Connect with us

COVID-19

Health researcher calls government promotion of Covid mRNA vaccines “confusing”

Published

5 minute read

From (2079) Dr. John Campbell – YouTube

British Health researcher John Campbell has uncovered sobering and disturbing statistics regarding serious adverse events connected to covid vaccines.

As Campbell outlines in this presentation, multiple previous vaccines producing far fewer adverse events, have been withdrawn from public use while governments continue to promote covid vaccines.

(Campbell is well known for his meticulous research and he always includes links to the studies he is calling attention to.  His presentation notes are below the video) 

John Campbell’s research notes and links to relevant studies

Swine flu vaccine (1976), 1 serious event per 100,000 vaccinees,

Vaccine withdrawn Rotavirus vaccine

Rotashield, (1999),1 to 2 serious events per 10,000 vaccinees,

Vaccine withdrawn

Covid mRNA vaccines, 1 serious event per 800 vaccinees,

Vaccine officially promoted

Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055…

Free full text available https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti…

Why We Question the Safety Profile of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines (Robert M Kaplan and Sander Greenland) https://sensiblemed.substack.com/p/wh…

Using publicly available data from Pfizer and Moderna studies, we found one serious adverse event for each 800 vaccinees. That translates to about 1,250 serious events for each million vaccine recipients.

US, Spain, Australia

Study to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in mRNA COVID-19 vaccine trials.

Secondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials, of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines

Results Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events

of special interest

Pfizer

10.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6

Moderna

15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baseline of 42.2

Combined, the mRNA vaccines Associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated

Pfizer trial

Pfizer vaccine group 52 serious AESI (27.7 per 10,000) were reported

Pfizer placebo group 33 serious AESI (17.6 per 10,000) were reported

36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group

Risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated

Moderna trial

Moderna trial, vaccine group 87 serious AESI (57.3 per 10,000) were reported

Moderna trial, placebo group 64 serious AESI (42.2 per 10,000) were reported

6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group

Risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 vaccinated

Discussion

The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets. Full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed, to properly evaluate these questions.

Unfortunately, as we approach 2 years after release of COVID-19 vaccines, participant level data remain inaccessible.

Level of adverse reactions in the past

The 1976 swine flu vaccine

Small increased risk of Guillain-Barré Syndrome

The increased risk was approximately 1 additional case of GBS for every 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine. When over 40 million people were vaccinated against swine flu, federal health officials decided that the possibility of an association of GBS with the vaccine, however small, necessitated stopping immunization until the issue could be explored.

The Institute of Medicine (2003) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NB…

Concluded that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS. Exact reason for this association remains unknown.

Rotavirus vaccine Rotashield, (1999) https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/…

The U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) October 22, 1999 to no longer recommend use of the RotaShield® vaccine for infants, because of an association between the vaccine and intussusception. The results of the investigations showed that RotaShield® vaccine caused intussusception in some healthy infants Within 2 weeks Intussusception increased 20 to 30 times over the expected risk (Less after the second and third dose) CDC estimated that one or two additional cases of intussusception would be caused among each 10,000 infants vaccinated with RotaShield® vaccine.

 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

CDC Quietly Admits to Covid Policy Failures

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

BY Harvey RischHARVEY RISCH 

Instead of admitting policy error that the Covid vaccines do not much control virus spread, our public health administration doubled down, attempting then to compel vaccination on as many more people as could be threatened by mandates.

In so many words—and data—CDC has quietly admitted that all of the indignities of the Covid-19 pandemic management have failed: the masks, the distancing, the lockdowns, the closures, and especially the vaccines; all of it failed to control the pandemic.

It’s not like we didn’t know that all this was going to fail, because we said so as events unfolded early on in 2020, that the public health management of this respiratory virus was almost completely opposite to principles that had been well established through the influenza period, in 2006. The spread of a new virus with replication factor R0 of about 3, with more than one million cases across the country by April 2020, with no potentially virus-sterilizing vaccine in sight for at least several months, almost certainly made this infection eventually endemic and universal.

Covid-19 starts as an annoying, intense, uncomfortable flu-like illness, and for most people, ends uneventfully 2-3 weeks later. Thus, management of the Covid-19 pandemic should not have relied upon counts of cases or infections, but on numbers of deaths, numbers of people hospitalized or with serious long-term outcomes of the infection, and of serious health, economic, and psychological damages caused by the actions and policies made in response to the pandemic, in that order of decreasing priorities.

Even though numbers of Covid cases correlate with these severe manifestations, that is not a justification for case numbers to be used as the actionable measure, because Covid-19 infection mortality is estimated to range below 0.1% in the mean across all ages, and post-infection immunity provides a public good in protecting people from severe reinfection outcomes for the great majority who do not get serious “long-Covid” on first infection.

Nevertheless, once the Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out, with a new large wave of the Delta strain spreading across the US in July-August 2021 even after eight months of the vaccines taken by half of Americans, instead of admitting policy error that the Covid vaccines do not much control virus spread, our public health administration doubled down, attempting then to compel vaccination on as many more people as could be threatened by mandates. That didn’t work out too well as seen when the large Omicron wave hit the country during December 2021-January 2022 in spite of some 10% more of the population getting vaccinated from September through December of 2021.

A typical mandate example: in September 2021, Washington Governor Jay Inslee issued Emergency Proclamation 21-14.2, requiring Covid-19 vaccination for various groups of state workers. In the proclamation, the stated goal was, “WHEREAS, COVID-19 vaccines are effective in reducing infection and serious disease, and widespread vaccination is the primary means we have as a state to protect everyone…from COVID-19 infections.” That is, the stated goal was to reduce the number of infections.

What the CDC recently reported (see chart below), however, is that by the end of 2023, cumulatively, at least 87% of Americans had anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to and thus had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, this in spite of the mammoth, protracted and booster-repeated vaccination campaign that led to about 90% of Americans taking the shots. My argument is that by making policies based on number of infections a higher priority than ones based on the more serious but less common consequences of both infections and policy damages, the proclaimed goal of the vaccine mandate to reduce spread failed in that 87% of Americans eventually became infected anyway.

In reality, neither vaccine immunity nor post-infection immunity were ever able fully to control the spread of the infection. On August 11, 2022, the CDC stated, “Receipt of a primary series alone, in the absence of being up to date with vaccination* through receipt of all recommended booster doses, provides minimal protection against infection and transmission (3,6). Being up to date with vaccination provides a transient period of increased protection against infection and transmission after the most recent dose, although protection can wane over time.” Public health pandemic measures that “wane over time” are very unlikely to be useful for control of infection spread, at least without very frequent and impractical revaccinations every few months.

Nevertheless, infection spread per se is not of consequence, because count of infections is not and should not have been the main priority of public health pandemic management. Rather, the consequences of the spread and the negative consequences of the policies invoked should have been the priorities. Our public health agencies chose to prioritize a failed policy of reducing the spread rather than reducing the mortality or the lockdown and school and business closure harms, which led to unnecessary and avoidable damage to millions of lives. We deserved better from our public health institutions.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

  • Harvey Risch

    Harvey Risch, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a physician and a Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. His main research interests are in cancer etiology, prevention and early diagnosis, and in epidemiologic methods.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Japanese study shows disturbing increase in cancer related deaths during the Covid pandemic

Published on

From Cureus.com

The study is called:

Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan

During the COVID-19 pandemic, excess deaths including cancer have become a concern in Japan, which has a rapidly aging population. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate how age-adjusted mortality rates (AMRs) for different types of cancer in Japan changed during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022).

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic began in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, and was first detected in Japan in January 2020. In response, a range of healthcare and socio-economic restrictions were implemented to curb the spread of the disease. Since February 2021, the mRNA-lipid nanoparticle (mRNA-LNP) vaccine has been available for emergency use and is recommended for all individuals aged six months and older, especially those at high risk.

As of March 2023, 80% of the Japanese population had received their first and second doses, 68% had received their third dose, and 45% had received their fourth dose [1]. Despite these national measures, 33.8 million people had been infected, and 74,500 deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 in Japan by the end of April 2023.

Additionally, excess deaths from causes other than COVID-19 have been reported in various countries [2-6], including deaths from cancer [7-10], and Japan is no exception [11,12]. Cancer is the leading cause of death in Japan, accounting for one-fourth of all deaths. Therefore, it is essential to understand the effects of the pandemic on mortality rates of cancer from 2020 to 2022. Age adjustment is necessary for accurate evaluation, especially in diseases such as cancer that tend to occur in elderly adults.

Japan has several characteristics that make it ideal for analyzing the impact of the pandemic on cancer mortality rates, including its large population of 123 million, availability of official statistics, and the high 80% accuracy rate of death certificates according to autopsy studies [13].

Conclusions

Statistically significant increases in age-adjusted mortality rates of all cancer and some specific types of cancer, namely, ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate, lip/oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancers, were observed in 2022 after two-thirds of the Japanese population had received the third or later dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP vaccine. These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ERα-sensitive cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination rather than COVID-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown. The significance of this possibility warrants further studies.

From the YouTube channel of Dr John Campbell

Continue Reading

Trending

X