Dr. Spiro Pantazatos, a clinical neurobiologist and researcher at Columbia University who is now on leave, was a true believer in the vaccines prior to their release, vowing to remain on self-imposed lockdown until they were available to the public. But then he did what researchers are supposed to do: He started looking at data once the shots became widely available, and he found a disturbing connection between higher mortality and vaccinated people.
Notes the Rair Foundation: "While life insurance companies began screaming from the rooftops in the late spring of 2022, Dr. Pantazatos was well ahead of the game, producing a paper that demonstrated this link in October 2021. But nobody wanted to read his findings, and no medical journal would publish the paper."
He told Dr. Drew Pinsky during a recent podcast: “It was diplomatically rejected by many editors at medical journals."
In other words, the fix is in, and Western globalist elitists are going to continue pushing this vaccine regardless of its adverse health effects, for some reason.
Pantazatos noted that he did not have to look hard for the data to come up with his conclusions, because all of it was/is publicly available. “The number of deaths in each state correlated with the number of vaccinations administered in the previous month,” he said.
The foundation's report adds:
However, a basic tenet of data comparison and scientific research says that correlation does not mean causation. In this case, it gave medical journals the opportunity to dismiss his findings by saying that nobody knew if it was the vaccines causing these mortality spikes. But Dr. Pantazatos subsequently cross-referenced his data with that of VAERS deaths, which only strengthened his conclusion that vaccines and excess mortality are linked. His data show that in February, March, and April of 2021, excess mortality was only statistically noticeable in the older age groups.
"It was not until May that you start to see this in younger age groups,” he told Dr. Drew. “The fact that this pattern emerged from the data indicated to me that this is a real signal because that matches the temporal rollout.”
The real problem he ran into, however, was that no one was interested in seeing his data. Worse, others didn't want him to tell anyone, which is why they refused to publish his findings.
“When I first had these findings, I thought I had to get it to The Lancet immediately as they have a rapid publishing arm and even in-house statisticians. But they rejected it," he explained. Pantazatos appealed the publication's decision, noting that it wasn’t a standard COVID submission.
“I thought they’d want to get the information out there before the first booster shots," he wrongly concluded.
The physician-researcher went on to say that he really does not have a reasonable explanation for why he is continuing to be stonewalled by publishers regarding his findings, other than to suggest that -- at the time -- he may have just been too far ahead of the curve for others to accept.
“At the time, it was too against what everyone was saying. I think the journals have a fear of retraction. They were acting under peer pressure and had a fear of publishing something that was so different in its conclusions," he said.
It should be obvious by now that the fix was in from the outset that the vaccines were going to be used as a major control mechanism and to also 'thin the herd' of dependency among the major powers. Why else would serious medical journals want to hide these findings?