Come up with an injectable agent that subverts human cellular replicating machinery into producing cells with genetically altered viral components and do it at WARP SPEED! What could possibly go wrong?
You're implying (by mention of "Warp Speed") that Trump ordered the development of mRNA and DNA vaccines. This is manifestly untrue. Trump ordered the development of vaccines, period. The "experts" of Big Pharma determined what types of vaccines were developed, and they were subsequently supported by a vast army of unelected bureaucrats, (likely compromised) academics, and social media companies that were happy to deliver propaganda and to silence those who questioned the official narrative (which was crafted by the W.H.O., the CDC, and Anthony Fauci).
The Yellow Card system is a passive monitoring system by government choice. On behalf of the government, the Royal College of GPs Research and Surveillance Centre at Oxford University runs active monitoring of respiratory viruses, such as influenza and SARA CoV 2. Active monitoring of all vaccines would expose the dirty secret of modern medicine that vaccines are not the ‘safe and effective’ miracle popular myth holds them to be. So long as doctors, bureaucrats and other well-meaning health practitioners believe vaccines are a miracle, they will go knees to chest to suppress anything ‘anti-vax’ in the false belief they are doing good.
Why not look at deaths in the LEAST BIASED source of data: the Pfizer and Moderna "gold standard" randomized double-blind clinical trials? The Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials BOTH had a 15-17% increase in non-COVID deaths, and specifically a 40-50% increase in cardiovascular-related deaths, with vaccine versus placebo.
With all due respect, I entirely disagree that the mortality data from the two "gold standard" randomized controlled trials which included >70,000 people can be conveniently dismissed like that. That is EXACTLY what the medical establishment wants, because then all we are left with is poor quality observational data that is extremely biased in favor of the vaccines. If observational data is not reliable enough for ivermectin, then observational data is certainly not reliable enough to form any claims that experimental vaccines are "safe and effective".
The RCTs are the only unbiased data we have on the vaccines, and taking the statistical uncertainty into account, the RCT mortality data absolutely CAN be used to make meaningful inferences. The RCT mortality data clearly show that mRNA vaccines are equally or more likely to cause death rather than prevent death, and the data also show that any meaningful overall "lifesaving" benefit is very unlikely. If the increase in non-COVID deaths is "not significant" then the decrease in COVID deaths is certainly "not significant" because it's even smaller in absolute magnitude, which means there is no justification for using the vaccine. And finally, just because the RCT data may only yield "75% confidence" instead of the magic "95% confidence" that the mRNA vaccines increase cardiovascular mortality, how can it be considered responsible or ethical to dismiss the 45% increase in cardiovascular mortality observed across the two trials, especially when these vaccines are indeed linked to cardiovascular complications based on a plethora of other evidence as well?
Don't get me wrong. I think these clinical trials data already provided enough bad safety signals to know that the vaccines should never have been authorised. Moreover I think that, because of the known fraud that went on (especially with the Pfizer trial) they are covering up worse data (we know of cases of people severely injured by the vaxx who were not counted). But it is difficult to extrapolate these numbers to the popluation at large.
Ok, fair enough. So how about a simple Bayesian analysis of the mRNA vaccine clinical trial data regarding the impact on mortality (COVID, non-COVID, cardiovascular, all-cause)? Undoubtedly, the overall probability of mRNA vaccines "saving lives" is lower than the probability of their "causing excess deaths", and the probability of their causing excess cardiovascular deaths is worrisomely high.
I am virtually certain that if we keep ignoring the gold-standard randomized clinical trial mortality data, we will never adequately move the needle on the problem of vaccine deaths, and the "safe and effective" myth will persist forever. The medical establishment easily dismisses any observational evidence pointing to vaccine deaths by saying "these deaths could have happened anyway, this is not a randomized controlled trial so it cannot prove anything." And worse still, for every observational study pointing to vaccine deaths, they have 10 or more observational studies claiming the vaccines have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, or even millions of lives worldwide.
In fact, even your estimate of just 120,000 US vaccine deaths would be a huge net positive for the vaccine in terms of lives saved, because even the lowest credible estimate of US COVID deaths prevented by the vaccine (just assuming 50% effectiveness) will be far higher than 120,000. In contrast, the RCT mortality data reveal "4 killed for every 3 saved" even at peak effectiveness during the deadliest US surge, and if I had to bet my life on what the truth is, this "gold standard" RCT mortality data from Pfizer and Moderna themselves is closest to the truth.
Also, do not forget, that the "mRNA vaccines" have a lot of issues that normally no one talks about: The FDA has no standard to test the quality of the "product" and has to rely on Pfizer and Moderna to come up with ways of making sure their product is of a certain quality. And there are already indications out there, that some vaccine batches may have been contaminated with E. coli plasmid DNA from the step used to replicate the mRNA. Apart from that no one knows how many of the LNPs actually contain "undamaged" mRNA encoding for the full spike protein. In comparison to live attenuated polio vaccine, no onw knows how many antigenic units are in one shot, since no one knows how many LNPs you actually get from a vial, when you prepare the first shot, the second shot, the third shot or the fourth shot. The amount of LNPs in every one of those may be different and even then you do not know how much spike protein, in terms of antigenic units, is actually produced by the cells of the body. Oh and while I am at it, the live attenuated polio virus vaccines can only infect cells of the body that have the "cluster of differentiation" 155 (CD155) or as this structure is also known, the Polio Virus Receptor (PVR). The LNPs don't care about cell receptors. They will fuse with/"transfect" any cell membrane and as we know from Pfizer, study #185350, 25 minutes after IM injection, the vaccine is systemic and can be found in the brain and in the bone marrow, spinal cord and any other organ and tissue in the body. In tissue expressing ACE2, like the endothelial lining of every blood vessel in your body, the full spike protein being expressed on the cell surface will lead to syncytia.
"The active substance is manufactured and controlled by either Wyeth BioPharma Division, Andover, United States or by BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, Mainz, Germany, and Rentschler Biopharma SE, Laupheim, Germany.
During the procedure, a number of issues were highlighted relating to the GMP status of the manufacture of the active substance and of the testing sites of the finished product for the purpose of batch release. These issues were classified as a Major Objection (MO)."
Then without explanation it says:
"After further information was obtained from the sites and inspectors, the MO was considered resolved."
This section has so much missing info it's unreal:
Description of manufacturing process and process controls - pg 15 to 22
There also no real questions asked by the EMA and where it does say they received information it's not expanded upon.
These are a few comments about missing information in the manufacturing process:
1 - It is recommended that the applicant should implement relevant testing strategies to ensure an adequate microbiological control for the starting materials (REC1)
2 - and should implement a relevant testing strategy to ensure that HEPES (Pfizer) raw material, included in the formulation buffer of FP, is free from contaminating RNases (REC2).
3 - The applicant should implement in-house functional activity analytical methods for release testing of enzymes used in the manufacturing process at all relevant manufacturing sites, by Q1 2021 (REC3)
4 - Changes to the manufacturing process of the linear DNA template (e.g. change to plasmid host cell) may result in a different impurity profile in the active substance
5 - the proven acceptable ranges (PARs) ranges need to be adjusted and the dossier updated accordingly
6 - The robustness of the DNase digestion step is not considered comprehensively demonstrated
7 - It can therefore not be concluded that identical species are obtained by the processes. It is likely that the fragmented species will not result in expressed proteins, due to their expected poor stability and poor translational efficiency
8 - the lack of experimental data on the truncated RNA and expressed proteins does not permit a definitive conclusion and needs further characterisation. Therefore, additional characterisation data remain to be provided as a specific obligation
9 - this argument alone cannot fully confirm the comparability of Process 2
versus Process 1, and further characterisation data and justification of specifications were requested.
10 - the results indicating a substantial proportion of shorter/truncated mRNA with both cap and poly(A)tail are not in agreement with this statement
11 - characterisation data are requested to be completed with analysis
- jab half with placebo (I think Pfizer used the Meningitis ACWY vaccine)
- jab other half with experimental chemical concoction
- give them a list of symptoms to look for
- let them wander round in public
- any one gets ill with one or more of the symptoms from the list give them a non-diagnostic test that does not tell if you have the illness or not
- fudge the data
- claim that jabbed with the experimental chemical concoction got whatever it was less than the placebo group
- try and hide the data for 75 years
One question someone may be able to answer me - if you do not have a sample of the virus or whatever causes the illness you are vaccinating against so that you can try and get the trial participant to "catch" it after being jabbed nor do you have a diagnostic test for that illness so cannot say 100% they caught it how can you claim this is a valid trial?
Well this may seem like heresy, but I claim that RCTs are not the "Gold Standard". They suffer from many flaws, and are open to abuse by bad actors. The most common abuse is the claim "This trial does not support the hypothesis" - when in fact the trial DOES support the hypothesis, just not at the 95% level. This makes it very easy to set up 3 trials, which could not possibly reach the 95% bar, and hence write three papers which describe 3 different trials which "do not support the hypothesis". This is often enough to fool even people who ought to know better.
(The gold standard is not to sample at all, but look at the whole population. The observational data on mortality in India's 1.4 billion after prescribing vit. D and Ivermectin is a good example).
Of course RCTs are not perfect but they are by far the least biased data, especially for establishing causality (what would happen with vs. without the intervention). BTW, both ivermectin and Vitamin D DO have RCT evidence of saving lives: https://c19ivm.org/meta.html#fig_fprd.
But let's cut to the chase: the Pfizer and Moderna RCTs had "4 killed for every 3 saved" by mRNA vaccines overall, while the vast majority of observational studies suggest that mRNA vaccines have saved several hundreds of thousands of lives (these observational studies have obvious flaws and biases/confounders that nobody can deny). And the RCTs had 16% excess non-COVID deaths and 45% cardiovascular deaths with mRNA vaccines versus placebo (of course not reaching the magic "95% confidence" level), while the vast majority of observational studies show no excess non-COVID deaths whatsoever in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, and in fact the reverse.
So why would we trust the observational studies in spite of all the severe biases, confounders, and other flaws (cherry-picking and manipulating of data), instead of the RCTs, which eliminate those biases and flaws?
I think we are in violent agreement :-) Yes, there are studies that show clear benefits of vit. D and Ivermectin. My point is that actually EVERY RCT shows benefits - but many papers *claim* no benefit because the tests were set up to fail to reach the arbitrary 95% confidence limit, and most readers do not get past that headline.
I agree that the official trials are absolutely damning - but the number of deaths in either group was too small to be statistically significant. The only really firm conclusion you can draw is that there are so few deaths among healthy people that vaccination should be absolutely ruled out, and that there was no evidence they do any good and some evidence that they do serious harm.
But suppose you wanted to find out if the vaccines were effective at preventing death in under 20's. The mortality rate is 1 in ten million - how big would your RCT have to be to show significant results?
The great value that Professor Fenton adds is that he has demonstrated that the data used for the observational studies you mention are outright fraud.
Hiya, when you look at the RCT's for IVM they are comparing IVM with doxycycline vs HQC with azithromycin for example, or Ivermectin-azithromycin-cholecalciferol vs 7 controls in a small study or IVM with doxycycline with no deaths in either arms but improved 'viral clearance' by non specific PCR, 'phone based' RCT's of IVM vs various treatments included in meta analysis as showing improvement in 'time to resolution' though the authors admit their study cannot recommend treatment with IVM. They seem to be a bit of a mess and not removing variables at all. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/ivermectin
Lockdown where? I live in a "blue" area of the US and there were no "lockdowns" anywhere around here. Things were quite active in 2020 and onwards. Australia is very famous for "lockdowns"- and perhaps to a lesser extent Canada- so if lockdowns are the cause of excess deaths, then why did both of those countries have MORE excess deaths post-lockdown after the wonderful vaccine rollout?
Lockdowns are horrible and unnecessary, but the scientific evidence doesn't support blaming lockdowns more than mRNA vaccines for excess deaths.
Someone could run a national-scale RCT of full-strength vs. diluted vax, just to find the optimal dose. Science can still be done. Or would that violate contract terms?
Does anyone really know what was in the "placebo"?
Bigpharma have their safety and trials and efficacy trials off to a tee.
When I was less naive I always thought that the vaccinated cohort would be tested against a totally unvaccinated cohort!
But not so. The unvaxxed cohort are usually given an older but similar type of vaccination - which to help it come to market in its day, was - you guessed it, tested against the older version. Etc. etc. And Voila - the new vax has the same safety profile as its older, and deemed safe, predecessors.
So, I wonder if the unvaxxed cohort in the Pfizer/Moderna trials were given the proper stuff, less the mRNA package?
I mean there's no absolutely no harm harm in being injected with PEG, Lipid nanoparticles, DMG etc...
See: https://doi.org/10.53964/jmbdd.2023001 for my review of the placebo saline controls - I propose that these are not valid controls due to the number of associated adverse events.
The son of a someone I know took part in the trials for the AZ vaccine, as he is diabetic. His mum said the placebo was another vaccine 'so they would get some benefit whether it was the AZ vaccine or the placebo'. I assume that's what he was told.
If I recall the placebo, wasn’t a biologically inactive substance but was the meningococcal vaccine which also will skew the results in favour of the vaccine.
Also of note is the time-course of excess deaths, with a finding that is consistent with cremation data: deaths ran at least 10% higher after jabs rolled out than before.
Interesting that Moderna looks somewhat safer, or should I say "less unsafe", that Pfizer. Theoretically it should be the other way round because the amount of mRNA per dose is higher in Moderna (100 ug) than Pfizer (30ug). I think I also remember that the myocarditis rate is indeed higher in Moderna, but in terms of deaths, Pfizer seems to be higher. Strange.
Also I remember a news article from spring of 2021 where they paused AZ in healthcare workers because up to 25% had such serious side effects they had to call in sick for a few days which led to acute staff shortage. But they were like "everything is fine and safe and effective, we just wait until the sick colleagues recover, then we resume the injections so that the next batch of colleagues can get sick for a few days, then we pause again and so on and so forth". Great strategy. Mass Formation Psychosis.
I had this same thought about the Moderna having a larger dose of mRNA, that it would be more injurious. However, I think quality control is also a huge factor here, and that Pfizer created way more vaccines, their ability to monitor quality control issues would have been lessened.
In Germany, the doctors must report any suspected vaccine damage. It pays them nothing and takes about 45 minutes per case though.
Resulting in what happened recently to a friend who now suspects that she is vaxx damaged and articulated this to her doctor: he screamed at her and threw her out of his practice.
The knowledge and fear of personal liability in case that damage was established is certainly an additional factor for such now common, most despicable and deeply unethical behaviour by so-called doctors.
Typical gaslighting. I have transcribed several testimonies. And there are cascades of such stories at www.realnotrare.com . But I have also transcribed testimonies of doctors and nurses who have stood up and spoken out about the harms these jabs cause. They are a minority, however they are out there and I think the censorship and shadow-banning on social media have led many of us to believe fewer are speaking out than there actually are. Just today I was working on a transcript of testimony by a medical doctor who was himself injured, and he's speaking out, loud and clear.
FRONTLINE HEALTHCARE WORKER MARK BISHOFSKY: "WHAT I WITNESSED WAS MIND-BOGGLING"
From the censored and shadow-banned April 20, 2022 press conference in which Minnesota Representative Glenn Gruenhagen Introduces HF2348 - A resolution to create a COVID-19 vaccine bill of rights.
MARK BISHOFSKY: The last point I want to bring up is something that I noticed in August of 2021. For the last 10 years working at the hospital I was working at, July and August were always very, very slow. This was the time of the year where you would kick back, take a vacation, take a deep breath after going through the busy season. But in 2021, July and August were extremely busy. In fact we were taking patients in a suburban hospital all the way from Bemidji because every single hospital in the metro was full this past July and August. And it was not covid. There were almost zero cases of covid. What changed? What changed last year that made these hospitals full all the time now? What could it have possibly have been? To ask myself and to want to ask these doctors, could this be a vaccine injury? These clots, this bleeding? You could not do it. You absolutely could not debate science in these hospitals anymore. That is what I experienced. And if I would have asked those questions I would have been ostracized even worse.
And I will leave you with this. I resigned in September. In my last day of work I asked the doctor what his thoughts were, regarding giving young men the vaccine who are at a higher risk of getting myocarditis from the vaccine than they are for even being hospitalized from covid. And he said to me, I don't have the bandwidth. He would not engage me on that question. But within two hours, I was walked out of the hospital by my director and by security and they wouldn't even tell me why. In the end they told me I was going rogue.
So to ask a doctor what his thoughts are about the vaccine in these young men getting myocarditis is going rogue. What is happening in this country and in this world is insane. And people, please, need to wake up.
In July 2022 a doctor posted this about his experience with VAERS:
I completed a VAERS report on a patient of mine and was planning an additional report on another patient to follow (both were under 60 yo and developed spontaneous subdural hematomas within weeks after their shots). I didn't directly state cause/effect but certainly a concerning sequence of events worthy of further trending.
The 1st report took nearly an hour to complete and at the end, ominously required that I swear under the penalty of perjury (or something similar - this was a few years ago) that EVERYTHING I stated was true and accurate and that I could be contacted by a federal investigator to valid ate everything I reported. All my professional and personal contact information was required.
Needless to say, I deleted the report. The burden of proof and threat of consequences seemed too high. Speaking to several colleagues, they felt the same way. VAERS reporting has a substantial barrier to reporting - not facilitation.
Even though I didn't file an official report, I soon thereafter received a separate email (coincidence?) from the Federation of State Medical Boards stating that casting any aspersions regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccines would be deemed unprofessional conduct and could subject me to investigation, reprimand or even loss of my medical license (and ability to provide for my family!!)
The many American physicians that were/are skeptical (as we are trained to be regarding ANY new therapy) have been massively suppressed.
Anecdotal evidence isn't scientific. But my sister, fully vaccinated + boosted died Boxing Day of 'a sudden cardiac event' on the death certificate. It was a sudden death. She was fine on Christmas Day- it was like so many other SADS - she just keeled over. No autopsy and I didn't try recording it on the Yellow card - yet another no recorded death. I'm convinced she was killed by the vaccine but it will not be included in the data. BTW a minor point, but as someone unvaccinated, I caught Covid Jan 22. As I was on the ONS survey, my latest (last blood test) Mar 23 showed antibodies for Covid19. Natural immunity is always the best. Keep up the good work. Data won't persuade the Covid faithful, but it's vital that we have that data and analysis. Thanks.
Why would you expect a physician, pharmacist or nurse who adminstered a mRNA injection that caused death report that they were an instrument of death? In most cases there is a delayed immune system response that takes MANY different forms. Most deaths don't happen 5 minutes after the deadly shot is adminstered. Days and weeks or months are more likely. Dr. David Kessler, the FDA Commissioner (A GOOD Guy) revamped the ADR system IN 1993 and stated that only 1% of adverse reactions are reported. A factor of 100. More likley, a factor of 20 means that the VAERS reports x 20 = 640,000 deaths from the injection with a patient base of 200 + million getting the shots. Statiscally, in the minds of the medicine man that is less than .3% and is acceptable because they prevented great harm with then injections. Necessary collateral Damage! FALSEHOOD! Tell that to the famalies who lost a loved one! The push to convince humanity that these injections that reprogram normal cellular function is good is not abating! https://thomasabraunrph.substack.com/p/battle-for-your-brain
Thanks for mentioning the 'necessary collateral damage'. In what compassionate world is it acceptable for a preventative medicine to cause harm? Have we become so desensitised to the harms of medicines (opiates, chemotherapy to name two) that it's now normal?
Hugely important calculation. Indeed, it has been for a while now, and I find that there are remarkably few credible sceptics who have performed it. So thank you wholeheartedly.
One minor thing, though: I am fairly certain that the under-reporting factor is correctly defined as the number to multiply reported adverse events with (after cleaning up the false positives) in order to calculate the true number of adverse events. Thus, I would suggest that you write "only 10% of all vaccine deaths are reported then the under-reporting factor is 10" instead of "[...] then the under-reporting factor is 10%". I do hope I am not wrong about this.
In case you might be interested, I did a similar calculation, with more assumptions but always choosing to go the generous way, for children. I chose not to clean up the false positives because it appears to me that doing so is actually too generous for the simple reason that any URF already takes them into account. In other words: URFs are the ratio of true events to reported events, including false positives.
My suggestion for an easy fix, should you agree with my definition of URF, is that you replace "under-reporting factor" by "reporting rate".
Another small correction: When you write: "that would mean an extra 35,000 deaths indirectly caused by the vaccines. Together with the above estimate of 6,000 deaths directly caused by the covid vaccines, a total of 51,000 would result", I'm sure you meant 41,000.
In case you do not chose to look into it, I should add that my piece contains two further sources for URF estimates, both scientific papers by German government scientists.
Writers from the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, published in a federal health bulletin: URF ≥ 20
Writers from the Drug Commission of the German Medical Profession, the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices and the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, published in a federal pharmacovigilance bulletin: URF = 10-20
Small nitpick:"...is mediated by the MRNA vaccines means..." it should be "mRNA".
Thank you for your excellent work Prof. Fenton. Yes, people do not want to hear or consider that they were wrong, that they were victims of a medical experiment and thus no more than a lab rat. This has been true for many things since after WWII. Who would want to know that their government was recruiting high level members of the NSDAP, the SS, the SD or the Gestapo, like the British government did with Operation APPLE PIE (https://archive.org/details/apple-pie_202302 ; the Brits asked the US to join their efforts). Who would want to know that the US made the "Aufklärung Fremde Heere Ost" under Hitler into the new German Foreign Secret Service "Bundesnachrichtendienst, BND" (Eberhard Blum was president of the BND from 1982-1985, he was Reinhard Gehlens personal advisor from 1947 onward) (https://archive.org/details/CIAANDTHEORIGINSOFTHEBND1945-49VOL1-0001 and https://archive.org/details/CIAAndTheOriginsOfTheBND1949-1956/CiaAndTheOriginsOfTheBnd1949-56Vol.1_0001/). Who would want to know that the US High Commissioner John J. McCloy released Otto Ambros, sentenced to the highest prison term for "mass murder and slavery" in the Nuremberg Trials, after two years, letting him become a consultant to the US Army, the US Energy Department, numerous American chemical companies, the first Chancellor of Germany Konrad Adenauer and continue his work on Thalidomide. He was just one of hundreds of thousands Nazis who were on the payroll of the Allies after WWII, be it working for the US, Britain, France or Germany.
In "unrelated" news: Right now Substack seems to have some financial troubles, the Wayback Machine is being sued, there are concerted efforts to grow the Fact-Checker community (Poynter Institute and Google). In Germany it is the dpa, founded in 1949 (and who knows how many Nazi propagandists made it big time there? in 1965 for instance the Indonesia-correspondent of the Süddeutsche Zeitung was Rudolf Oebsger-Röder (former SS-Obersturmbannführer), now actually trying to appeal to 15-18 year olds to become the fact-checkers of tomorrow. Is it coincidence, that the impressionable youth is being targeted (https://www.dhm.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/ju001747 and https://www.dhm.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/offiziere-von-morgen-1940.html)?
The virus was likely made in a lab, the "vaccines" were cobbled together, Israel made a special deal with Pfizer that no other country made, making their population into the perfect lab rats... Jews being experimented on... and still, "no one" cares.
People do not want to hear "bad news", they just want to go on with their lives.
I almost forgot to mention, most have heard of Event 201, but only few have heard of the SPARS -Pandemic 2025-2028 tabletop exercise which made some odd choices in 2015-2017 to train communicators to deal with a Pandemic, where the pathogen is a coronavirus, even though back then everyone was betting on influenza to be the next big one, the mortality rate was wrongly projected to be high, though it was actually low, the Pandemic would come in a time where presidents would switch but the team dealing with the Pandemic would stay on board, a drug was identified to be used as a vaccine which was already known to have severe side effects, the manufacturer of that new vaccine was was completely indemnified from any liability. Oh and there was a Expert Working Group from the industry that was heavily involved in the creation of said exercise.
And I have not even touched on the "curious" "terror" attacks since late 2001...
Thank you. My own fit and healthy sister dropped down dead in August 2022. Had had 3 jabs. Post Mortem talked of "myocardial foci". Feel sure jab contributed to her death. Was telling a neighbour, NHS nurse, the night after she died. Was she jabbed, she asked. When told yes, she replied "oh we call them Covax deaths "
I think the problem of the harmful "vaccine" is not that Big Pharma are complicit in rushing out a nasty drug, nor that Politicians and Health quango "CEO" types backed them - both true imho - the (potentially) bigger issue is the compliant NHS and especially those of the GP cohort that refuse, point blank, to acknowledge the damage done. My GP, or to be more accurate, one of their junior Doctors , not a partner, has refused to do the relevant tests to tell me if the jabs have damaged certain cells and how it has affected my immune system , already compromised due to Anaphylaxis - I have had a strange on/off fatigue type condition with persistent productive cough for over 12 months. I would not be surprised to see this refusal to act ethically repeated UK wide - which leaves "Joe Public" cruelly exposed with no where to go if they suspect they are suffering from something they cannot fathom..?
Come up with an injectable agent that subverts human cellular replicating machinery into producing cells with genetically altered viral components and do it at WARP SPEED! What could possibly go wrong?
You're implying (by mention of "Warp Speed") that Trump ordered the development of mRNA and DNA vaccines. This is manifestly untrue. Trump ordered the development of vaccines, period. The "experts" of Big Pharma determined what types of vaccines were developed, and they were subsequently supported by a vast army of unelected bureaucrats, (likely compromised) academics, and social media companies that were happy to deliver propaganda and to silence those who questioned the official narrative (which was crafted by the W.H.O., the CDC, and Anthony Fauci).
The Yellow Card system is a passive monitoring system by government choice. On behalf of the government, the Royal College of GPs Research and Surveillance Centre at Oxford University runs active monitoring of respiratory viruses, such as influenza and SARA CoV 2. Active monitoring of all vaccines would expose the dirty secret of modern medicine that vaccines are not the ‘safe and effective’ miracle popular myth holds them to be. So long as doctors, bureaucrats and other well-meaning health practitioners believe vaccines are a miracle, they will go knees to chest to suppress anything ‘anti-vax’ in the false belief they are doing good.
Why not look at deaths in the LEAST BIASED source of data: the Pfizer and Moderna "gold standard" randomized double-blind clinical trials? The Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials BOTH had a 15-17% increase in non-COVID deaths, and specifically a 40-50% increase in cardiovascular-related deaths, with vaccine versus placebo.
Pfizer: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345/suppl_file/nejmoa2110345_appendix.pdf – Table S4
Moderna: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2113017/suppl_file/nejmoa2113017_appendix.pdf – Table S26
The problem is the numbers are too small to make any significant inferences and the population for the clinical trials was no representative.
With all due respect, I entirely disagree that the mortality data from the two "gold standard" randomized controlled trials which included >70,000 people can be conveniently dismissed like that. That is EXACTLY what the medical establishment wants, because then all we are left with is poor quality observational data that is extremely biased in favor of the vaccines. If observational data is not reliable enough for ivermectin, then observational data is certainly not reliable enough to form any claims that experimental vaccines are "safe and effective".
The RCTs are the only unbiased data we have on the vaccines, and taking the statistical uncertainty into account, the RCT mortality data absolutely CAN be used to make meaningful inferences. The RCT mortality data clearly show that mRNA vaccines are equally or more likely to cause death rather than prevent death, and the data also show that any meaningful overall "lifesaving" benefit is very unlikely. If the increase in non-COVID deaths is "not significant" then the decrease in COVID deaths is certainly "not significant" because it's even smaller in absolute magnitude, which means there is no justification for using the vaccine. And finally, just because the RCT data may only yield "75% confidence" instead of the magic "95% confidence" that the mRNA vaccines increase cardiovascular mortality, how can it be considered responsible or ethical to dismiss the 45% increase in cardiovascular mortality observed across the two trials, especially when these vaccines are indeed linked to cardiovascular complications based on a plethora of other evidence as well?
Don't get me wrong. I think these clinical trials data already provided enough bad safety signals to know that the vaccines should never have been authorised. Moreover I think that, because of the known fraud that went on (especially with the Pfizer trial) they are covering up worse data (we know of cases of people severely injured by the vaxx who were not counted). But it is difficult to extrapolate these numbers to the popluation at large.
Ok, fair enough. So how about a simple Bayesian analysis of the mRNA vaccine clinical trial data regarding the impact on mortality (COVID, non-COVID, cardiovascular, all-cause)? Undoubtedly, the overall probability of mRNA vaccines "saving lives" is lower than the probability of their "causing excess deaths", and the probability of their causing excess cardiovascular deaths is worrisomely high.
I am virtually certain that if we keep ignoring the gold-standard randomized clinical trial mortality data, we will never adequately move the needle on the problem of vaccine deaths, and the "safe and effective" myth will persist forever. The medical establishment easily dismisses any observational evidence pointing to vaccine deaths by saying "these deaths could have happened anyway, this is not a randomized controlled trial so it cannot prove anything." And worse still, for every observational study pointing to vaccine deaths, they have 10 or more observational studies claiming the vaccines have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, or even millions of lives worldwide.
In fact, even your estimate of just 120,000 US vaccine deaths would be a huge net positive for the vaccine in terms of lives saved, because even the lowest credible estimate of US COVID deaths prevented by the vaccine (just assuming 50% effectiveness) will be far higher than 120,000. In contrast, the RCT mortality data reveal "4 killed for every 3 saved" even at peak effectiveness during the deadliest US surge, and if I had to bet my life on what the truth is, this "gold standard" RCT mortality data from Pfizer and Moderna themselves is closest to the truth.
Also, do not forget, that the "mRNA vaccines" have a lot of issues that normally no one talks about: The FDA has no standard to test the quality of the "product" and has to rely on Pfizer and Moderna to come up with ways of making sure their product is of a certain quality. And there are already indications out there, that some vaccine batches may have been contaminated with E. coli plasmid DNA from the step used to replicate the mRNA. Apart from that no one knows how many of the LNPs actually contain "undamaged" mRNA encoding for the full spike protein. In comparison to live attenuated polio vaccine, no onw knows how many antigenic units are in one shot, since no one knows how many LNPs you actually get from a vial, when you prepare the first shot, the second shot, the third shot or the fourth shot. The amount of LNPs in every one of those may be different and even then you do not know how much spike protein, in terms of antigenic units, is actually produced by the cells of the body. Oh and while I am at it, the live attenuated polio virus vaccines can only infect cells of the body that have the "cluster of differentiation" 155 (CD155) or as this structure is also known, the Polio Virus Receptor (PVR). The LNPs don't care about cell receptors. They will fuse with/"transfect" any cell membrane and as we know from Pfizer, study #185350, 25 minutes after IM injection, the vaccine is systemic and can be found in the brain and in the bone marrow, spinal cord and any other organ and tissue in the body. In tissue expressing ACE2, like the endothelial lining of every blood vessel in your body, the full spike protein being expressed on the cell surface will lead to syncytia.
Quality control issues? No surprise there.
In the Pfizer EMA pg 15 of 140:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
"The active substance is manufactured and controlled by either Wyeth BioPharma Division, Andover, United States or by BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, Mainz, Germany, and Rentschler Biopharma SE, Laupheim, Germany.
During the procedure, a number of issues were highlighted relating to the GMP status of the manufacture of the active substance and of the testing sites of the finished product for the purpose of batch release. These issues were classified as a Major Objection (MO)."
Then without explanation it says:
"After further information was obtained from the sites and inspectors, the MO was considered resolved."
This section has so much missing info it's unreal:
Description of manufacturing process and process controls - pg 15 to 22
There also no real questions asked by the EMA and where it does say they received information it's not expanded upon.
These are a few comments about missing information in the manufacturing process:
1 - It is recommended that the applicant should implement relevant testing strategies to ensure an adequate microbiological control for the starting materials (REC1)
2 - and should implement a relevant testing strategy to ensure that HEPES (Pfizer) raw material, included in the formulation buffer of FP, is free from contaminating RNases (REC2).
3 - The applicant should implement in-house functional activity analytical methods for release testing of enzymes used in the manufacturing process at all relevant manufacturing sites, by Q1 2021 (REC3)
4 - Changes to the manufacturing process of the linear DNA template (e.g. change to plasmid host cell) may result in a different impurity profile in the active substance
5 - the proven acceptable ranges (PARs) ranges need to be adjusted and the dossier updated accordingly
6 - The robustness of the DNase digestion step is not considered comprehensively demonstrated
7 - It can therefore not be concluded that identical species are obtained by the processes. It is likely that the fragmented species will not result in expressed proteins, due to their expected poor stability and poor translational efficiency
8 - the lack of experimental data on the truncated RNA and expressed proteins does not permit a definitive conclusion and needs further characterisation. Therefore, additional characterisation data remain to be provided as a specific obligation
9 - this argument alone cannot fully confirm the comparability of Process 2
versus Process 1, and further characterisation data and justification of specifications were requested.
10 - the results indicating a substantial proportion of shorter/truncated mRNA with both cap and poly(A)tail are not in agreement with this statement
11 - characterisation data are requested to be completed with analysis
Want more? There's plenty to choose from in here:
https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/spikevax-previously-covid-19-vaccine-moderna-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/vaxzevria-previously-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/covid-19-vaccine-janssen-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
https://awkwardgit.substack.com/p/the-4-official-ema-public-assessment
The trials were a joke.
You may like these articles:
https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/covid-19-vaccine-trials-cannot-tell-us-if-they-will-save-lives/
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
Trial was run like this:
- jab half with placebo (I think Pfizer used the Meningitis ACWY vaccine)
- jab other half with experimental chemical concoction
- give them a list of symptoms to look for
- let them wander round in public
- any one gets ill with one or more of the symptoms from the list give them a non-diagnostic test that does not tell if you have the illness or not
- fudge the data
- claim that jabbed with the experimental chemical concoction got whatever it was less than the placebo group
- try and hide the data for 75 years
One question someone may be able to answer me - if you do not have a sample of the virus or whatever causes the illness you are vaccinating against so that you can try and get the trial participant to "catch" it after being jabbed nor do you have a diagnostic test for that illness so cannot say 100% they caught it how can you claim this is a valid trial?
Well this may seem like heresy, but I claim that RCTs are not the "Gold Standard". They suffer from many flaws, and are open to abuse by bad actors. The most common abuse is the claim "This trial does not support the hypothesis" - when in fact the trial DOES support the hypothesis, just not at the 95% level. This makes it very easy to set up 3 trials, which could not possibly reach the 95% bar, and hence write three papers which describe 3 different trials which "do not support the hypothesis". This is often enough to fool even people who ought to know better.
(The gold standard is not to sample at all, but look at the whole population. The observational data on mortality in India's 1.4 billion after prescribing vit. D and Ivermectin is a good example).
Of course RCTs are not perfect but they are by far the least biased data, especially for establishing causality (what would happen with vs. without the intervention). BTW, both ivermectin and Vitamin D DO have RCT evidence of saving lives: https://c19ivm.org/meta.html#fig_fprd.
But let's cut to the chase: the Pfizer and Moderna RCTs had "4 killed for every 3 saved" by mRNA vaccines overall, while the vast majority of observational studies suggest that mRNA vaccines have saved several hundreds of thousands of lives (these observational studies have obvious flaws and biases/confounders that nobody can deny). And the RCTs had 16% excess non-COVID deaths and 45% cardiovascular deaths with mRNA vaccines versus placebo (of course not reaching the magic "95% confidence" level), while the vast majority of observational studies show no excess non-COVID deaths whatsoever in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, and in fact the reverse.
So why would we trust the observational studies in spite of all the severe biases, confounders, and other flaws (cherry-picking and manipulating of data), instead of the RCTs, which eliminate those biases and flaws?
I think we are in violent agreement :-) Yes, there are studies that show clear benefits of vit. D and Ivermectin. My point is that actually EVERY RCT shows benefits - but many papers *claim* no benefit because the tests were set up to fail to reach the arbitrary 95% confidence limit, and most readers do not get past that headline.
I agree that the official trials are absolutely damning - but the number of deaths in either group was too small to be statistically significant. The only really firm conclusion you can draw is that there are so few deaths among healthy people that vaccination should be absolutely ruled out, and that there was no evidence they do any good and some evidence that they do serious harm.
But suppose you wanted to find out if the vaccines were effective at preventing death in under 20's. The mortality rate is 1 in ten million - how big would your RCT have to be to show significant results?
The great value that Professor Fenton adds is that he has demonstrated that the data used for the observational studies you mention are outright fraud.
Hiya, when you look at the RCT's for IVM they are comparing IVM with doxycycline vs HQC with azithromycin for example, or Ivermectin-azithromycin-cholecalciferol vs 7 controls in a small study or IVM with doxycycline with no deaths in either arms but improved 'viral clearance' by non specific PCR, 'phone based' RCT's of IVM vs various treatments included in meta analysis as showing improvement in 'time to resolution' though the authors admit their study cannot recommend treatment with IVM. They seem to be a bit of a mess and not removing variables at all. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/ivermectin
And we can note that the lockdown "treatment" which killed many, was never subject to any testing.
Lockdown where? I live in a "blue" area of the US and there were no "lockdowns" anywhere around here. Things were quite active in 2020 and onwards. Australia is very famous for "lockdowns"- and perhaps to a lesser extent Canada- so if lockdowns are the cause of excess deaths, then why did both of those countries have MORE excess deaths post-lockdown after the wonderful vaccine rollout?
Lockdowns are horrible and unnecessary, but the scientific evidence doesn't support blaming lockdowns more than mRNA vaccines for excess deaths.
In the UK the NHS largely shut down for any problem apart from severe Covid, so if you had a heart attack you would likely die.
Someone could run a national-scale RCT of full-strength vs. diluted vax, just to find the optimal dose. Science can still be done. Or would that violate contract terms?
I think that has been done - some batch numbers are very bad. The UK government is delaying releasing the information. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/freedom-of-information-responses-from-the-mhra-week-commencing-13-july-2021/freedom-of-information-request-on-e-total-number-of-events-and-deaths-by-batch-number-for-the-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-and-the-respective-date-of
Does anyone really know what was in the "placebo"?
Bigpharma have their safety and trials and efficacy trials off to a tee.
When I was less naive I always thought that the vaccinated cohort would be tested against a totally unvaccinated cohort!
But not so. The unvaxxed cohort are usually given an older but similar type of vaccination - which to help it come to market in its day, was - you guessed it, tested against the older version. Etc. etc. And Voila - the new vax has the same safety profile as its older, and deemed safe, predecessors.
So, I wonder if the unvaxxed cohort in the Pfizer/Moderna trials were given the proper stuff, less the mRNA package?
I mean there's no absolutely no harm harm in being injected with PEG, Lipid nanoparticles, DMG etc...
See: https://doi.org/10.53964/jmbdd.2023001 for my review of the placebo saline controls - I propose that these are not valid controls due to the number of associated adverse events.
The placebo seemed to be different in different trials.
You have to wade through the PARs etc to find out what was used but could have been saline or more often the Meningitis ACWY vaccine.
https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/spikevax-previously-covid-19-vaccine-moderna-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/vaxzevria-previously-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/covid-19-vaccine-janssen-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
The son of a someone I know took part in the trials for the AZ vaccine, as he is diabetic. His mum said the placebo was another vaccine 'so they would get some benefit whether it was the AZ vaccine or the placebo'. I assume that's what he was told.
If I recall the placebo, wasn’t a biologically inactive substance but was the meningococcal vaccine which also will skew the results in favour of the vaccine.
Thanks for all the fine work. Perhaps it will accelerate the very slight trend which has finally begun.
Excellent analysis.
Also of note is the time-course of excess deaths, with a finding that is consistent with cremation data: deaths ran at least 10% higher after jabs rolled out than before.
Interesting that Moderna looks somewhat safer, or should I say "less unsafe", that Pfizer. Theoretically it should be the other way round because the amount of mRNA per dose is higher in Moderna (100 ug) than Pfizer (30ug). I think I also remember that the myocarditis rate is indeed higher in Moderna, but in terms of deaths, Pfizer seems to be higher. Strange.
Also I remember a news article from spring of 2021 where they paused AZ in healthcare workers because up to 25% had such serious side effects they had to call in sick for a few days which led to acute staff shortage. But they were like "everything is fine and safe and effective, we just wait until the sick colleagues recover, then we resume the injections so that the next batch of colleagues can get sick for a few days, then we pause again and so on and so forth". Great strategy. Mass Formation Psychosis.
I had this same thought about the Moderna having a larger dose of mRNA, that it would be more injurious. However, I think quality control is also a huge factor here, and that Pfizer created way more vaccines, their ability to monitor quality control issues would have been lessened.
Of the three couple we hang out with...all jabbed....here is the scenario.
All couple are late sixties to mid 70s...and were all healthy before the jabs.
One of the gals....cancer and post jab covid.
All in fact have had covid and or pneumonia post jab.
One of the guys....pacemaker installed, with serious bouts of covid and pneumonia.
Another of the ladies...energy depletion to the point of getting an ECG.
Another of the guys....drop in energy...an ever increasing limp.
None of them will connect any dots...except the bandaids on their arms might connect as they cover up syringe dots.
In Germany, the doctors must report any suspected vaccine damage. It pays them nothing and takes about 45 minutes per case though.
Resulting in what happened recently to a friend who now suspects that she is vaxx damaged and articulated this to her doctor: he screamed at her and threw her out of his practice.
The knowledge and fear of personal liability in case that damage was established is certainly an additional factor for such now common, most despicable and deeply unethical behaviour by so-called doctors.
Wow, just take that incident and multiply it by the number of spineless doctors in the world...
Typical gaslighting. I have transcribed several testimonies. And there are cascades of such stories at www.realnotrare.com . But I have also transcribed testimonies of doctors and nurses who have stood up and spoken out about the harms these jabs cause. They are a minority, however they are out there and I think the censorship and shadow-banning on social media have led many of us to believe fewer are speaking out than there actually are. Just today I was working on a transcript of testimony by a medical doctor who was himself injured, and he's speaking out, loud and clear.
Just one example:
FRONTLINE HEALTHCARE WORKER MARK BISHOFSKY: "WHAT I WITNESSED WAS MIND-BOGGLING"
From the censored and shadow-banned April 20, 2022 press conference in which Minnesota Representative Glenn Gruenhagen Introduces HF2348 - A resolution to create a COVID-19 vaccine bill of rights.
https://rumble.com/v12uumm-hf2348-press-conference-4-20-22-mark-bishofsky.html
TRANSCRIPT - EXCERPT
MARK BISHOFSKY: The last point I want to bring up is something that I noticed in August of 2021. For the last 10 years working at the hospital I was working at, July and August were always very, very slow. This was the time of the year where you would kick back, take a vacation, take a deep breath after going through the busy season. But in 2021, July and August were extremely busy. In fact we were taking patients in a suburban hospital all the way from Bemidji because every single hospital in the metro was full this past July and August. And it was not covid. There were almost zero cases of covid. What changed? What changed last year that made these hospitals full all the time now? What could it have possibly have been? To ask myself and to want to ask these doctors, could this be a vaccine injury? These clots, this bleeding? You could not do it. You absolutely could not debate science in these hospitals anymore. That is what I experienced. And if I would have asked those questions I would have been ostracized even worse.
And I will leave you with this. I resigned in September. In my last day of work I asked the doctor what his thoughts were, regarding giving young men the vaccine who are at a higher risk of getting myocarditis from the vaccine than they are for even being hospitalized from covid. And he said to me, I don't have the bandwidth. He would not engage me on that question. But within two hours, I was walked out of the hospital by my director and by security and they wouldn't even tell me why. In the end they told me I was going rogue.
So to ask a doctor what his thoughts are about the vaccine in these young men getting myocarditis is going rogue. What is happening in this country and in this world is insane. And people, please, need to wake up.
Thank you.
6:51
[END]
Well...very conservative guess...
99.5%.
In July 2022 a doctor posted this about his experience with VAERS:
I completed a VAERS report on a patient of mine and was planning an additional report on another patient to follow (both were under 60 yo and developed spontaneous subdural hematomas within weeks after their shots). I didn't directly state cause/effect but certainly a concerning sequence of events worthy of further trending.
The 1st report took nearly an hour to complete and at the end, ominously required that I swear under the penalty of perjury (or something similar - this was a few years ago) that EVERYTHING I stated was true and accurate and that I could be contacted by a federal investigator to valid ate everything I reported. All my professional and personal contact information was required.
Needless to say, I deleted the report. The burden of proof and threat of consequences seemed too high. Speaking to several colleagues, they felt the same way. VAERS reporting has a substantial barrier to reporting - not facilitation.
Even though I didn't file an official report, I soon thereafter received a separate email (coincidence?) from the Federation of State Medical Boards stating that casting any aspersions regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccines would be deemed unprofessional conduct and could subject me to investigation, reprimand or even loss of my medical license (and ability to provide for my family!!)
The many American physicians that were/are skeptical (as we are trained to be regarding ANY new therapy) have been massively suppressed.
Anecdotal evidence isn't scientific. But my sister, fully vaccinated + boosted died Boxing Day of 'a sudden cardiac event' on the death certificate. It was a sudden death. She was fine on Christmas Day- it was like so many other SADS - she just keeled over. No autopsy and I didn't try recording it on the Yellow card - yet another no recorded death. I'm convinced she was killed by the vaccine but it will not be included in the data. BTW a minor point, but as someone unvaccinated, I caught Covid Jan 22. As I was on the ONS survey, my latest (last blood test) Mar 23 showed antibodies for Covid19. Natural immunity is always the best. Keep up the good work. Data won't persuade the Covid faithful, but it's vital that we have that data and analysis. Thanks.
RIGHT on the vaccination card. "You will have the best protection from 2 doses". Has no one sued due to this blatantly false statement yet?
Why would you expect a physician, pharmacist or nurse who adminstered a mRNA injection that caused death report that they were an instrument of death? In most cases there is a delayed immune system response that takes MANY different forms. Most deaths don't happen 5 minutes after the deadly shot is adminstered. Days and weeks or months are more likely. Dr. David Kessler, the FDA Commissioner (A GOOD Guy) revamped the ADR system IN 1993 and stated that only 1% of adverse reactions are reported. A factor of 100. More likley, a factor of 20 means that the VAERS reports x 20 = 640,000 deaths from the injection with a patient base of 200 + million getting the shots. Statiscally, in the minds of the medicine man that is less than .3% and is acceptable because they prevented great harm with then injections. Necessary collateral Damage! FALSEHOOD! Tell that to the famalies who lost a loved one! The push to convince humanity that these injections that reprogram normal cellular function is good is not abating! https://thomasabraunrph.substack.com/p/battle-for-your-brain
Thanks for mentioning the 'necessary collateral damage'. In what compassionate world is it acceptable for a preventative medicine to cause harm? Have we become so desensitised to the harms of medicines (opiates, chemotherapy to name two) that it's now normal?
We'll probably never know the true numbers. They were calling a SIDS death and a choking death Covid. Things like that just 'muddy the waters.'
Hugely important calculation. Indeed, it has been for a while now, and I find that there are remarkably few credible sceptics who have performed it. So thank you wholeheartedly.
One minor thing, though: I am fairly certain that the under-reporting factor is correctly defined as the number to multiply reported adverse events with (after cleaning up the false positives) in order to calculate the true number of adverse events. Thus, I would suggest that you write "only 10% of all vaccine deaths are reported then the under-reporting factor is 10" instead of "[...] then the under-reporting factor is 10%". I do hope I am not wrong about this.
In case you might be interested, I did a similar calculation, with more assumptions but always choosing to go the generous way, for children. I chose not to clean up the false positives because it appears to me that doing so is actually too generous for the simple reason that any URF already takes them into account. In other words: URFs are the ratio of true events to reported events, including false positives.
https://rome2ruins.substack.com/p/we-miserable-fools
Peter Halligan has also committed significant effort to this topic.
My suggestion for an easy fix, should you agree with my definition of URF, is that you replace "under-reporting factor" by "reporting rate".
Another small correction: When you write: "that would mean an extra 35,000 deaths indirectly caused by the vaccines. Together with the above estimate of 6,000 deaths directly caused by the covid vaccines, a total of 51,000 would result", I'm sure you meant 41,000.
I have taken up your suggestion and used 'reporting rate' to avoid confusion. Thanks. Also fixed the error (6,000 should hae been 16,000)
In case you do not chose to look into it, I should add that my piece contains two further sources for URF estimates, both scientific papers by German government scientists.
Writers from the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, published in a federal health bulletin: URF ≥ 20
https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/Impfen/Bedeutung/Downloads/keller_stanislawski_auswertung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
Writers from the Drug Commission of the German Medical Profession, the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices and the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, published in a federal pharmacovigilance bulletin: URF = 10-20
https://www.bfarm.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Arzneimittel/Pharmakovigilanz/Bulletin/2010/4-2010.html
Thanks will look into the references.
Small nitpick:"...is mediated by the MRNA vaccines means..." it should be "mRNA".
Thank you for your excellent work Prof. Fenton. Yes, people do not want to hear or consider that they were wrong, that they were victims of a medical experiment and thus no more than a lab rat. This has been true for many things since after WWII. Who would want to know that their government was recruiting high level members of the NSDAP, the SS, the SD or the Gestapo, like the British government did with Operation APPLE PIE (https://archive.org/details/apple-pie_202302 ; the Brits asked the US to join their efforts). Who would want to know that the US made the "Aufklärung Fremde Heere Ost" under Hitler into the new German Foreign Secret Service "Bundesnachrichtendienst, BND" (Eberhard Blum was president of the BND from 1982-1985, he was Reinhard Gehlens personal advisor from 1947 onward) (https://archive.org/details/CIAANDTHEORIGINSOFTHEBND1945-49VOL1-0001 and https://archive.org/details/CIAAndTheOriginsOfTheBND1949-1956/CiaAndTheOriginsOfTheBnd1949-56Vol.1_0001/). Who would want to know that the US High Commissioner John J. McCloy released Otto Ambros, sentenced to the highest prison term for "mass murder and slavery" in the Nuremberg Trials, after two years, letting him become a consultant to the US Army, the US Energy Department, numerous American chemical companies, the first Chancellor of Germany Konrad Adenauer and continue his work on Thalidomide. He was just one of hundreds of thousands Nazis who were on the payroll of the Allies after WWII, be it working for the US, Britain, France or Germany.
In "unrelated" news: Right now Substack seems to have some financial troubles, the Wayback Machine is being sued, there are concerted efforts to grow the Fact-Checker community (Poynter Institute and Google). In Germany it is the dpa, founded in 1949 (and who knows how many Nazi propagandists made it big time there? in 1965 for instance the Indonesia-correspondent of the Süddeutsche Zeitung was Rudolf Oebsger-Röder (former SS-Obersturmbannführer), now actually trying to appeal to 15-18 year olds to become the fact-checkers of tomorrow. Is it coincidence, that the impressionable youth is being targeted (https://www.dhm.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/ju001747 and https://www.dhm.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/offiziere-von-morgen-1940.html)?
The virus was likely made in a lab, the "vaccines" were cobbled together, Israel made a special deal with Pfizer that no other country made, making their population into the perfect lab rats... Jews being experimented on... and still, "no one" cares.
People do not want to hear "bad news", they just want to go on with their lives.
I almost forgot to mention, most have heard of Event 201, but only few have heard of the SPARS -Pandemic 2025-2028 tabletop exercise which made some odd choices in 2015-2017 to train communicators to deal with a Pandemic, where the pathogen is a coronavirus, even though back then everyone was betting on influenza to be the next big one, the mortality rate was wrongly projected to be high, though it was actually low, the Pandemic would come in a time where presidents would switch but the team dealing with the Pandemic would stay on board, a drug was identified to be used as a vaccine which was already known to have severe side effects, the manufacturer of that new vaccine was was completely indemnified from any liability. Oh and there was a Expert Working Group from the industry that was heavily involved in the creation of said exercise.
And I have not even touched on the "curious" "terror" attacks since late 2001...
Thank you. My own fit and healthy sister dropped down dead in August 2022. Had had 3 jabs. Post Mortem talked of "myocardial foci". Feel sure jab contributed to her death. Was telling a neighbour, NHS nurse, the night after she died. Was she jabbed, she asked. When told yes, she replied "oh we call them Covax deaths "
I think the problem of the harmful "vaccine" is not that Big Pharma are complicit in rushing out a nasty drug, nor that Politicians and Health quango "CEO" types backed them - both true imho - the (potentially) bigger issue is the compliant NHS and especially those of the GP cohort that refuse, point blank, to acknowledge the damage done. My GP, or to be more accurate, one of their junior Doctors , not a partner, has refused to do the relevant tests to tell me if the jabs have damaged certain cells and how it has affected my immune system , already compromised due to Anaphylaxis - I have had a strange on/off fatigue type condition with persistent productive cough for over 12 months. I would not be surprised to see this refusal to act ethically repeated UK wide - which leaves "Joe Public" cruelly exposed with no where to go if they suspect they are suffering from something they cannot fathom..?