Four Reasons the Official COVID Narrative Is Falling Apart
By 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.
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?
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.
[…]
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.
The common clotting and heart health issues we see around us today were actually concealed in the data reviewed by the likes of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the European Medicines Agency at the time the EUAs were issued.
They were just ignored by the regulators. That includes the coagulation disorders, acute cardiac injuries and the myocarditis/pericarditis issues that all jumped off the journal pages.
Joseph Fraiman and colleagues, the authors of the study, had difficulty getting to the bottom of the data in these trials given that both Pfizer and Moderna kept protocols secret and failed to make public individual participant data.
They decided to publish the letter they sent to Albert Bourla and Stéphane Bancel, the respective CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna, in a Rapid Response to The BMJ in August, raising their concerns over non-transparency. We drew attention to this major problem in 2020, here and here.
Damning stuff — yet not even a squeak from the vaccine confidence brigade. Punch in (as I just have) “Doshi” in the search bar of The Vaccine Confidence Project and you’ll find zero hits.
Then follow this by plugging in “Offit,” as in Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also a long-term vaccine protagonist, albeit one who has been voicing caution over COVID-19 vaccines to healthy youngsters.
You’ll find multiple pages of hits when you use Offit’s name. Have they not worked out that it’s this kind of illogic and imbalance that adds to our lack of confidence?
What was concealed from view in the Phase 3 trials, is the disturbing picture of the spectrum of neurological injury that we are now witnessing from the real-world, population-wide roll-out that appears to be linked to COVID-19 vaccines, albeit not commonly, but predictably uncommonly.
Then there are suggestions of increasing cancer incidence, this inevitably clouded by cancer cases among those who didn’t receive standard care during the lockdowns as well as emerging evidence of natural killer and T cell exhaustion following repeat COVID-19 “vaccination.”
Even more challenging will be deconstruction of the long-term complications caused by this new technology that will inevitably be delayed in time post-vaccination and become ever more difficult to unwrap as people get exposed to more shots while the virus continues to circulate and infect people.
High on the watch list are fertility, autoimmune conditions and the smorgasbord of chronic, degenerative diseases associated with aging populations, especially in industrialized countries.
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/official-covid-narrative-falling-apart/