A troubling new trend is arising in published science. Why aren’t the conclusions matching the data? Are the authors trying to tell us something important?

This was the beginning of a new practice in the write-up of medical research. Recent revelations in the Fauci/Collins emails shed light on the origins of this tactic and the motives behind it.

What companies would not do, in the past, was describe the results of a statistical analysis that proves X is false, then publish it with an Abstract that claims X is true.

But this strange practice has become more common in the last two years. Academic papers are being published in which the abstract, the discussion section and even the title flatly contradict the content within.

Why is this happening? There are at least three possibilities:

  • The authors cannot understand their own data.
  • The authors are being impelled by the editorial staff to arrive at conclusions that match the ascendant narrative.
  • The authors and editors realize the only way to get their results into publication is to avoid a censorship net that gets activated by any statement critical of vaccination efficacy or safety.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/researchers-covid-conclusions/?