The following information is from Children’s Health Defense.

Preprints.org retracted a paper by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) scientists analyzing infant mortality data from the Louisiana Dept. of Health, prompting accusations of censorship from the study’s authors.

The analysis found that infants vaccinated in their second month of life were more likely to die in their third month than unvaccinated infants. Depending on which vaccines were administered, vaccinated children were 29% to 74% more likely to die. Vaccinated Black infants and female infants faced even higher risks.

Lead author Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., said the retraction was not based on scientific error or misconduct.

“There are 318 members of the Advisory Board for Preprints. Not a single one of them has published on vaccine safety or infant mortality,”
— Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., CHD senior research scientist

Jablonowski said Preprints.org did not accuse the authors of violating any laws, committing scientific misconduct, or misusing data. Instead, the server cited a provision allowing withdrawal when content is deemed to pose a risk to the general public.

“Retracting is also a tool of the censors, by those who muzzle scientific discourse,”
— Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D.

The paper, which was viewed more than 15,000 times before being removed, was described by its authors as a “proof of concept” demonstrating that real-world data can reveal statistically significant associations between vaccination timing and infant mortality.

The researchers analyzed linked vaccination and mortality records and said their work represents one of the first studies examining the cumulative effects of vaccines administered at the 2-month visit under the pre-January 2026 CDC schedule.

Since the paper’s publication, the CDC revised the childhood vaccine schedule, reducing the number of routine vaccines recommended for infants and children.

CHD Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker, Ph.D., criticized the retraction, saying it does nothing to advance public understanding or scientific debate.

“When important findings about infant harm from vaccines are suppressed, there is no gain, and it is the infants and their families who lose,”
— Brian Hooker, Ph.D., Children’s Health Defense

The authors said they are continuing to work with Louisiana officials and have begun similar collaborations with other states. They plan to submit the study for peer review and publish it on another preprint server.

The article also notes growing concerns that preprint platforms have become gatekeepers. FDA adviser Dr. Vinay Prasad previously said research that deviated from official Covid narratives was more likely to be rejected or removed from preprint servers, even when later accepted by peer-reviewed journals.

“The preprint servers are really a disgrace,”
— Vinay Prasad, M.D., M.P.H.

The CHD scientists said transparency and access to data are essential to evaluating vaccine safety and warned that suppressing research undermines scientific integrity and public trust.

For more information, read the full article here.