by Rob Verkerk, Ph.D., Childrens Health Defense:
It’s becoming ever more clear that the major, most influential health authorities around the world are now blatantly lying to the public, given the current status of scientific and medical information.
By Rob Verkerk, Ph.D.
It’s becoming ever more clear that the major, most influential health authorities around the world are now blatantly lying to the public, given the current status of scientific and medical information.
Why do I say this?
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
The answer is simple: because the most influential health authorities are communicating to the public, both in words and in actions, the view that COVID-19 “vaccines” are “safe and effective” when the totality of available evidence suggests otherwise.
Let me explain.
Shouting from the webpage of what is the world’s largest “health system,” the U.K.’s National Health Service, is the statement below, in bold text, declaring the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 “vaccines.”
The following screengrab was taken Oct. 27:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, like so many others, parrots the same information, using bold text for emphasis in the new, lockstep tradition.
The following screengrab was also taken Oct. 27:
It is widely acknowledged that the proportion of proven cases of injury from COVID-19 vaccines is currently very small compared with the total number of doses administered. But this metric is not sufficient to declare a product as safe.
After all, society seems quite happy to deem a children’s toy unsafe even if there is just a theoretical risk of injury — let alone a demonstrated one that has led to death or permanent injury.
The Oxford Dictionary tells us that a product that is safe is one that is “free from hurt or damage.” The Cambridge Dictionary offers a similar meaning: “not in danger or likely to be harmed.” Obviously, there are some harms that are inevitable and would be readily accepted by most who were being offered an injectable medicine, even saline.
These minor harms include common reactions caused by the breach of the skin by the hypodermic needle or even the risk of fainting from “needle phobia.” Then there are nocebo responses that might include headache or fatigue.
But that’s not what we’re talking about here. What’s much more relevant is the rapidly building evidence base that shows substantial differences in severe reactions between injecting a placebo and the real thing.
Sadly and to confuse the wider picture — quite probably deliberately — some of the clinical trials have not been conducted with saline controls, but rather with other vaccines or with mixtures of adjuvants.
This aside, let’s look at two pieces of relatively recent evidence from available data that any court would likely find hard to ignore, that demonstrate the COVID-19 “vaccines” should not and cannot be regarded as safe based on clear-cut differences between treatment and placebo arm results.
Study 1: Haas et al., Journal of the American Medical Association (January 2022)
The first is a comprehensive meta-analysis of 12 clinical trials published in January this year in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association.
The study was led by Julia Haas from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and among the 8 author-strong team was senior author, Ted Kaptchuk, from Harvard Medical School. This is not a marginalized journal, nor a marginalized or discredited authorship.
The findings show a clear and pronounced, statistically significant elevation in severity and number of adverse events in those receiving the COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA, adenoviral vector and protein subunit types), compared with those receiving controls — especially after the second of two doses included in the trials.
That’s it — it should be GAME OVER for any claim that the COVID-19 vaccines are “safe.”
A second study in a major high-impact journal should make it not just GAME OVER but a SLAM DUNK. Turns out there is at least one. In fact, there are many more; I have simply been selective in providing two composite studies (meta-analyses) that in turn include many other studies.
Study 2: Fraiman et al., Vaccine (September 2022)
The authorship of the second study I’ve selected is equally star-studded, including leading researchers from UCLA, Stanford and the University of Maryland, the latter including as its senior (last) author, Peter Doshi, also a senior editor at The BMJ.
What these authors did was painfully tease apart available data from the phase 3 trials that Pfizer and Moderna used to gain their emergency use authorizations (EUAs).
The authors found a consistent trend for significantly greater risks for serious adverse events in the COVID-19 “vaccine” arms compared with placebos, the risk ratios being between 1.36 and 1.57 times greater in the “vaccine” arms for those adverse events defined as being of “special interest.”
These include criteria developed specifically for COVID-19 vaccines by the Brighton Collaboration, and have been agreed upon by the World Health Organization.
Read More @ ChildrensHealthDefense.org
