Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news. Subscribe now.
January 21, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) —A “frustrating and embarrassing” process has led a team of New Zealand researchers to retract a 2018 study that claimed the HPV vaccine significantly lessened chances of preterm birth and pre-eclampsia.
The paper, “Association of prior HPV vaccination with reduced preterm birth: A population based study,” was published in the journal Vaccine.
The retraction notice reads as follows:
This paper is being retracted at the request of the authors. The authors report that there was an incorrect interpretation of the odds ratio meaning that instead of HPV vaccination potentially being protective, there may be an associated increased risk of preterm delivery. The authors believe that an increased risk of preterm delivery is unlikely and not consistent with the evidence to date. Further, the authors have not been able to access the original source data as per protocol to check the data validity. The authors wish to repeat the study to reassure themselves that there were no data processing or other errors in the databases in order to reach definitive conclusions.
Sociologist and author Mark Regnerus clarified just how misleading both the interpretation of data and the retraction notice were on his Facebook page.
“[It] Appears the effect was the reverse of what was reported, that is, HPV vaccine didn't modestly reduce preterm birth, but instead increased risk of it (odds increase of 13%, I believe). In the retraction notice, the authors attempt to downplay the (statistical and substantive) significance of what they had previously chosen to highlight, before offering an unacceptable explanation that they couldn't access the data anymore,” Regnerus said.
Dr. Noelyn Hung, of the University of Otago, Dunedin School of Medicine and the senior author of the paper, told retractionwatch.com that a reader pointed out the erroneous statistics, triggering a review of the paper.
“[E]ssentially we had a rather inexperienced person (a statistics PhD candidate) who did the analysis – and probably inverted a data set – and then we couldn’t verify and start again with the raw data because our source declined to give it to us again. We complained. And complained to ethics. But to no avail. We decided to retract when we couldn’t start again with the raw data and guarantee the results,” Dr. Hung said.
**Photo credit: Shutterstock.com
Mainstream media sources are promoting offensive suggestions by some doctors that people who refuse a vaccine for COVID-19 should be "punished" by the government and by business - effectively coercing them into taking the vaccine.
- One group of doctors writing in 'USA Today' suggested that the government impose special taxes (i.e., fines) on people who refuse the vaccination and that business simply refuse to serve them. [see story below]
- Another doctor writing in an online publication called 'The Conversation' shamelessly suggested that people who refuse a vaccine should be given a psychoactive drug to induce compliance. [see story below]
But, these suggestions are plain political posturing, and have nothing to do with science or with the recent trends of the disease.
And, in case they haven't noticed, we live in a democracy not a medical dictatorship!
Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks policy-makers and business people, at all levels, to pledge to respect the rights of those who, in good conscience, decide not to vaccinate themselves or their children.
People should not have to live in fear of governmental or corporate retribution for refusing a vaccine which is being rushed to market by Big Pharma and their fellow-travelers in NGOs, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
It would be intolerable and immoral for the government or business to coerce someone, and their family, to take a COVID vaccine against their will to avoid a fine, or just so they can do their weekly grocery shopping.
Medical freedom must be respected in principle and also in practice.
So, it is now time that our policy-makers listen to all voices involved in this vital conversation, and start to represent those who will not tolerate being punished for refusing a vaccine.
Simply put, legislatures must begin to act as legislatures again.
Questions must be asked. Hearings and investigations must be held. And, the legislatures of each state and country must return to the business of representing the people who voted for them, assuming their rightful place as the originator of legislation.
We can no longer accept the dictates of executive branches without question, especially now that, statistically speaking, the initial brunt of the COVID crisis has passed.
Neither can we accept the dictates of doctors who seem detached from reality and from science, and who only seem to be attached to the idea of promoting ideas which contribute to the agrandizement of power and control of political interests, and wealth of those who stand to make a lot of money from the sale of a COVID vaccine.
Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks government and business leaders to pledge to respect the rights of those who refuse a COVID vaccine, and not seek to punish them for doing so.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
'Doctors lay out plan to ‘punish’ people who refuse coronavirus vaccine: ‘There is no alternative’' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctors-lay-out-plan-to-punish-people-who-refuse-coronavirus-vaccine-there-is-no-alternative
'US professor: ‘Psychoactive pill’ should be covertly administered to ensure lockdown compliance' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-professor-ensure-lockdown-compliance-by-drugging-dissenters-with-psychoactive-pill
A second reason for the paper’s retraction is that Beverley Lawton, one of the authors, has received conference and educational grants from pharmaceutical company CSL Biotherapies, which sells the HPV vaccine in New Zealand.
According to the retraction notice the conflict of interest statement containing this information was only added to the paper “after acceptance and was not made visible to the editor or reviewers prior to acceptance. The authors state that there was no input to the methodology, implementation and results of this study by any commercial entity.”