If you read my Sunday Substack, you know I’m the keynote speaker at a 3-day holistic-health, solutions-minded conference just outside Atlanta, Georgia being held March 14 to March 17.
The conference is organized by Tia Severino. It will focus on healing, connecting, and inspiring people to lead their best and healthiest lives.
Yet try to go to the Next Steps website from certain browsers, depending on your IP address and anti-virus software, and you will be blocked.
Here’s the message one potential attendee, who uses Firefox as their browser, received the day after I sent the announcement via Substack:
We strongly recommend you do not continue
Visiting the Next Steps conference website may indeed be dangerous.
But not because there is any malware or viruses at the site.
The danger is to Big Medicine and Big Pharma.
When regular people start questioning things like the current childhood vaccine schedule; the safety of the mRNA vaccines; “routine” (albeit truly awful) procedures like infant male circumcision; the “health” benefits of infant formula (aka genetically modified artificial milk that fattens infants while simultaneously sickening them); the need for antibiotics and other commonly prescribed or recommended medications; Big Pharma faces Big Losses.
Not just financial losses.
Losses to the egos, core beliefs, and sense of purpose of every person working in the conventional medical industry.
The cognitive dissonance is too painful to face. I stubbornly choose to continue to believe that many (most?) of the people who make up these industries have good intentions (in addition to wanting to enjoy their luxury condominiums in downtown Boston).
They actually believe they’re doing the right thing.
So, in their minds, they are SILENCING the dissent in the interest of the greater good.
They must save you, my dear reader, from yourself. As you, love, are too stupid to get ALL the information, sift through it, and make an informed decision for yourself.
A tsunami of censorship
Given this context, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised at the tsunami of censorship happening now.
Some of it is subtle. Like AI programmed to block access to websites (including my own) or deleting posts from social media that champion vaccine safety.
My posts about ivermectin, the harm doctors do to babies at so-called “well baby” visits, vaccine safety issues, and even the importance of breastfeeding have been deleted from LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Medium, and even Pinterest (Pinterest?! M’okay).
I’ve also been suspended from using these platforms for various amounts of time.
Facebook jail and I go way back.
Some of the censorship is even more insidious, like apologists who work for mainstream newspapers journalists refusing to interview medical doctors whose opinion differs from that of the status quo. Or editors refusing to publish op-eds that criticize vaccines or champion vaccine safety for fear of losing advertising revenue.
And some of the censorship is downright pernicious, including retracting scientific information that has gone through extensive and exhaustive peer review.
Such a paper was published by an international team of seven scientists in the journal Cureus.
It had no fewer than eight peer reviewers before it was accepted for publication.
This is an uncommonly high number. Three is the norm.
Meticulously researched and exhaustively sourced, the paper detailed how the mRNA vaccines have caused more deaths than lives saved. It also called for a global moratorium on the mRNA vaccines.
Here’s the abstract in its entirety:
Abstract: COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign
Our understanding of COVID-19 vaccinations and their impact on health and mortality has evolved substantially since the first vaccine rollouts. Published reports from the original randomized phase 3 trials concluded that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could greatly reduce COVID-19 symptoms. In the interim, problems with the methods, execution, and reporting of these pivotal trials have emerged. Re-analysis of the Pfizer trial data identified statistically significant increases in serious adverse events (SAEs) in the vaccine group. Numerous SAEs were identified following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), including death, cancer, cardiac events, and various autoimmune, hematological, reproductive, and neurological disorders. Furthermore, these products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing in accordance with previously established scientific standards. Among the other major topics addressed in this narrative review are the published analyses of serious harms to humans, quality control issues and process-related impurities, mechanisms underlying adverse events (AEs), the immunologic basis for vaccine inefficacy, and concerning mortality trends based on the registrational trial data. The risk-benefit imbalance substantiated by the evidence to date contraindicates further booster injections and suggests that, at a minimum, the mRNA injections should be removed from the childhood immunization program until proper safety and toxicological studies are conducted. Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits. Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.
So-called fact checkers spread fiction
Published at the end of January, the Cureus paper started getting worldwide attention. Also unusual in the field of medical science.
Like cockroaches to kitchen crumbs, the “fact checkers” then came out in full force.
Their modus operandi was first to try to discredit the authors.
Never mind that this team includes a senior research scientist from one of the top three research institutions in the United States and quite possibly the world (MIT, anyone?); an internationally recognized cardiologist who has won dozens of scientific and medical achievement awards; and a director of genomics with over 150 peer-reviewed articles under his belt.
They’re all quacks!
Kooks!
Spreaders of misinformation!
The so-called fact checkers’ second strategy is to discredit the science or content in some way.
Because, you know, an AI robot programmed by Meta or a journalist working for a Big-Pharma-funded news outlet or an editor who is not an expert but is likely in the pocket of Big Pharma and/or Big Medicine in some way definitely know more about medical science than _______ [<<== fill in the blank: a team of international researchers who have nothing to gain but everything to lose for championing vaccine safety; an internationally recognized journalist studying a controversial subject for over two decades; a parent with a child who died...]
Stunning acts of scientific censorship
In a March 2, 2024 Substack post, Dr. Peter McCullough and his co-author call the retraction a “stunning act of scientific censorship.”
What you need to know is that this is just the latest and greatest of the systematic attempt being made to silence us.
No, we won’t stop talking
The team of researchers are currently pursuing other publication options and the paper, with the words RETRACTED on top of it, is still available on-line.
Those of us who are motivated by what is right, not by what is most lucrative or conformist or comfortable, cannot be silenced.
We aren’t speaking out against Big Pharma because we want to be Davids up against Goliath. And, goodness knows, we’re also not in it for the money, fame, or fortune… (though I’ve been accused of that many times, as have my colleagues in the crime of spreading the truth…)
We’re speaking out because we care.
We actually care about the science and want to help others understand it as well.
And/or we’ve been devastated by losing loved ones to medical malfeasance and we’re trying to keep others from the sheer agony we’ve been through ourselves.
And/or we’ve found more natural ways to heal and we’re excited to share these new ways forward.
I asked Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., why she keeps poking the bear when it comes to hot-button topics like vaccine safety, autism, and environmental pollutants that are industry cash cows, in particular glyphosate.
“Why do I persist? I am extremely concerned about the future of our country in regards to the health of our children,” Seneff, who is one of the co-authors on the retracted paper told me when I reached her by phone at her home in Hawaii.
“I feel I have to speak out as often and as much as I can to try to get past this devastating situation that we’re in with regard to toxic exposures to our kids.”
About the author: Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., is an award winning science journalist and the author/co-author/editor of eight books. Her work has been published in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Smithsonian magazine. Support independent journalism by becoming a paid subscriber to her Substack, Vibrant Life.
Related articles:
Censorship in America is Getting Out of Hand
Censorship Spreads: Medium Says “No Go” to a Reprint
Have You Been Exposed to Glyphosate? Without a Doubt
There is plenty of censorship going on, but Firefox took me to https://next-steps.info/ with no problem. Perhaps it's your ISP, or some add-on you have.
Jennifer - Steve Kirsch is suing Springer-Nature for $250M for retracting their paper.
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/were-suing-springer-nature-for-250m