Dr James Thorpe on the Medico-Technocrats Ignoring VAERS By Chris Knight (Florida)
The CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reaction System (VAERS) is supposed to be the principal organ for reporting US vaccination injuries, although estimates of vaccine under-reporting factors range from 41 to 100. Dr James Thorp and Dr Albert Benavides believe that both the World Health Organization (WHO), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are implicitly rejecting VAERS, by not seeing the safety signals that the data, released each week delivers. Apart from this, “groups and participants deeply embedded in organized medicine are deleting cases with adverse events, delaying reporting for months, and throttling the results to minimize vaccine-induced adverse events.” This indicates that there is a bigger agenda at work here.
“Recently, a contributor to TrialSite, Dr. James Thorp, recently interviewed Albert Benavides, a world expert on the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reaction System (VAERS). Dr. Thorp suggests that the World Health Organization (WHO), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and more continue to reject the very purpose of VAERS in the first place—a vital database used to identify safety signals. But how could VAERS data signals be rejected when the very system was designed for this very purpose?
According to Dr. Thorp, there is irrefutable evidence that this rejection of VAERS is based on an absolutely false narrative. During the interview, these experts speculate on what could be considered the unthinkable: groups and participants deeply embedded in organized medicine are deleting cases with adverse events, delaying reporting for months, and throttling the results to minimize vaccine-induced adverse events.
With over 20 plus independent sources not only verifying VAERS but that there may even be some form of manipulation and throttling. As an example of some potentially illicit activity, Pfizer’s own documentation should be referenced—specifically on page 7’s associated tables review. Dr. Thorp told TrialSite, “Do 1,223 deaths in the first 90 days of the COVID-19 vaccine program sound safe?
Thorp wonders aloud if the CDC’s Tommy T. Shimabukuro’s arguments are reliable—the position published in the New England Journal of Medicine that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe for pregnant women? Again, reviewing Pfizer’s own documents on page 12, Thorp shares “Does the 45% complication rate in the 274 pregnant women sound safe to you (75 "serious" and 49 "non-serious complications)?
Thorp noted that Mr. Shimabukuro’s name surfaces in emails accessed via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests associated with actions by both the FDA and CDC extinguishing a death that happened to have not been reported. Disturbing allegations.
TrialSite suggests the vaccines were highly effective early on but with SARS-CoV-2 mutations, durability issues surfaced that have impacted overall efficacy. Safety issues appear to be actively suppressed based on several data sources. An accurate safety profile remains absolutely essential for a proper risk-benefit analysis ongoing.”
Comments