Conspiracies, Cock-Ups and History

January, 1, 2023 | 16 Comments

Comments

  1.  “a compelling account of the way big business and politics use global disasters for their own ends.”[9]

    He also said Klein “is too ready to see conspiracies where others might discern little more than the all-too-human pattern of chaos and confusion, good intentions and greed.”[17]

    In a piece related to the COVID-19 pandemic, Klein wrote in 2020 that a “Pandemic Shock Doctrine” was beginning to emerge, and called it the “Screen New Deal”.[28]

    In September, Emergent announced that it had reached a five-year agreement with Providence Therapeutics, a Canadian biotechnology company that specializes in mRNA vaccine therapies, to support that company’s Covid-19 mRNA vaccine development.

    “Emergent’s commitment to fight the Covid-19 pandemic is anchored in our partnerships with innovators who share the same mission to address public health threats around the world,” Adam R. Havey, the company’s executive vice president and chief operating officer, said in a statement at the time.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/emergent-biosolutions-covid-vaccine.html

    New under the Sun…

    In an interview with the Telegraph, Prof Katalin Karikó – a researcher who pioneered the use of mRNA, which was used to develop the highly effective Covid-19 vaccines – insisted researchers are on track to deliver a series of therapeutic breakthroughs via the technology. 

    This includes personalised cancer vaccines; jabs to combat infectious diseases such as malaria, flu and tuberculosis; and treatments for genetic disorders including cystic fibrosis. 

    “I am very optimistic [that] for many many things, mRNA will be useful,” Prof Karikó said, speaking from her home in Hungary.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/no-limits-to-possibilities-of-mrna-says-mastermind-behind-technology/ar-AA15LVtV?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=2d8b923916e54139a98c7530065c8f42

    Mike Yardley
    @YardleyShooting
    ·
    1m

    Over 2,000 contact me to describe their own or other vaccine injury. 870K reactions for Astra Zeneca alone on Govt’s own Yellow Card site (& 1.3K fatal outcome reports). And, the Media seem completely disinterested – what happened to reporting? Please RT.

    Do you know of anyone who has had a vaccine injury?

    https://twitter.com/YardleyShooting/status/1609126671491428353

    A Cautionary Message From Vaccine Advocates w/ Dr. Aditi Bhargava, Kyle Warner, And Brianne Dressen

    https://concerneddoctors.org/a-cautionary-message-from-vaccine-advocates-w-dr-aditi-bhargava-kyle-warner-and-brianne-dressen/

    Fauci has a new twitter account and deleted his previous two tweets from ages past

    https://twitter.com/Dr_AnthonyFauci

    Dr. Anthony Stephen Fauci
    @Dr_AnthonyFauci

    NIAID Director|Funder of Gain of Function Research|Responsible for The AIDS Epidemic in the 1980s & Covid-19 Pandemic|I AM SCIENCE, DO NOT QUESTION ME

    Get Vaccinated with the Moderna/Pfizer/J&J Shot we really need to sterilize & Depopulate the world, There too many useless eaters in the world & poor people who are raping the earth, and we have to maintain humanity at 500,000,000 according to the first Luciferian Commandment

    2/2

    Dr. Anthony Stephen Fauci
    @Dr_AnthonyFauci

    Most people think this is About “Money” or “Control” This is really all about what it has ever been since the Tower of Babel Returning To The “One World Order” Like at Babel but we call it “New World Order” because in the present it is New

    #OneWorldOrder #NewWorldOrder

    So there we were; here we are…

  2. RE “conspiracies” and “history”

    A sharp 12-year old can see, and could see, from the start, that Covid-19 has nothing to do with real science but is a total SCAM –a PRE-PLANNED crime (say conspiracy). Yet, nearly 3 years later most grown-up people STILL have not figured that out yet and are still deeply asleep.

    Why is that?

    A coherent theory has been proposed, see “The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room –The Holocaustal Covid-19 Coronavirus Madness: A Sociological Perspective & Historical Assessment Of The Covid “Phenomenon”” at https://www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html

    “I just cannot understand why all these damn anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists don’t trust a government that actively works against the public interest 100 percent of the time. I mean if you can’t trust institutions that are deliberately constructed to subvert the common good for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful at every turn, who can you trust?” — Caitlin Johnstone, Independent Journalist

    If you’re in the US and your employer mandates the toxic/lethal COVID jabs, register to receive a free “Medical Exemption Certificate” at https://drgastonmedicalexemption.com or https://lc.org/exempt

  3. In death as in life we are smeared out by data sets, averages, discounted when inconvenient to the AI system and allocated numbers/letters as decided by the WHO in order to categorise us. There are so many revisions and amendments on sites elsewhere their brains have obviously been scrambled.

    This is well worth a skip through Where have they gone..The Singular is drowning in statistics often inaccurate according to their revisions.

    Monthly mortality analysis, England and Wales
    Contact:
    Georgia Brett
    23 December 2022
    Next release:
    20 January 2023

    November 2022 edition of this dataset
    xlsx (633.0 KB)

    This is well worth a skip through For example, the ONS is currently using an abridged ESP with a 90 years and over upper age band. National Statistics population estimates are only currently available for upper age limit of 90 years and over.

    Perinatal mortality rate
    Perinatal mortality rate is the number of deaths at ages under seven days (early neonatal deaths) plus stillbirths per 1,000 live births and stillbirths in the same period.

    Infant mortality rate
    Infant mortality rate is the number of deaths at ages under 1 year per 1,000 live births.

    Years of life lost
    Analyses of the effects of premature death assume that everyone may live to a defined age and that death at a younger age means that some future years of life have been lost. Calculations of years of life lost are made for deaths from selected causes with the aim of illustrating the relative effects from different diseases. The “cut-off” ages used are 65, 75 and 85 years. These exclude deaths at high ages where the cause may be uncertain.

    This approach, but with a “cut-off” age of 65 years, is also used to calculate years of working life lost due to premature death. From the 2012 data year onwards, the period of working life covers ages 16 to 64 years. Prior to the 2012 data year, the period of working life covered ages 15 to 64 years. This change has a negligible impact on the comparability of statistics over time:

    Where:
    dᵢ , dⱼ , dₖ = number of deaths in age group I, j or k
    aᵢ , aⱼ , aₖ = age I, j or k + 0.5

    A = 65 years or 75 years or 85 years
    ᵢ = 0 to 64 years or 0 to 74 years or 0 to 84 years
    ⱼ = 16 to 64 years
    ₖ = 0 to 15 years

    Since there is no information on underlying cause of death when the deceased was aged under 28 days, the only category including both neonatal and non-neonatal deaths is that for “all causes”.

    The mean age at death may be included as a further indicator of the relative effects of premature death. It is based on the sum of ages at death for each person.

    Where:
    aᵢ = age + 0.5
    dᵢ = number of deaths at age i
    ᵢ = single years of age 0 to 119, 120 and over
    d = total number of deaths

    Potential years of life lost
    Potential years of life lost (PYLL) is a measure of the potential number of years lost when a person dies prematurely from any cause. The basic concept of PYLL is that deaths at younger ages are weighted more heavily than those at older ages. The advantage in doing this is that deaths at younger ages may be seen as less important if cause-specific death rates were just used on their own in highlighting the burden of disease and injury, since conditions such as cancer and heart disease usually occur at older ages and have relatively high mortality rates.

    To enable comparisons between areas and over time, age-standardised PYLL rates, also known as SYLL rates, are calculated. These rates represent the PYLL if the population of England and Wales had the same population structure as the 2013 European Standard Population (ESP). SYLL rates are presented as years of life lost per 100,000 population.

    PYLL is calculated as the sum of the mortality rate in each age group weighted by the potential number of years of life lost as indicated by remaining life expectancy for each age group. To calculate SYLL, this is then standardised to the 2013 ESP as shown in the equation: (worth a look)

    Where:
    ᵢ = age group (less than 1 year, 1 to 4 years, 5 to 9 years, 10 to 14 years, …, 85 to 89 years, and 90 years and over)
    dᵢ = number of deaths in age group ᵢ
    aᵢ = weight or average age-specific period life expectancy in age group ᵢ for a given year
    nᵢ = population in age group ᵢ
    wᵢ = number of individuals in the standard population in age group ᵢ

  4. A bit of all three – C, C-U and H

    Norman and Martin “can’t bamboozle us” …

    Prof Norman Fenton
    @profnfenton
    ·
    4h

    This is our response to the @stkirsch challenge

    How many lives did the Covid vaccines really save?

    A response to Steve Kirsch’s challenge

    Norman Fenton and Martin Neil

    5 hr ago

    https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/kirsch-challenge

    Before we answer we’d like to clarify some ambiguity in the question. All-cause mortality following a vaccine roll-out is the only rational way to assess the efficacy of the vaccine because it tells us whether the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks; if all-cause mortality rates are lower in the vaccinated then we can conclude that the vaccine must be saving more people from dying from the disease than it is killing from adverse reactions to it.

    Any claims about the vaccine reducing the number of covid deaths are therefore irrelevant in assessing efficacy without considering the overall impact on all-cause mortality. Even if the vaccines really did save 20 million from covid deaths then it would not be effective if it led to more than 20 million deaths from adverse events.

    In fact, not only is there now strong evidence of an increase in all-cause mortality among the vaccinated, but we do not believe there is any objective reliable evidence that the covid vaccines saved any PREVENTABLE deaths from covid.

    There are nine reasons for coming to this conclusion:

    1. No properly conducted randomized trial has provided evidence of any covid deaths avoided

    They were never designed to do so [1]. Even if we accept the flawed Pfizer study results of efficacy based on 162 out of 22,000 placebo recipients getting covid compared to only 8 out of 22,000 vaccine recipients [2] not even one of those 162 placebo recipients in the trial who got covid died of covid.

    2. The Pfizer trial actually provides some evidence of increased all-cause mortality in the vaccinated

    Although the numbers are too small to be statistically significant, in the 6-month Pfizer follow up there were more all-cause deaths in the vaccine group than the placebo group (15 vs 14 deaths, later 21 vs 17) with just 3 people in total having covid listed as a cause of death (1 in vaccine group, 2 in placebo group) [3]. Moreover, the Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group [4].

    3. Anecdotal evidence: Our own experience shows the vaccines are neither effective nor safe

    Since the vaccination programme started, we have observed that it is our vaccinated friends and colleagues who are almost exclusively getting ill from covid. And it is also the vaccinated who we see dying unexpectedly. This anecdotal evidence of increased all-cause mortality in the vaccinated is backed up by the only independent survey evidence attempting to determine the difference in all-cause mortality [5].

    4. Official government statistics claiming vaccines reduce covid mortality cannot be trusted

    The gatekeepers of such data have a major vested interest in claiming success of the vaccine programme. They therefore do not allow access to the raw data and frequently manipulate the data [6]. Moreover, these data are compromised by the flawed definition of what constitutes a covid death (‘anybody dying of any cause within 28 days of a positive PCR test’) and defining a person getting covid within 14 days of vaccination as ‘unvaccinated’ [7], [8]. These various corrupt definition and data integrity problems all create bias in favour of vaccine efficacy and are also evident in all observational studies claiming vaccines reduce covid mortality.

    5. Official government statistics claiming vaccines reduce all-cause mortality are demonstrably flawed

    In addition to all the definition and data integrity problems, official data (for example from the UK’s office for National Statistics [9] are further compromised in that 1) many deaths shortly after vaccination are misclassified as unvaccinated and 2) grossly underestimate the population proportion of unvaccinated, which inflates the true mortality rate of the unvaccinated [10]. When adjusted for these biases, the data show that since the start of 2022, all-cause mortality in the ever-vaccinated is higher than the never vaccinated in all-age groups [11].

    6. Artificially inflated covid death numbers

    Many deaths classified as covid deaths were not caused by covid, and many of those that were could have been prevented if demonstrably successful alternative early protocol treatments were provided. Moreover, many covid deaths may ultimately have been caused by denial of antibiotics to treat the resulting bacterial pneumonia that was the ultimate cause of death [12], [13].

    7. National comparisons suggest the vaccines do not reduce covid mortality

    Even with the built-in biases relating to the definition of covid death and vaccination classification, those regions of the world with the lowest vaccination rates also have the lowest covid mortality rates (there are 906 times more covid deaths in most vs least vaccinated countries). These differences cannot be explained by inherent population differences (such as countries with younger populations being less at risk from covid death).

    8. The claims that millions of covid deaths were prevented by the vaccines are based on flawed models and/or assumptions

    Specifically, they were either based on models that subtract the actual number of covid classified deaths since the start of the vaccination programme from the number predicted to die, assuming there was no vaccination programme, and the mortality rate would simply increase nevertheless; or based on the flawed assumption that the vaccines were 95% effective at stopping infection. 

    9. Independent evidence points to an increase in all-cause mortality among the vaccinated

    It is because of the inherent problems with the definition of ‘a covid death’ that we have always argued that vaccine safety and efficacy can only reliably assessed by all-cause mortality. If covid is as deadly as claimed and if the vaccines are as safe and effective as claimed by their proponents, then we should be seeing higher all-cause mortality in the unvaccinated. But increasingly we see evidence to the contrary [14]. In all the heavily vaccinated countries we should have seen lower all-cause mortality in the period since mid-2021 (by which time the majority of the population was vaccinated in these countries) than the main covid period Feb 2020 to mid-2021. But what we have seen is the opposite; almost all such countries are now showing consistent and significant increases in excess deaths. Vaccine proponents have tried to explain this mainly by the effects of lockdowns and ‘long covid’, but publicly available data (even with all its in-build biases in favour of the vaccine safe and effective narrative) shows the vaccines as the most plausible explanation for the increases [15].

    References

    [1] Peter Doshi, “Will Covid-19 Vaccines Save Lives? Current Trials Aren’t Designed to Tell Us.,” BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 371 (October 21, 2020): m4037,
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4037.
    [2] Pfizer, “Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, Meeting All Primary Efficacy Endpoints,” 2020,
    https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine.
    [3] Fernando P. Polack et al., “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 MRNA Covid-19 Vaccine (Appendix),” New England Journal of Medicine (Massachusetts Medical Society, December 31, 2020),
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8461570/bin/NEJMoa2110345_appendix.pdf.

    Cont’d, read on…

  5. we must … challenge vaccine hesitancy—including the burgeoning spread of vaccine misinformation—with a level of urgency that has been sadly lacking in most countries. (What are they panning behind closed doors More coercion ? ) This includes tailoring messaging to ensure that as many people as possible around the world have received the vaccine and to fully engage trusted local leaders and organisations in the process.

    FootnotesVaccine inequity and hesitancy persist—we must tackle both
    BMJ 2023; 380 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p8 (Published 03 January 2023)
    Cite this as: BMJ 2023;380:p8

    Since the start of the covid-19 vaccination rollout, repeated concerns have been raised about global vaccine inequity.12345 In an April 2022 commentary in BMJ Global Health, we called specific attention to the importance of minimising vaccine wastage as a strategy for reducing vaccine inequities.6 While much of the world now has access to vaccines, both the United Nations’ Data Futures Platform and the World Health Organization maintain that regional access to vaccines and their global uptake remain issues.78

    Covid-19 persists as a threat to public health despite the desire of many governments to move on from it. In fact, WHO still considers the world to be in the emergency phase of the pandemic. Unfortunately, inequitable access to vaccines remains a challenge, especially in low and middle income countries.9 Just 24.6% of people in low income countries have received at least one vaccine dose.10

    The issue is even more vexing in regions where vaccines are readily available, suggesting that low uptake is partly due to vaccine hesitancy that may be fuelled by the unusual combination of reduced levels of mortality and intense anti-vaccination propaganda. These campaigns sow distrust in the science underpinning the vaccines, the authorities recommending their use, and even the seriousness of getting covid-19. Mistrust of governing bodies and drug companies contributes to vaccine hesitancy, and marginalised communities may avoid vaccination because of historically negative experiences with healthcare or a lack of effective health messaging.1112

    Hesitancy and uptake
    In November 2022 a collaboration of 386 multidisciplinary experts across 112 countries proposed 57 actionable recommendations to help end the covid-19 pandemic.13 One of the top three recommendations, which built on an urgent call in TheBMJ earlier in the year, states that all countries should adopt a “vaccines-plus” approach.14 This includes a combination of covid-19 vaccination and other prevention measures, such as wearing a face mask, improved ventilation of buildings, effective new treatments for infected people, and financial incentives such as support measures for affected individuals and their families.

    Adopting this approach requires vaccines to be available in sufficient quantity and quality in all regions of the world, for a coordinated global effort. This approach will require substantial changes in intellectual property law, development of more widespread and appropriately regulated manufacturing capability, and improved logistical coordination. Developing new, more effective, longer lasting vaccines must also be a priority.

    However, greater access, availability, and improvements to vaccines alone are insufficient. Decision makers must also take steps to increase vaccine uptake. While some of the world is at risk of low access to vaccines, all the world is at risk of low uptake.

    Vaccine hesitancy is a key underlying factor in low uptake. Therefore, rebuilding trust in the vaccines and the health authorities promoting them must be a priority, and vaccination messaging should be retooled to explain more clearly the efficacy and limitations of current vaccines in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission and the severity of covid-19. This includes tailoring messaging to ensure that as many people as possible around the world have received the vaccine and to fully engage trusted local leaders and organisations in the process.

    To tackle vaccine access where it remains low we need governments, industry, and health systems to minimise closed and open vial vaccine wastage and anticipate procurement and supply management needs. Affordability is a barrier to vaccine access. Global organisations should negotiate the donation of excess doses and sharing of technologies that enable manufacturers in lower income countries to develop vaccines and adequately store them.15

    It is profoundly disappointing that today, three years into the pandemic, these issues have still not been dealt with systematically.16 Global trade and health organisations should collaborate immediately to tackle the legal and technical issues that continue to constrain the affordability and availability of safe, highly effective vaccines.

    Vaccines remain the central component of a vaccines-plus approach to ending the global health threat presented by covid-19. If we want a safer world we must address these issues and challenge vaccine hesitancy—including the burgeoning spread of vaccine misinformation—with a level of urgency that has been sadly lacking in most countries.

    Footnotes
    Competing interests: JVL reports research grants from AbbVie, Gilead, and MSD, and speaker fees from Novavax and Novo Nordisk, outside of the work discussed here. SSAK reports research grants from Janssen and the National Institutes of Health for covid-19 vaccine trials, as well as meeting honorariums from Sanofi. CB, KR, and AEM have read and understood BMJ policy on competing interests and declare no competing interests relevant to this article.

  6. The following violations relate to the companies referred to above re ‘Footnotes; Competing Interests’ More detail of the violations can be read on ‘Violations Tracker’

    JVL
    AbbVie among firms fined for price gouging in U.K.
    Jul. 15, 2021 8:07 AM ETAbbVie Inc. (ABBV)ABBVBy: Dulan Lokuwithana, SA News Editor28

    The U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has handed a fine of 260M pounds ($360M) in total for over 10 pharma companies including AbbVie (NYSE:ABBV) for overcharging the National Health Service (NHS) in the supply of hydrocortisone tablets, Reuters reported.
    They were accused of raising the price of a pack of hydrocortisone from 70p to 88 pounds in under eight years. That made NHS pay more than 10,000% for single packs of 10 mg and 20 mg tablets in 2016 compared to the payment they made in 2008.
    CMA accused the companies including Actavis, and its former parent company Allergan ­— now owned by AbbVie — of breaking competition rules. In addition to fines from CMA, NHS will be able to seek damages.
    “These are without doubt some of the most serious abuses we have uncovered in recent years,” CMA head Andrea Coscelli said. “Our fine serves as a warning to any other drug firm planning to exploit the NHS.”
    In May, AbbVie was named in a House Oversight Committee report of engaging in abusive prescription drug pricing and anti-competitive practices.
    Now Read: Cashing out in biotech in 2022: On-target predictions for AbbVie, Vertex and
    Genmab:

    Gilead Sciences
    Major Industry: pharmaceuticals
    Specific Industry: pharmaceuticals
    Penalty total since 2000: $97,265,701
    Number of records: 4

    Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) is a subsidiary of German chemical and pharmaceutical Company Merck KGaA.
    Major Industry: pharmaceuticals
    Specific Industry: pharmaceuticals
    Penalty total since 2000: $10,467,160,581
    Number of records: 81

    : Novo Holdings A/S
    Ownership Structure: privately held
    Headquartered in: Denmark
    Major Industry: pharmaceuticals
    Specific Industry: pharmaceuticals
    Penalty total since 2000: $110,887,792
    Number of records: 14

    Janssen
    Company: Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
    Current Parent Company: Johnson & Johnson
    Parent at the Time of the Penalty Announcement: subscribe to see this data field
    Penalty: $181,000,000
    Year: 2012
    Date: August 30, 2012
    Offense Group: healthcare-related offenses
    Primary Offense: off-label or unapproved promotion of medical products
    Violation Description: Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its parent company Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay $181 million to resolve multistate litigation alleging improper marketing and advertising of the powerful anti-psychotic drugs Risperdal and Invega.

    Sanoffi
    Major Industry: pharmaceuticals
    Specific Industry: pharmaceuticals
    Penalty total since 2000: $641,786,117
    Number of records: 28

  7. “Attempting to force-vaccinate the whole world with a new and untested technology was the height of irresponsibility and ignoring the mounting evidence of serious adverse events amounts to criminal negligence.”

    Ramesh Thakur

    Ramesh Thakur, a Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.

    https://brownstone.org/articles/state-power-and-covid-crimes-part-2/

    The real-world effectiveness of Covid vaccines has not matched the hype of the 95 percent efficacy claimed in manufacturer trials on the basis of which they were granted emergency-use authorisation. They’ve proven disappointingly leaky with a surprisingly swift waning of effectiveness, necessitating boosters every few months. 

    In many cases vaccine rollouts coincided with an upsurge in infections, substantiating the concerns expressed by many experts that a mass vaccination campaign in the middle of a pandemic will drive the evolution of vaccine-escape variants and generate self-perpetuating waves of infections from the mutating variants. 

    A study from Oxford University in June showed the infection risk increased by 44 percent in the double-vaccinated in England. An analysis in July by El Gato Malo showed that US states with higher vaccination rates were experiencing higher Covid hospital admissions. By the end of 2022 the vast majority of Covid deaths in many countries were among the vaccinated and boosted. 

    This has discredited officials and health experts from President Joe Biden on down who claimed that the vaccines would prevent infection, onward transmission, severe illness and (initially)/or (as a fallback justification) death. Hence their early but by now abandoned claims about the pandemic of the unvaccinated. 

    By contrast, by the end of 2022 stories, like the video documentary Anecdotals, which simply give voice to the vaccine-injured, and studies alleging a wide range of serious side effects and injuries from the vaccines were challenging the official narrative of the vaccines being safe and effective. 

    Neither safe nor effective was the growing chorus instead. On 25 November 2022 the physician-scientist Dr Masanori Fukushima from Kyoto University warned that ‘the harm caused by vaccines is now a worldwide problem’ and that ‘given the wide range of adverse events, billions of lives could ultimately be in danger.’

    There is nothing objectionable in principle to harnessing revolutionary new mRNA technology to improve public health. Major medical advances in the past have been made possible by technological breakthroughs. But a revolutionary technology increases the testing burden for ensuring safety, even while a raging pandemic heightens the urgency of accelerated vaccine development and manufacture. If granted emergency use authorisation to cater to the second demand, prudence strengthens the imperative to rigorous monitoring of short, medium and long-term side effects in numbers and severity. 

    This is where authorities have fallen short and caused significant long-term damage to public confidence in the major institutions. Attempting to force-vaccinate the whole world with a new and untested technology was the height of irresponsibility and ignoring the mounting evidence of serious adverse events amounts to criminal negligence.

    The best, if not the only true measure of the whole of society impact of an epidemic or pandemic is excess mortality. Norman Fenton and Martin Neil subjected worldwide excess mortality data to linear regression models and found no significant link between excess deaths in 2022 and (a) Covid cases in 2020, (b) long Covid, (c) lockdown stringency, or (d) healthcare quality. But they did find ‘a statistically significant linear relationship between countries that are highly vaccinated and excess deaths.’ Elliot Middleton calculates that in 2020, Covid deaths (meaning not all were from Covid) accounted for 42 percent of all excess deaths in the US. 

    Remember, this is before the announcement of a vaccine breakthrough and therefore the excess mortality toll is not affected by the count of vaccine-injured. Thus, although Covid deaths comprised a substantial portion of the total toll, the lockdown component was still higher – and policymakers should have known this at the time in 2020 itself but chose to ignore it despite multiple warnings from credible sources.

    Ziva Kunda’s influential 1990 article ‘The Case for Motivated Reasoning’ has nearly ten thousand citations. Her thesis was that motivation shapes reasoning. Reliance on a biased set of cognitive processes means that people are more likely to arrive at conclusions they want to arrive at, by using the strategies for accessing, constructing and evaluating tools and data that are the most likely to yield the conclusions they desire. Very hot [cold/dry/wet] this year? Climate science tells us it’s because of climate change and therefore the current weather conditions validate the science. Infected by Covid after the sixth jab? Be grateful for the six doses as otherwise you would most likely have died. 

    As the saying goes, you cannot reason people out of beliefs that they arrived at without the use of reason.

    In December, a new ‘hindcasting’ paper from the Commonwealth Fund made claims for vaccine success that were simply too inflated even to be plausible: 3.3 million lives, 18.6 million hospitalisations and 120 million infections averted just in the US alone in 2021–22! It was picked up and reported by the MSM. Unsurprisingly, the conclusions are derived from ‘a model pretending to be data’ that cannot be replicated. It’s an internal self-referential circular argument in which the conclusions are contained in the assumptions whose details are not made public.

    The authors hold that ‘The reported “mild” nature of Omicron is in large part because of vaccine protection.’ Without vaccines, they estimate that Omicron’s infection fatality rate (IFR) would have been 2.7 times higher than for the original variant. 

    Alex Berenson writes this is: ‘The dumbest, most dishonest argument for Covid jabs thus far, long after pretty much universal agreement that vaccines stop neither infection nor transmission but are, at best, modestly effective for a short transient period.

    According to Our World in Data, Omicron has killed around 450,000 people worldwide (including the US) in the 8-month April–November 2022 period inclusive, despite the majority of the world’s people being unvaccinated. Collating the empirical outcomes from Our World in Data and Worldometers, at the end of the year, Africa’s double-vaccinated were 27.5 percent of the population, compared to 69 percent in the US and 66.9 percent in Europe. Their respective cumulative Covid deaths per million people (DPM) were <0.01, 1.00 and 0.71. Only 4 of 47 European countries have DPM below 1,000. By contrast, only 6 of 58 countries in Africa have DPM above 1,000, and of these six, five have higher vaccination rates than the African average.

    Yet, we are expected to believe that somehow, the vaccines miraculously saved 1 million Americans in that 6-month timeframe.

    Away from the tautological conclusions of models, there is little reliable data to show clinical benefits of Covid vaccines in preventing hospitalisation and death and much evidence to the contrary.

    Article, continues…

  8. mRNA-based #COVID19 vaccine enters China…

    EU offers China free vaccines as COVID-19 infections surge

    https://www.reuters.com/world/china/eu-offers-china-free-vaccines-covid-19-infections-surge-2023-01-03/

    BRUSSELS, Jan 3 (Reuters) – The European Union has offered free COVID-19 vaccines to China, the EU executive said on Tuesday, as infections there surged following Beijing’s relaxation of its “zero-COVID” policies.
    China has not responded to the offer yet, a spokesperson for the European

    Commission told journalists at a regular briefing. He did not specify the amount of vaccines the EU was offering or their manufacturers.

    “In view of the COVID situation in China, (Health) Commissioner Stella Kyriakides has reached out to her Chinese counterparts to offer EU solidarity and support,” he said.

    “This includes public health expertise as well as variant-adapted EU vaccine donations.”

    Asked whether Beijing would accept the EU offer, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Mao Ning sidestepped a direct reply, telling Reuters that China’s vaccination rate and treatment capacity continued to rise and its supplies were “adequate”.

    She said China was open to “strengthening solidarity and cooperation with the international community” to better meet its pandemic challenges, though it could “meet the demand of anyone who wants to be vaccinated”.

    China’s foreign ministry responds to COVID-19 vaccine offer from EU

    https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2023-01-03/China-s-foreign-ministry-responds-to-COVID-19-vaccine-offer-from-EU-1give0kZO4E/index.html

    China’s foreign ministry has explained why China hasn’t said yes to a COVID-19 vaccine offer from the European Union.

    It comes after a Financial Times report stated that the EU had offered free COVID-19 vaccines to China, to help contain an outbreak of infections since restrictions were lifted.

    In response to the report, foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said: “Since entering a new stage of epidemic prevention and control, China has continuously improved its vaccination rate, enhanced its treatment capacity, expanded its production capacity of medical resources with sufficient supplies.

    “The world’s largest COVID-19 vaccination production line has been built, with an annual production capacity of more than seven billion doses, and the total production capacity has exceeded 5.5 billion doses.

    “China’s epidemic prevention and control situation is accurate and controllable.
    “We are willing to continue to strengthen solidarity and cooperation with the international community to better cope with the challenges of the epidemic and better protect people’s lives and health.”

    Elsewhere, EU government officials are expected to hold talks on Wednesday, January 4, on a coordinated response to China’s outbreak.

    During a meeting last month, Italy had urged the rest of the EU to follow its lead and test incoming travelers from China for COVID-19 – but others in the 27-nation EU said they saw no need to do so.

    “There is a scheduled Integrated Political Crisis Response meeting on Wednesday, January 4, for an update of the COVID-19 situation in China and to discuss possible EU measures to be taken in a coordinated way,” a spokeswoman for the Swedish presidency of the EU said.

    Mao Ning said that “We do not believe the entry restriction measures some countries have taken against China are science-based. Some of these measures are disproportionate and simply unacceptable. We firmly reject using COVID measures for political purposes and will take corresponding measures in response to varying situations based on the principle of reciprocity.”

    Just checking if they are excited

    BioNTech SE
    @BioNTech_Group
    ·
    1h

    We and our partner Fosun Pharma are happy that the mRNA-based #COVID19 vaccine doses we provided for German expatriates in #China have arrived in Beijing! We thank the Chinese and the German governments for their joint efforts and continuous support.

    https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-details/biontech-and-fosun-pharma-provide-covid-19-vaccine-doses

    Yes, they are…

  9. Another of the authors of thebmj article above is Salim A K a colleague of Fauci https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p8

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book The Real Anthony Fauci has sold over a million copies andwas on best-seller lists for weeks. Yet, apparently, it has not been reviewed in the USmainstream media.

    =”https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/130327a910efa802511566ab6651352b13dca842/0_137_2048_1229/master/2048.jpg?width=445&quality=85&dpr=1&s=none” alt=”Dr Anthony Fauci with Salim Abdool Karim at the 21st international Aids conference in Durban, July 2016.”/>

    Salim Abdool Karim: ‘None of us are safe from Covid if one of us is not. We have mutual interdependence’
    Zoë Corbyn
    salim abdool karim poses for a photograph leaning on a rail by ornate mosaic work on a concrete wall

    Salim S Abdool Karim,
    The epidemiologist Salim Abdool Karim could be considered South Africa’s Anthony Fauci. As co-chair of the South African Ministerial Advisory Committee on Covid-19, he is the government’s top adviser on the pandemic and has become the country’s face of Covid-19 science.

    Karim and Fauci, the US’s leading infectious disease expert, were recently jointly awarded the 2020 John Maddox prize for “standing up for science during the coronavirus pandemic”. The prize is given by the UK charity Sense About Science and the journal Nature.

    We need the whole world to be part of Covax. All the drug companies should’ve committed all their vaccines to Covax

    The John Maddox prize recognises your and Dr Fauci’s “exceptional communication” of the science behind Covid-19 to policymakers and the public. What has been most tricky?
    There is a high degree of uncertainty. You must provide guidance, but in a way that makes allowance for what we don’t know. Then you must contend with people who are driven by ideology but use science to bolster their ideological position. They interpret the science in a wholly different way. Then you have to tackle fake news and conspiracy theories. I have spent a lot of time debunking hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, for example. For me, it is a moral obligation.

    Dr Anthony Fauci with Salim Abdool Karim at the 21st international Aids conference in Durban, July 2016.
    Dr Anthony Fauci with Salim Abdool Karim at the 21st International Aids Conference in Durban, July 2016. Photograph: Rajesh Jantilal/AFP/Getty Images
    South Africa is slated to get some vaccine doses through Covax, the global procurement initiative to distribute Covid-19 vaccines fairly around the world, in the second quarter of 2021. I imagine that can’t come soon enough…
    We have chosen to go the route of Covax and through it we will get doses for the first 10% of our population. That will cover our healthcare workers and the elderly. Separately, we have an open line of communication with several drug companies making vaccines, and we’ll take things forward with them when their results become available and when we have assessed whether they meet our criteria. Unlike some other countries – the US, UK, Canada – we haven’t made advanced commitments. We don’t have money to buy 10m doses and then not use it if it’s inappropriate.

    Are you worried that low- and middle-income countries won’t get enough vaccines?
    Vaccine nationalism is a concern. There are countries – like the US – that believe they will be safe while the rest of the world is not. It’s a fundamental fallacy. None of us are safe if one of us is not. We have mutual interdependence. We need the whole world to be part of Covax: all the drug companies should have committed all their vaccine doses to Covax, which could then equitably provide the vaccine so all healthcare workers can get vaccinated. It will be terrible if the US is vaccinating low-risk young people while we in Africa cannot vaccinate healthcare workers……..

  10. CDC Finally Released Its VAERS Safety Monitoring Analyses for COVID Vaccines via FOIA
    Josh Guetzkow from Jackanapes Junction Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 4:59 PM
    Reply-To: Josh Guetzkow from Jackanapes Junction

    Open in app or online
    CDC Finally Released Its VAERS Safety Monitoring Analyses for COVID Vaccines via FOIA
    And now it’s clear why they tried to hide them.
    JOSH GUETZKOW
    JAN 4
    CDC’s VAERS safety signal analysis based on reports from Dec. 14, 2020 – July 29, 2022 for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines shows clear safety signals for for death and a range of highly concerning thrombo-embolic, cardiac, neurological, hemorrhagic, hematological, immune-system and menstrual adverse events (AEs) among U.S. adults.

    There were 770 different types of adverse events that showed safety signals in ages 18+, of which over 500 (or 2/3) had a larger safety signal than myocarditis/pericarditis.

    The CDC analysis shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000).

    Twice as many mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reports were classified as serious compared to all other vaccines given to adults (11% vs. 5.5%). This meets the CDC definition of a safety signal.

    There are 96 safety signals for 12-17 year-olds, which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell’s Palsy, genital ulcerations, high blood pressure and heartrate, menstrual irregularities, cardiac valve incompetencies, pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrhythmias, thromboses, pericardial and pleural effusion, appendicitis and perforated appendix, immune thrombocytopenia, chest pain, increased troponin levels, being in intensive care, and having anticoagulant therapy.

    There are 66 safety signals for 5-11 year-olds, which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, ventricular dysfunction and cardiac valve incompetencies, pericardial and pleural effusion, chest pain, appendicitis & appendectomies, Kawasaki’s disease, menstrual irregularities, vitiligo, and vaccine breakthrough infection.

    The safety signals cannot be dismissed as due to “stimulated,” exaggerated, fraudulent or otherwise artificially inflated reporting, nor can they be dismissed due to the huge number of COVID vaccines administered. There are several reasons why, but the simplest one is this: the safety signal analysis does not depend on the number of reports, but whether or not some AEs are reported at a higher rate for these vaccines than for other non-COVID vaccines. Other reasons are discussed in the full post below.

    In August, 2022, the CDC told the Epoch Times that the results of their safety signal analysis “were generally consistent with EB [Empirical Bayesian] data mining [conducted by the FDA], revealing no additional unexpected safety signals.” So either the FDA’s data mining was consistent with the CDC’s method—meaning they “generally” found the same large number of highly alarming safety signals—or the signals they did find were expected. Or they were lying. We may never know because the FDA has refused to release their data mining results.

    INTRODUCTION
    Finally! Zachary Stieber at the Epoch Times managed to get the CDC to release the results of its VAERS safety signal monitoring for COVID-19 vaccines, and they paint a very alarming picture (see his reporting and the data files here, or if that is behind a paywall then here). The analyses cover VAERS reports for mRNA COVID vaccines from the period from the vaccine rollout on December 14, 2020 through to the end of July, 2022. The CDC admitted to only having started its safety signal analysis on March 25, 2022 (coincidentally 3 days after a lawyer at Children’s Health Defense wrote to them reminding them about our FOIA request for it).

    Like me, you might be wondering why the CDC waited over 15 months before doing its first safety signal analysis of VAERS, despite having said in a document posted to its website that it would begin in early 2021—especially since VAERS is touted as our early warning vaccine safety system. You might also wonder how they could insist all the while that the COVID-19 vaccines are being subjected to the most rigorous safety monitoring the world has ever known. I’ll come back to that later. First I’m going to give a little background information on the analysis they did (which you can skip if you’re up to speed) and then describe what they found.

    BACKGROUND ON SAFETY SIGNAL ANALYSIS
    Back in June 2022, the CDC replied to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the safety signal monitoring of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)—the one it had said it was going to do weekly beginning in early 2021. Their response was: we never did it. Then a little later they said they had been doing it from early on. But by August, 2022, they had finally gotten their story straight, saying that they actually did do it, but only from March 25, 2022 through end of July. You can get up to speed on that here:

    Jackanapes Junction
    The CDC Gave Me Whiplash
    Here’s a long overdue update on the ongoing saga with the CDC’s safety signal fiasco. Strap in—it’s a rollercoaster of a ride. To refresh your memory, on June 16 , in a response to a FOIA request I submitted together with Children’s Health Defense, the CDC admitted that they had not monitored VAERS for safety signals from the COVID-19 vaccines, although…
    Read more
    4 months ago · 87 likes · 20 comments · Josh Guetzkow
    The analysis they were supposed to do uses what’s called proportional reporting ratios (PRRs). This is a type of disproportionality analysis commonly used in pharmacovigilance (meaning the monitoring of adverse events after drugs/vaccines go to market). The basic idea of disproportionality analysis is to take a new drug and compare it to one or more existing drugs generally considered safe. We look for disproportionality in the number of adverse events (AEs) reported for a specific AE out of the total number of AEs reported (since we generally don’t know how many people take a given drug). We then compare to existing drugs considered safe to see if there is a higher proportion of particular adverse events reported for the new drug compared to existing ones. (In this case they are looking at vaccines, but they still use PRR even though they generally have a much better sense of how many vaccines were administered.)

    There are many ways to do disproportionality analysis. The PRR is one of the oldest. Empirical Bayesian data mining, which was supposed to be done on VAERS by the FDA, is another. The PRR is calculated by taking the number of reports for a given adverse event divided by the total number of events reported for the new vaccine or the total number of reports. It then divides that by the same ratio for one or more existing drugs/vaccines considered safe. Here is a simple formula:

    So for example, if half of all adverse events reported for COVID-19 vaccines and the comparator vaccine(s) are for myocarditis, then the PRR is 0.5/0.5 = 1. If one quarter of all AEs for the comparator vaccine are for myocarditis, then the PRR is 0.5/0.25 = 2.

    Traditionally, for a PRR to count as a safety signal, the PRR has to be 2 or greater, have a Chi-square value of 4 or greater (meaning it is statistically significant) and there has to be at least 3 events reported for a given AE. (This also means that if there are tons of different AEs reported for COVID vaccines that have never been reported for any other vaccine, it will not count as a safety signal. I found over 6,000 of those in my safety signal analysis from 2021.

    Of course a safety signal does not necessarily mean there is a problem or that the vaccine caused the adverse event. But it is supposed to set off alarm bells to prompt closer inspection, as in this CDC pamphlet:

    Ah yes, shared with the public — after first refusing to share the results and months of foot-dragging following repeated FOIA requests! We will see that the CDC has not done a more focused study on almost any of adverse events with “new patterns” (AKA safety signals).

    SO WHAT DID THE CDC ACTUALLY DO?
    The Epoch Times obtained 3 weeks of safety signal analyses from the CDC for VAERS data updated on July 15, 22 and 29, 2022. Here I will focus on the last one, since there is very little difference between them and it is more complete. The safety signal analysis compares adverse events¹ reported to VAERS for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Dec. 14, 2020 through July 29, 2022 to reports for all non-COVID vaccines from Jan 1, 2009 through July 29, 2022.

    PRRs are calculated separately for 5-11 year-olds, 12-15 year-olds and 18+ separately. For each age group, there are separate tables for AEs from all reports, AEs from reports marked serious and AEs from reports not marked as serious.² Recall that a serious report is one that involves death, a life-threatening event, new or prolonged hospitalization, disability or permanent damage, or a congenital anomaly. I will focus on the reports for all AE’s.

    They also have a table that calculates PRRs by comparing reports for the Pfizer COVID-10 vaccine to reports for the Moderna vaccine and vice versa, again for all reports, serious reports only and non-serious reports. There were no remarkable findings in those tables, so I will not discuss them. This isn’t that surprising since both vaccines are very similar and so should present relatively similar adverse events when compared to each other, and any differences are likely not large enough to be picked up by a PRR analysis.

    The CDC seems to have calculated PRRs for every different type of adverse event reported for all the COVID vaccines examined – though it’s possible they only analyzed a subset. What seems clear is that, among the AEs they examined, the only ones included in the tables satisfy at least one of two conditions: a PRR value of at least 2 and a Chi-square value of at least 4 (Chi is the Greek letter χ and is pronounced like ‘kai’). When both conditions were met, they highlighted the adverse event in yellow, which appears to indicate a safety signal. There were no COVID vaccine AEs listed with fewer than 3 reported events, though for non-COVID vaccines there were many AEs listed that had only 1 or 2 reported since 2009. The CDC tables still include these and highlight them in yellow when the PRR is greater than 2 and the Chi-square value is great than 4, indicating these events are counted as safety signals.

    WHAT SAFETY SIGNALS DID THE CDC FIND?
    I’m going to divide this up by age groups and the Pfizer v. Moderna comparison. Let’s start with the 18+ group.

    There are 772 AEs that appear on the list. Of these, 770 are marked in yellow and have PRR and Chi-square values that qualify them as safety signals. Some of these are new COVID-19 related codes, and we would expect those to trigger a signal since they didn’t exist in prior years to be reported by other vaccines. So if we take those off, we are left with 758 different types of non-COVID adverse events that showed safety signals.

    I grouped these 758 safety signals into different categories. The figure below shows the total number of AEs reported for each of the major categories of safety signals:

    Let’s dig into some of these categories to look at what types of AEs generated the most number of reports:³

    You can peruse the adverse events using the Excel tables provided by the CDC, which were posted by The Epoch Times and Children’s Health Defense at the links at the top of this post.

    What about The Children?
    If there is anything that looks remotely like a bright spot in all of this is that the list of safety signals for 12-17 and 5-11 year-olds is much shorter than for 18+. There are 96 AEs that qualify as a safety signal for the 12-17 group and 67 for the 5-11. When we take out the new COVID-era AEs, there are 92 safety signals for 12-17 year-olds and 65 for 5-11 year-olds. Here are the most alarming ones:

    I don’t know why the list of AE’s is so much shorter for these age groups. It could be that the list of AE’s for other vaccines for these age groups is much shorter, so in a case where AEs have been reported for the mRNA COVID vaccines but not for other vaccines, it will not be counted as a safety signal by definition.

    Upgrade to paid

    Share

    COMPARISONS TO MYOCARDITIS & PERICARDITIS
    We are told that the existence of a safety signal doesn’t necessarily mean the AE is caused by the vaccine, and I accept that premise. But the current practice seems to be to ignore safety signals, dismiss them as noise without any evidence, and stall any investigation into them as long as possible. The precautionary principle, however, dictates we should presume that a safety signal indicates causality, until proven otherwise. Since, it has been acknowledged that the mRNA COVID vaccines can cause myocarditis and pericarditis (often referred to as myo-pericarditis), we can take those AEs as a kind of benchmark, and propose that, at minimum, any AE with a signal of equal or greater size should be considered potentially causal and investigated more thoroughly.⁴

    After dropping the new COVID-era AEs, there are 503 AEs with PRRs larger than myocarditis (PRR=3.09) and 552 with PRRs larger than pericarditis (PRR=2.82).⁵ This means that 66.4% of the AEs had a bigger safety signal than myocarditis and 77.3% were larger than pericarditis. You can see what those were by use this Excel file provided by the CDC and sorting the 18+ tab by the 12/14-07/29 PRR column (Column E). Then just look at which AEs have PRRs larger than the ones for pericarditis and myocarditis.

    For 12-17 year-olds, there is 1 safety signal larger than myocarditis (it’s ‘troponin increased’) and 14 safety signals larger than pericarditis (excluding myocarditis), which include: mitral valve incompetence, bell’s palsy, heavy menstrual bleeding, genital ulceration, vaccine breakthrough infection, and a range of indicators of cardiac abnormalities.

    For 5-11 year-olds, the comparison to myo/pericarditis is less germane, as they seem to suffer less from this side effect. But we can still make the comparison: there are 7 safety signals larger than pericarditis, including bell’s palsy, left ventricular dysfunction, mitral valve incompetence, and ‘drug ineffective’ (presumably meaning they still got COVID). There are 16 safety signals larger than myocarditis (excluding pericarditis), which in addition to those listed above also include: pericardial effusion, diastolic blood pressure increase, tricuspid valve incompetence, and vitiligo. Sinus tachycardia (high heart rate), appendicitis, and menstrual disorder come in just below myocarditis.

    Now if we think of a safety signal as having both strength and clarity, then the PRR can be thought of as an indicator of how strong the signal is, while the Chi-square is a measure of how clear or unambiguous the signal is, because it gives us a sense of how likely the signal is due to chance alone: the larger the Chi-square value, the less likely the signal is due to chance. A Chi-square of 4 means there is only a 5% chance the observed signal is due to chance. A Chi-square of 8 means there is only a 0.5% chance of it being due to chance.⁶

    For the 18+ group, there are 57 AEs with a Chi-square larger than myocarditis (Chi-square=303.8) and 68 with a Chi-square larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=229.5). Again, you can see what these are by going the Excel file linked above and sorting on Column D.

    For the 12-17 group, there are 4 AEs with a larger Chi-square than myocarditis (Chi-square=681.5) and 6 larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=175.4).

    For the 5-11 group, there are 22 AEs with a Chi-square larger than myocarditis (Chi-square=30.42) and 34 AEs with a Chi-square larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=18.86).

    RESPONDING TO OBJECTIONS
    Let’s dispense with some of the criticisms used to dismiss VAERS data, which will undoubtedly be raised if you try to bring the CDC’s analysis to people’s attention.

    Objection: Anybody can report to VAERS. The reports are unreliable. Anti-vaxxers made lots of fraudulent reports. Nobody was aware of VAERS in the past, but now they are. So many people were afraid of the vaccine so they blamed all their health problems on it. Health workers were required by law to report certain adverse events, like deaths and anaphylaxis. Etc. Etc.

    All of these objections ultimately rely on the notion that VAERS reports for COVID-19 vaccines have been artificially inflated over previous years for one reason or another. The thing of it is, though, that the CDC has a method for distinguishing between artificial inflation and real signal. The idea is simple: if adverse events are artificially inflated, they should be artificially inflated to the same degree. Meaning, the PRRs for all of these safety signals should be about the same. But even a casual glance at the PRRs in the Excel file show they vary widely, from as low at 2 to as high as 105 for vaccine breakthrough infection or 74 for cerebral thrombosis. This method does not on the number of reports, but the rate of reporting for certain events out of all events reported. If anything, this method would tend to hide safety signals in a situation where a new vaccine generates a very large number of reports.

    The CDC has even done us the favor of calculating upper and lower confidence intervals, meaning that we can be at least 95% confident that two PRRs are truly different if their confidence intervals don’t overlap. So for example the lower confidence interval for pulmonary thrombosis is 19.7, which is higher than the upper confidence interval for 543 other signals. Artificially inflated reporting cannot explain why so many different adverse events have large PRRs that are statistically distinct from one another.

    Objection: The safety signals are due to the huge number of COVID vaccines given out. Never before have we given out so many vaccine doses. By the end of July, the US had administered something like 600 million vaccine doses to people aged 18+. But the CDC analysis compares VAERS reports for these doses to all doses for all other vaccines for this age group since Jan. 1, 2009. But from 2015-2020 there were over 100 million flu doses administered annually to this age group alone. In previous work, I estimated 538 million doses of flu given to people 18+ from July 2015-June 2020. The number of flu and other non-COVID vaccines for this age group administered from Jan 1., 2009 through July 29, 2022 must be well over double this number, meaning VAERS reports for COVID vaccines are being compared to reports for at least double the number of doses for other vaccines. In addition to this, as already noted, the PRR methodology does not depend, strictly speaking, on the number of doses, but rather the rate of reporting of a specific AE out of all AEs for that vaccine.

    Objection: the vaccines are mainly being given to older people who tend to have health problems, whereas other vaccines are given to younger people. This objection is dealt with, since the analyses are stratified by age groups. It might be still be somewhat valid for the 18+ group, except that in the safety signal analysis I did in the fall of 2021, I stratified by smaller age bands and still found safety signals. In any case, this objection is not enough to dismiss the safety signal analysis out of hand, but rather calls for better and more refined research.

    Objection: The VAERS data is not verified and cannot be trusted. I’ll be the first person to agree that VAERS is not high quality data, but if it is completely untrustworthy, then how is it that the CDC uses these data to publish in the best medical journals such as JAMA and The Lancet? If the data were worthless, then these journals shouldn’t accept these papers. In that JAMA paper, they reported that 80% of the myocarditis reports met their definition of myocarditis and were included in the analysis. Many other reports simply needed more details for validation. Furthermore, the CDC has the ability and budget to follow-up on every report VAERS receives to get more details and even medical records to verify the report.

    So if myocarditis shows a clear signal in the CDC’s analysis, and 80% of those reports were apparently high quality enough to be included in a paper published in one of the world’s top medical journals, how is it possible that all the rest of the reports are junk? That all of the other safety signals are meaningless? Answer: it isn’t.

    And since we’re on the topic of safety signals that turned out to be real, it’s instructive to find appendicitis turn up as a safety signal in all 3 age groups, since a study published in NEJM based on medical records of over a million adult Israelis found an increased risk of appendicitis in the 42 days following Pfizer vaccination (but not following a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test). That study also found an increase in lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes) after vaccination, but not after positive COVID test. Lymphadenopathy was another safety signal.

    And that brings us to our last objection to be dispensed with: all of these AEs were due to COVID. There was an epidemic and so people were falling ill due to COVID and having all of these problems that were then blamed on the vaccine. Well to begin with, as we just saw, at least two of them (appendicitis and lymphadenopathy) do not appear to have increased risk ratios following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and we know that the mRNA vaccines increase risk of myo/pericarditis independent of infections. So how can we assume the rest of these are and dismiss them with the wave of a hand? We can’t. At minimum, they need further investigation. Furthermore, in the safety signal analysis I did in 2021, I dropped all VAERS reports where any sign of a SARS-CoV-2 exposure or infection was indicated on the report, and I still found large, significant safety signals.

    PUTTING IT ALL INTO PERSPECTIVE
    The Epoch Times article quotes my esteemed colleague and friend, Norman Fenton, Professor of Risk Management and an world renowned expert in Bayesian statistical analysis: “from a Bayesian perspective, the probability that the true rate of the AE of the COVID-19 vaccines is not higher than that of the non-COVID-19 vaccines is essentially zero…. The onus is on the regulators to come up with some other causal explanation for this difference if they wish to claim that the probability a COVID vaccine AE results in death is not significantly higher than that of other vaccines.” (See his post on the CDC analysis here.) The same is true for all the safety signals they found.

    The CDC’s VAERS SOP analysis document lists 18 Adverse Events of Special Interest says they are going to pay close attention to. In their 2021 JAMA paper (and similar presentations to ACIP), the researchers responsible for analyzing the millions of medical records in the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) using the ‘Rapid Cycle Analysis’ only studied 23 outcomes. A Similar analysis in NEJM from Israeli researchers focused on only 25 outcomes. Compare this to over 700 safety signals found by the CDC when they finally decided to look—and that’s not even counting all the adverse events that have never been reported for other vaccines so cannot ever show a safety signal by definition. How can the CDC say that these safety signals are meaningless if almost none of them have been studied any further? And yet we are assured that these vaccines have undergone the most intensive safety monitoring effort in history. It’s complete and utter hogwash!

    Upgrade to paid

    Share

    1
    To be precise, the ‘adverse events’ are for ‘preferred terms’ (PTs) which is a type/level of classification used in the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), which is the classification system used by VAERS and in other pharmacovigilance systems and clinical research for coding reported adverse events. Not all preferred terms are a symptom or adverse event per se. Some refer to a specific diagnostic test that was done or a treatment that was given.

    2
    It’s not entirely clear how they divided these up, since there are clearly AEs that should be considered serious that don’t show up in the serious Excel table — though maybe they don’t come up simply because they are looking within serious reports. I believe that they just filtered the reports to include only serious reports or non-serious reports, then did the safety signal analysis on all the AE’s coded in those reports. The reason I think this is that I used the MedAlerts Wayback Machine, selected just the serious COVID-19 vaccine reports, and the numbers of total reports was very close to the one in the table provided by the CDC (MedAlerts actually had a bit less). The files obtained by the Epoch Times do not include much in the way of a description as to how the analyses were done, so I had to infer some details, which might be incorrect. I will try to note when I am drawing an inference about how the analysis was done.

    3
    Generally speaking, these figures show the top ten AEs in each category. In some cases I combined AEs that indicated the same thing, such as combining ‘heart rate irregular’ with ‘arrythmia.’

    4
    Note that using the myo-pericarditis signal as a yardstick doesn’t mean that these are the only signals that matter. To give one example, anaphylactic reactions don’t even show up in the list of safety signals, even though that was one of the very first risk of the vaccine that became apparent from day one of the vaccine rollout.

    One potential objection to this benchmark is that it is too low of a bar, since myo-pericarditis appears to disproportionately affect younger men and so a proper safety signal should be stratified by age and gender then compared with myocarditis similarly stratified. I agree, and it is the CDC’s job to do that. But the fact is that any adverse reaction might disproportionately affect some subgroup of people, in which case the safety signal for that group would be similarly faint or diluted when we look at everyone together. So objection overruled.

    5
    In their Standard Operation Procedures document, the CDC said they would combine these and related codes together to assess a safety signal, but never mind – at least they finally got around to doing something.

    6
    In this context, the Chi-square is largely driven by the sheer number of adverse events: the more adverse events reported, including for the comparator vaccine, the larger the Chi-square. For example, the PRR for pericarditis and subdural haematoma is the same (2.82), but there were 1,701 incidents of pericarditis reported for mRNA COVID vaccines versus 221for the comparator vaccines, with Chi-square of 229.5. For subdural haematoma, these numbers are 162 verus 21, for a Chi-square of 21.2.

  11. Now that we are beginning the third year of the vax rollout, I see the CDC has just released the the PRR analysis of VAERS data they promised us two years ago. And the results are eye-opening, to say the least.

    Seven hundred different categories of adverse events have exhibited a spike in the VAERS database. Ischemic stroke, myocarditis, pericarditis, thromboembolectomy, elevated liver enzymes, acute kidney injury, heavy menstrual bleeding, intermenstrual bleeding, polymenorrhea, colon cancer, thyroid cancer, metastatic breast cancer — the list goes on and on.

    But bigger than the signal for any of these was that for “serious vaccine breakthrough infection,” for which the PRR was a whopping 315 times that of comparator products. So much for the vaunted “effectiveness” of the shots.

    We still haven’t seen the results of the FDA’s promised empirical Bayesian Data Mining (if they’ve ever even done it), but the CDC told the Epoch Times that the center’s results “generally corroborated the findings from Empirical Bayesian Data Mining, revealing no additional unexpected safety signals.” That is not terribly reassuring.

  12. Are genetically modified vaccines safe?

    Has anyone asked the regulator?

    Rebecca Weisser

    7 January 2023
     
    https://spectator.com.au/2023/01/are-genetically-modified-vaccines-safe/

    Like orphaned children who discover a dangerous world in the back of a wardrobe, people trying to discover the truth about Covid vaccines are best helped by talking animals. In C S Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia, Lucy and her siblings are helped by Mr Tumnus the faun and Aslan the lion. In the Chronicles of Covid, scientists and doctors turned themselves into talking beasts on Twitter to avoid losing their jobs while sharing the truth about the vaccines. Even then, they were censored and smeared until Elon Musk bought Twitter and started restoring their accounts.

    One of the most brilliant is a mouse called Jikky, a whistleblowing rodent from the CSIRO laboratory in Geelong where scientists research animal diseases and biosecurity, and have collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology on bat coronaviruses.

    Just after Christmas, Jikky (whose pronouns are mouse/mouseself) revealed that documents released by Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in response to two freedom of information (FOI) requests show that of the 382 batches of Covid vaccines monitored by the TGA, 10 are associated with multiple deaths. Moreover, of these ‘death’ batches, four appear to be contaminated with unexplained fragments of mRNA and five of these ‘death’ batches had had their shelf life extended by up to 11 months.

    The whole point of monitoring batches is to ensure they are pure, safe and effective. Yet despite the alarming association between contaminated batches and reported deaths, the TGA did not get the contaminants sequenced to confirm their contents or withdraw the tainted batches from use. And what are we to make of the fact that seven batches – which just happened to be associated with no deaths – were reserved exclusively for Pfizer employees?

    Compare the performance of Australia’s regulators with those in Japan. Three healthy men, two in their 30s and one in his 40s, died in August 2021 after receiving Moderna vaccines from batches where contaminants were found in unused vials. More than two and half million Moderna vaccines doses were halted while the contaminants were investigated and Moderna recalled three batches.

    It is painfully obvious that the TGA does not have the expertise to assess the safety of the Covid vaccines. In response to an FOI dated 5 February 2022, which asked for all documents relating to the TGA’s assessment of the risk posed by the possible presence in the Pfizer vaccine of cancer-causing micro-RNA, the use of pseudouridine in the modified RNA sequence which allows it to evade the toll-like receptors of the immune system, and the possibility of mutations in the untranslated region of the modified RNA which can increase the risk of cancer, premature birth and amyloid disease, the TGA responded that no such risk assessment had been undertaken.

    Yet, the fact that the TGA has no expertise in genetically modified vaccines doesn’t absolve them of responsibility. Under Section 30C of the Therapeutic Goods Act, the Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Health, Brendan Murphy, must seek advice from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator on the safety and efficacy of any product which uses genetically modified organisms (GMO) as defined in the Gene Technology Act. The Covid vaccines use GMO because they use ‘an organism that has been modified by gene technology’ ie a lipid nanoparticle or a viral vector, ‘to transfer genetic material’ – the modified genetic sequence of the Sars-CoV-2 spike protein – into human cells to induce the cellular machinery of the human body to produce spike proteins which include polypeptides.

    And not just any polypeptides. Sofie Nostrum and Per Hammarstrom of Linkoping University in Sweden showed that polypeptides in the spike protein create amyloid fibrils like those seen in Alzheimer’s disease and also induce amyloids in fibrinogen, the protein that forms fibrous clots that do not degrade. A review autopsy studies of people that died of Covid showed that 91 per cent had clots in their system. Are the Covid vaccines inducing amyloid fibrils and fibrous clots? In the first nine months of 2022, there were almost 20,000 excess deaths in Australia, 16 per cent more than the historical average with deaths due to dementia including Alzheimer’s disease 16 per cent above the baseline. Why hasn’t Murphy asked the Gene Technology regulator to investigate?

    It should be glaringly obvious to the members of the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee (GTTAC) who advise the gene technology regulator on all matters related to GMOs, and the Gene Technology Ethics and Community Consultative Committee, whose members are charged with advising the regulator on ethical issues, that the Covid vaccines need to be examined by scientists with expertise in gene technology.

    A slew of peer-reviewed papers show that the modified spike protein induced by the Covid vaccines can persist in the human body for months or years, damages the endothelium of blood vessels, can enter and damage all the organs of the body including inducing fatal myocarditis, can damage the immune system by transfecting lymphocytes, may enter the cell nucleus and interfere with DNA damage repair, and can induce reverse transcription permanently altering the human genome.

    In the 20 years since the creation of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, there has been increased focus on the use of GM techniques for vaccines and gene therapies and the regulator has specifically noted that regulation needs to keep up with new applications ‘to ensure that the legislation adequately captures and regulates new technologies, to protect the health and safety of people’.

    Yet as far as anyone can tell, Murphy has not consulted Dr Rajumati Bula, the Gene Technology Regulator seeking advice on the Covid vaccines and neither has adjunct Professor John Skerritt, the head of the TGA or any of the vaccine manufacturers, even though dealing with a GMO without a license issued by the Gene Technology Regulator is an offence under Section 32 of the Gene Technology Act.

    At the World Health Summit in 2021, Stefan Oelrich, head of pharmaceuticals at Bayer said ‘mRNA vaccines are an example of cell and gene therapy,’ and marvelled that ‘If we had surveyed the public two years ago (and asked) ‘Would you be willing to take a gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body we would have probably had a 95 per cent refusal rate’. But as the unexplained excess death rate continues to rise alarmingly in Australia, it’s long past time for the gene technology regulator to halt the use of the Covid vaccines until their safety can be demonstrated.

    Why Are Healthy People Dying Suddenly Since 2021? w/ Ed Dowd

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Pi7DCSn2c

    “The logic thread is completely bogus”

    “Pfizer failed the endpoint”

    https://gettr.com/post/p23v8hm9792

    History lesson…

  13. Yesterday and Today…

    Evan Davis, PM, BBCNews

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001h6dt

    “We will do our very best to secure a more detailed explanation as to what’s going on”
    He drops in conspiracy theories and jabs…

    Evan interviewed Andrew Witty at Chatham House, dropped in China, but not Paroxetine…

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr
    @RobertKennedyJr
    ·
    1h

    Here’s Pfizer’s long history of criminal behavior.

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/pfizer-albert-bourla-fraud-corruption/

    FORMER PFIZER VP, DR. MIKE YEADON – EVERYTHING WE HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT COVID-19 WAS A LIE

    https://rumble.com/v240ehc-former-pfizer-vp-dr.-mike-yeadon-everything-we-have-been-told-about-covid-1.html

    Interesting take on Patrick Vallance, (31.00), who Dr. Mike Yeadon worked with, during the lie sequence…

    Rishi Sunak leads condemnation of Tory MP who claimed Covid vaccine was ‘the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust’: Andrew Bridgen is suspended by party for anti-vaxxer Twitter rant and warned he may have ‘blood on his hands’

    Andrew Bridgen shared an article on the Pfizer and Moderna jabs on Twitter
    MP compared use of jabs to ‘biggest crime against humanity’ since Holocaust
    Chief whip Simon Hart said his comment ‘crossed the line’ and removed whip

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11622825/Outrage-Tory-MP-Andrew-Bridgen-compares-Covid-vaccine-roll-HOLOCAUST.html

    Hancock stirring the pot…

    They didn’t turn up for the Commons debate, they turn on him en masse, they squabble and squawk about excess deaths up 9% and so here we are with A Bridge Too Far…

    Josh Guetzkow
    @joshg99

    The claims of anti-Semitism against @Abridgen are cheap shots that undermine the fight against genuine anti-Semitism–regardless of whether or not he’s correct about the level of harm caused by the C-19 jabs.

    “There is Nothing At All Anti-Semitic About His Statement”: Andrew Bridgen Defended by Jewish Israeli Academic Whose Article He Tweeted

    https://dailysceptic.org/2023/01/11/there-is-nothing-at-all-anti-semitic-about-his-statement-andrew-bridgen-defended-by-jewish-israeli-academic-whose-article-he-tweeted/

    A week is a long time in ‘politics’ …

  14. Wooing…

    Let’s talk about, Stats – Aseem picks his moment…

    Dr Aseem Malhotra
    @DrAseemMalhotra

    BREAKING BBC News: Cardiologist says likely contributory factor to excess cardiovascular deaths is covid mRNA vaccine and roll out should be suspended pending an inquiry.
    We did it.
    We broke mainstream broadcast media

    https://twitter.com/DrAseemMalhotra/status/1613837487796850688

    U.S. extends public health emergency status for COVID

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-extends-covid-19-public-health-emergency-status-cnbc-2023-01-11/

    Jan 11 (Reuters) – The U.S. health department on Wednesday extended the COVID-19 pandemic’s status as a public health emergency, allowing millions of Americans to continue receiving free tests, vaccines and treatments.

    The emergency was first declared in January 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic began, and has been renewed each quarter since then. It was due to end this week.

    Limit vaccinations to at-risk population, declare end of the pandemic, says expert task force

    https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/limit-vaccinations-to-at-risk-population-declare-end-of-the-pandemic-says-expert-task-force/amp_articleshow/96924850.cms

    India should recommend Covid vaccines only for people with comorbidities or those who have never been infected, a joint task force of medical experts from three leading health organisations has said in a report.

    It also said people who have had a Covid infection may not gain any “additional benefits” from either two primary doses, a precautionary dose or any additional doses, as naturally infected individuals have a lower chance of being reinfected and, therefore, of becoming a source of further transmission.

    The task force comprised medical experts from Indian Public Health Association (IPHA), Indian Association of Preventive and Social Medicine (IAPSM) and Indian Association of Epidemiologists (IAE).

    It is noteworthy that as this evidence has accumulated, the primary argument that the vaccines are safe seems to be “we have injected billions of people with these vaccines”. While that may be true it does not falsify any of the concerns above.

    HART reiterates our call for the vaccines to be stopped pending an immediate, independent and thorough investigation into the cause of the rise in recent cardiovascular deaths.

    https://www.hartgroup.org/what-are-people-not-dying-of/

    In the second half of the year (June to end Nov) there have been considerably more deaths in 2022 than were seen in the same periods of 2020 and 2021 (see table 1). Why have more people been dying?

  15. Good ducks, bad ducks…

    Juan Gérvas Retweeted

    Robert W Malone, MD
    @RWMaloneMD

    Just putting this out there. Does not need anything more.

    https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1613545958993809408

    Juan Gérvas Retweeted

    Dr Clare Craig (not one of her impersonators)
    @ClareCraigPath

    There were only 127 hospitalisations labelled as ‘covid’ in unVx over 65 year olds from Sept 2022 to Jan 2023. That is 4% of the total admissions. UKHSA NIMS data says 6% are unVX.

    https://twitter.com/ClareCraigPath/status/1613573588501544961

    Juan Gérvas Retweeted

    Dr Clare Craig (not one of her impersonators)
    @ClareCraigPath

    Ambulance response times for serious conditions such as stroke or chest pain. This report normally includes data on the percentage surviving resuscitation – but that has been omitted this month.
    https://england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/01/20230112-Statistical-Note-AQI.pdf

    Juan Gérvas Retweeted

    Vinay Prasad MD MPH
    @VPrasadMDMPH

    This is pretty damning. You have the White House directly pressuring Facebook to remove truthful speech that challenges their policy goal of coercing every adult (even those who had COVID) into getting vax. I can’t see any justification for this. Clearly illegal

    Michael Shellenberger
    @ShellenbergerMD
    ·

    Many think social media companies only censored “vaccine misinformation.” But a recently-released email shows Facebook reassuring the White House that they were censoring “often-true content” that “does not contain actionable misinformation” but was “discouraging vaccines.”

    https://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1613376751320829952

    Prof Norman Fenton
    @profnfenton
    ·
    Jan 12

    https://twitter.com/profnfenton/status/1613543166212202496

    Matt Hancock
    @MattHancock
    ·
    Jan 11

    The disgusting and dangerous anti-semitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories spouted by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society My question to
    @RishiSunak
    in PMQs

    https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1613159691785482240

    Dr Aseem Malhotra
    @DrAseemMalhotra
    ·
    Jan 11

    With the greatest respect Matt,there’s no conspiracy theory here it’s the product of a system failure of which we are all victims ;the corporate capture of public health.Happy to meet with you again & present the data. Also majority of responses to your tweet are not supportive. twitter.com/matthancock/st…

    Oof

    CAMELPHAT
    @CamelPhat

    The SITTING Duck…

  16. Prof Norman Fenton
    @profnfenton

    1 hr

    And just when you might have thought things could not get more bizarre, there is an astoning update to this story. .

    @TheLancet is a joke

    Prof Norman Fenton
    @profnfenton

    1hr

    1. Latest astonishing update in saga of .@TheLancet
    refusal to publish response exposing serious issues with the paper they published on Pfizer vaxx efficacy. Perfectly encapsulates censorship & deceit of the whole covid narrative.
    Corruption of science

    The Lancet has become a laughing stock

    Norman Fenton and Martin Neil

    2 hr ago

    https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-lancet-has-become-a-laughing

    Josh Guetzkow
    @joshg99

    https://open.substack.com/pub/jackanapes/p/cdc-finally-released-its-vaers-safety
    The Reclaim Party
    @thereclaimparty
    ·
    5h

    I wrote the report that @Abridgen shared and it’s a BOMBSHELL, yet it was drowned out by the controversy surrounding the MP- Dr. Josh Guetzkow

    @LozzaFox @GBNEWS @joshg99

    https://twitter.com/joshg99/status/1614236513126027267

    Mike Yardley
    @YardleyShooting
    ·
    3h

    IN THE FREE WORLD – lots of people standing by Aseem now. Great. If only more doctors would have the same courage. There are so few in the UK, the NHS and the Media just exert too much power. Politics and profit trump science.
    @DrAseemMalhotra #VaxInjured

    BBC criticised for letting cardiologist ‘hijack’ interview with false Covid jab claim

    Aseem Malhotra’s ‘misguided’ views linking some Covid vaccines to excess heart disease deaths should not have aired, say experts

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/13/bbc-cardiologist-aseem-malhotra-links-covid-jabs-to-heart-disease-deaths?CMP=share_btn_tw

    Say ‘Experts’ …

    CDC and FDA say they’re investigating possible link between Pfizer’s bivalent Covid booster and strokes in seniors over age of 65 — but officials have ‘no concerns at this time’

    Officials say over-65s who receive the bivalent shot suffer increased stroke risk 
    Leading regulators still recommend the Covid booster shot to Americans
    Ischemic strokes are caused when artery blockages deny blood to the brain 

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11633619/U-S-says-Pfizers-bivalent-COVID-shot-linked-stroke-older-adults.html

    The agency warned that myocarditis was appearing more frequently in males 16 and older within seven days of receiving the shot. 

    Officials also continued to recommend the vaccine to this age group despite the warning.

Leave a Reply