the person doing the study, it literally and figuratively STINKS of bias. In fact, it’s so horrifically bad that it may set back anti-vaxxers for GENERATIONS. And they spent how much on this garbage? There’s not even any provable data, just recollections from the samples they specifically chose!!! I mean, anyone who has even taken a 4th grade science lesson would realize this is utter rubbish. Not only should it have been thrown out but anyone associated with it should be prevented from ever practicing science or medicine for the rest of their lives! Dear god sir, have you no common sense??? Have you NO decency to humanity???

            • “mostly homeschooled mothers with anti-vax leanings” – And that’s what makes you nuts doesn’t it? After years of claiming a vaccinated v. unvaccinated study cannot be done, along comes that very study that lends support to anti-vaxxers’ choices.

              And after years of dismissing all the emails, meeting minutes and grey lit uncovered through congressional subpoena and FOIA on the pretense that they are on blogs like Autism Investigated and not in “peer-reviewed” journals, you folks try to get a journal to permanently censor a peer-reviewed study by launching a campaign of intimidation and hate through Twitter and blogs.

              • Larry Fitz on December 1, 2016 at 4:55 am said:

                I know a ton of anti-vaxxers who are mourning this study as it will easily set them back decades if not centuries. All the money spent, all the hard work, the hours poured into a cause and then this is the best they can come up with? This is akin to the online surveys that showed Trump won the first debate by 90%.

                Please stop insulting our intelligence by calling an online survey of cherry-picked homes a “study.” It insults anyone who understands science.

                • “This is akin to the online surveys that showed Trump won the first debate by 90%.” – Well he won the election.

                  • Larry Fitz on December 2, 2016 at 6:28 pm said:

                    But he got crushed in the first debate (by literally every scientific poll.) The poll on Breitbart.com was just an online survey of those who already liked Trump voting he won. Exactly the same thing as this online survey. Don’t you understand the difference between an online survey and a scientific study?

                    • And virtually every “scientific” poll of voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania predicted he’d get crushed in all those states. How did that work out?

                    • Larry Fitz on December 2, 2016 at 10:10 pm said:

                      I’m not sure you’re actually understanding my point. Most of the election polls were actually relatively accurate within the margin of error (she was ahead by about 2 points nationally and is currently ahead by 2.5 million and counting nationally.) The fact that Trump won two of those states by around 10,000 each isn’t such a major shocker since it was within the margin of error.

                      My point is that conservative website had “online polls” after the first debate where people who WERE ALREADY TRUMP SUPPORTERS could vote on who won the first debate. Who do you think most voted for? Do you think Trump actually won the first debate and if so was it by 90%? Obviously not and nobody took those online surveys seriously. Why you are doing that now is likely because the survey points to something you want so desperately to believe.

                    • I’m not even going to waste time addressing all the nonsense and falsities in your comment, except to say that whether a child has autism or has ever been vaccinated are much more objective questions to answer than who won a presidential debate.

                    • Larry Fitz on December 3, 2016 at 6:33 pm said:

                      But that’s not my point. You’re dodging my point by changing the subject. Nothing in my comment was false. Literally nothing. You can go back and fact check everything I said and you’ll find it was 100% true. Online conservative websites ran online surveys to see who won the first debate and GUESS WHAT? Trump won ALL OF THEM. Scientific studies were done by other networks and news agencies and guess what? CLINTON WON ALL OF THEM. Those are facts.

                      Same deal here. Online survey with anti-vaccination groups and people behind them…GUESS WHAT? Anti-vaxxer type results. Scientific studies done for decades by actual scientists and medical researchers. Guess what? Science-type results that anti-vaxxers disagree with.

                      The word “cherry-picking” was created for moments like these. Because when you dismiss three decades and hundreds of scientific studies for one online non-scientific study of 600 or so people you are cherry picking by the very definition of the world.

                      And that’s okay. You’re allowed to cherry-pick as it’s a free country. But don’t complain when nobody takes you seriously when you do.

                    • You’re actually totally wrong about most of the polls being close in the “Blue Wall” states Trump won. But yeah I get what you’re saying, and you’re actually defeating your own argument without even realizing it. The fact that Clinton News Network had her winning all the debates further showed how ridiculous those polls were – skewed to favor people who liked the status quo and wouldn’t have bigger issues to worry about than what Trump said about a former Miss Universe contestant two decades ago. The election results proved it was the conservative online sites that were more accurate, given that people in those polls would be people relatively new to the political process who Trump reached out to.

                      That being said, Mawson’s study was a scientific survey – not an “online” survey as you called it. The study was partially funded by online donations, but it was not an online poll passively asking readers questions as you so dishonestly portray it. And there are other studies implicating thimerosal. Also, there are not hundreds of studies to support what you say – but a few fraudulent ones done by CDC-anointed researchers like fugitive Poul Thorsen and Thompson’s lying colleagues. Overall, your assessment of research on this topic completely distorts reality much like the election polls – what a surprise…

                    • Larry Fitz on December 4, 2016 at 5:00 am said:

                      You really like running in (nonsensical) circles, don’t you? Almost 100% of what you replied with is factually inaccurate. So I’m not sure why I even argue with someone who basically thinks if he repeats a lie often enough, someone reading might take it as truth.

                      I’m not talking about CNN’s poll showing Clinton won the first debate. EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC POLL ANYWHERE had her winning, even Trump’s campaign admitted as much. It was the complete consensus that she won EVERYWHERE. But obviously if you question trump supporters, they’re going to tell you differently. Again, I’m not talking about the 2nd or 3rd debate (where she also won most every poll but not by as much.) But come on now, the first one was brutal for Trump.

                      The final Real Clear Politics national poll was pretty accurate when it came to the final popular vote (she’s leading by 2.5 million as of now.) Certainly it was within the margin of error.

                      And yes, whether you want to believe it and/or accept it there are hundreds if not thousands of safety studies on vaccines from ALL OVER THE WORLD having NOTHING TO DO with the CDC or even the United States, hundreds of these are INDEPENDENT and some are even done by ANTI-VACCINE organizations like Safe Minds. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM REFUTES EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT YOU’VE EVER MADE IN YOUR LIFE.

                      But yes a pulled online survey that has EXTREMELY questionable origins, funding and calculations of about 600 people is going to erase those hundreds of independent, worldwide, non-CDC, studies because you say so?

                      Okay, I think you win the argument.

                    • Whatever polls you claim showed Hillary winning were obviously garbage at indicating how the election would go for the reasons I just described, whether she won the meaningless popular vote (assuming everyone in places like California voted legally) or not. In fact virtually all online polls – not just conservative sites – showed Trump winning that debate. I remember her campaign claiming at the time that it was because they were all dominated by Trump supporters, but then again where were all of her own supporters? They could have just as easily taken part in all those online polls too but didn’t, just like how they could have also gone to her rallies which couldn’t fill bus stations. The first debate was devastating for Trump only if you count the opinions of voters who are fans of Alicia Machado.

                      It’s clear that you have a totally distorted view of evidence based on your opinion. There are not hundreds of studies disproving a vaccine-autism connection, there simply aren’t. There sure as hell aren’t thousands. What studies do purport no connection did show a connection, the results were just thrown in the garbage or spun as negative like the study just released that showed a risk from flu vaccination in the first trimester. The same applies to the study funded by SafeMinds – totally not an anti-vaccination group btw.

                      I’ve reached the point where I’m going to cut you off now because you don’t have anything new to say, you just come back restating your wild opinion even more ridiculously than before.

        • “And no, “many” legitimate studies do not rely on self-reported data, and they certainly don’t rely solely on online questionnaires either, from a population which it is already known has a bias against vaccines.”

          Oh, you mean like how you and the rest of the sycophants at Resentful Idiots praised the British study from a few years ago that showed that the prevalence of Autism was the same in adults as it is in children? The one that used ADOS, surveys, and self reporting?

          Good to know you don’t think that study is legitimate, either.

  2. Deborah on November 30, 2016 at 4:43 pm said:

    Jake,
    The link goes to a godaddy generic page.

  3. Jake, the study was never published. Only the abstract was published. However, the idea that anyone would find a survey of mother’s memories of health episodes and diagnoses valuable was criticized greatly and Frontier pulled the abstract. One of the things that got criticized is the fact that the study was reviewed by two persons and one was a chiropractor. That is not a peer review. Not by a long shot. The main author of the study is a PhD in epidemiology. A chiropractor is not his peer.

    That is all they did. Maybe they will still publish it? Maybe not. Why don’t you let the process work itself out.

    Or, you can contact the author and have the study published on your blog. Frontier doesn’t have to listen to your threats at all.

    • In the world of autism, parents and chiropractors have proven themselves to be far more competent than most physicians. They actually apply their own critical thought to their children’s health and to studies instead of blindly following a print-out cranked out by a crooked federal agency.

      There is no process here, just bullying and attacks by tweeps and bloggers who try to interfere with the peer review process of a journal when it publishes science they don’t like. I don’t see how Frontiers can be expected to remain indexed in the National Library after caving to such nonsense.

      • That may be your opinion but it is not universal. And it does not negate the fact that this type of study is considered very poor methodology. And it does not negate the fact that a chiropractor is not a peer of an epidemiologist.

        What I saw is criticism that led to the abstract being taken down and the study being put through another view.

        Then, you put forth a threat to the journal.

        I do agree that taking down the abstract so quickly was poor form. Just as having a chiropractor review an epidemiology study was poor form.

        • Well the study had already passed peer review and had been accepted, so publishing the abstract online is often the next step.

          I’m just telling them that what they will be facing will be far worse for them should they retract a study because of online attacks and threats of academic boycott via Twitter.

          • Lawrence on December 1, 2016 at 7:22 pm said:

            Facing what, exactly?

            Who is supposed to take this “action” that you think is going to occur?

            • Removal from the National Library of Medicine’s index, as this post makes clear.

              • Lawrence on December 1, 2016 at 9:15 pm said:

                By whom, exactly?

                • Word of advice – actually read past the headlines here. You might actually find that they answer your questions before you waste any of my time.

                  • Lawrence on December 1, 2016 at 10:16 pm said:

                    Word of advice, stop tilting at windmills.

                    Are you seriously implying that you believe you can make Trump take action against this journal? Really?

                    • Obviously, and you are awfully upset at this post for someone who is so sure that it will amount to nothing.

                    • Lawrence on December 1, 2016 at 11:03 pm said:

                      Actually, I just find it funny that you actually believe this.

                      Do you have some kind of hotline to Trump Tower you aren’t telling anyone about?

                      😉

                    • No, the White House.

                    • Lawrence on December 2, 2016 at 1:38 am said:

                      Please show us the citation that quotes Clinton “challenging” the election results.

                      And yes, I was wrong about the election.

                      But I am certain that you aren’t going to get what you want from him. If his actions are any indication, “Big Pharma” is about to get a whole lot less oversight, not more…..

                    • Boy were you ever…

                      She’s demanding recounts in three key states she lost.

                      Are you actually saying he’d be better for big pharma than Hillary, who got more pharma contributions than he did by an order of magnitude?

                    • Lawrence on December 2, 2016 at 11:28 am said:

                      Sorry Jake, but your guy has come out, over and over again, against expanded regulations and oversight.

                      In fact, he’s criticized the FDA specifically for taking too long to approve new drugs & whomever he appoints to head the agency will have the mandate for speeding up the process – meaning less oversight, not more.

                      If you believe that he’s going to do anything to increase oversight of any industry, you’re going to be very disappointed.

                    • That’s wholly separate from the vaccine issue, for which the problem is that the government is too big not too small.

                  • Lawrence on December 1, 2016 at 11:32 pm said:

                    Hahahahahaha….

                    Such a funny guy.

                    • Larry, do you remember what you said the last time you lurked on here?

                      “Oh well, it’s a shame that Trump’s outright disrespect for our Democratic institutions overshadowed all of the other outright falsehoods he stated during the debate.

                      I’m betting that Trump barely manages 100 electoral votes….”

                      How did your bet work out, Larry? Also – is it Trump or Clinton who is now challenging the election results after promising to accept them?

  4. Hans Litten on December 1, 2016 at 11:52 am said:

    For Larry

    http://www.naturalblaze.com/2016/11/vaccines-autoimmunity-doctors-reveal-turn-immune-system-against-us.html
    No one would accuse Yehuda Shoenfeld of being a quack. The Israeli clinician has spent more than three decades studying the human immune system and is at the pinnacle of his profession. You might say he is more foundation than fringe in his specialty; he wrote the textbooks. The Mosaic of Autoimmunity, Autoantibodies, Diagnostic Criteria in Autoimmune Diseases, Infection and Autoimmunity, Cancer and Autoimmunity – the list is 25 titles long and some of them are cornerstones of clinical practice. Hardly surprising that Shoenfeld has been called the “Godfather of Autoimmunology” – the study of the immune system turned on itself in a wide array of diseases from type 1 diabetes to ulcerative colitis and multiple sclerosis.
    But something strange is happening in the world of immunology lately and a small evidence of it is that the Godfather of Autoimmunology is pointing to vaccines – specifically, some of their ingredients including the toxic metal aluminum – as a significant contributor to the growing global epidemic of autoimmune diseases. The bigger evidence is a huge body of research that’s poured in in the past 15 years, and particularly in the past five years. Take for example, a recent article published in the journal Pharmacological Research in which Shoenfeld and colleagues issue unprecedented guidelines naming four categories of people who are most at risk for vaccine-induced autoimmunity.

    • Anonymous on December 4, 2016 at 3:30 am said:

      Another strange thing is the Clinton Foundation/Sanofi Pasteur has a Dr. Tim Alefantis, a relative of James the Comet Ping Pong owner mentioned in the Podesta files. These are a disturbed group of people.

  5. Hans Litten on December 1, 2016 at 12:28 pm said:

    Safe & effective (you damn scoundrels) :

    Regarding those who have had a previous adverse reaction to vaccines, the paper cites five relevant studies including the case of a death of a teenage girl six months following her third Gardasil injection against HPV virus. She had experienced a range of symptoms shortly after her first dose, including dizziness, numbness and tingling in her hands, and memory lapses. After her second injection, she developed “intermittent arm weakness, frequent tiredness requiring daytime naps,” worse tingling, night sweats, chest pain and palpitations. A full autopsy was unrevealing but blood and spleen tissue analysis revealed HPV-16 L1 gene DNA fragments – matching the DNA found in vials of the Gardasil vaccine against cervical cancer – “thus implicating the vaccine as a causal factor.” The DNA fragments had also been found to be “complexed with the aluminum adjuvant” which, according to the report, have been shown to persist for up to 8 to 10 years causing chronic immune system stimulation.

    “Although data is limited,” Shoenfeld and his colleagues concluded, “it seems preferable that individuals with prior autoimmune or autoimmune-like reactions to vaccinations, should not be immunized, at least not with the same type of vaccine.”

  6. Doug Troutman on December 2, 2016 at 12:29 am said:

    We all know vaccines cause injuries and the vaccine makers were losing lawsuits. This made their business not profitable. Its never really been about public health. Its about profit and the vaccines cause many different diseases for the industry to treat. The Larry guys can take as many vaccines as they want but I am opting out.

    • In fairness to the manufacturers, we already had an aggressive vaccine program pushing vaccinations with little regard to safety thanks to the Vaccination Assistance Act’s passage. Not that that absolves them of guilt.

  7. Pingback: Discover Magazine Rips Attacks on Vaxxed/Unvaxxed Study - Autism Investigated

  8. Pingback: Vaccines - Tantrum-Based Medicine

  9. Pingback: INFOWARS: Studies Prove Unvaccinated Children Healthier

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation