World’s Largest Covid Vax Side Effect Analysis Has Been Published, By Brian Simpson
A large study of the side effects of the Covid mRNA jabs has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Vaccine, February 12, 2024, by the Global COVID Vaccine Safety (GCoVS) Project and funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Ontario and the Canadian Health Research Institute. The study evaluated the risk of "adverse events of special interest" (AESI) following the Covid jabs.
The results are somewhat technical, and the extract from Dr Mercola goes into detail. But for the purposes of a blog news item, the basics are as follows. The survey looked at 99 million people from across the world who had the Covid shots. The focus was on 13 types of adverse effects, falling into three primary categories: neurological, hematologic (blood-related) and cardiovascular conditions. But it should be noted that there were thousands of side effects listed by Pfizer in its confidential report of post-authorization adverse events submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which were ignored in favour of getting the gene therapy into people across the world.
The study uncovered many concerning side effects, including increased risks of heart inflammation, myocarditis, pericarditis, blood clots in the brain, and various neurological conditions. The conclusion was that the safety of the Covid jabs has been exaggerated. Raphael Lataster, Ph.D., summarises the situation:
"An unofficial series of four crucially important medical journal articles, two by me, appearing in major academic publisher Wiley's Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice reveals that claims made about COVID-19 vaccines' effectiveness and safety were exaggerated in the clinical trials and observational studies, which significantly impacts risk-benefit analyses.
Also discussed are the concerning topics of myocarditis, with evidence indicating that this one adverse effect alone means that the risks outweigh the benefits in the young and healthy; and perceived negative effectiveness, which indicates that the vaccines increase the chance of COVID-19 infection/hospitalization/death, to say nothing about other adverse effects."
In short, the Covid vaxxes are the most dangerous vaccines ever produced, and the full ramifications of vaccinating the world, have yet to be seen. That is why the issue is still relevant.
"… the largest study13 to date on the side effects of the COVID jabs was published in the journal Vaccine in February 12, 2024, and it confirms what I and many other alternative news sources have been saying all along, namely that the mRNA jabs are the most dangerous medical products to ever hit the market.
The study — performed by the Global COVID Vaccine Safety (GCoVS) Project and funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Ontario and the Canadian Health Research Institute — evaluated the risk of "adverse events of special interest" (AESI) following COVID-19 "vaccination."
Data from 10 sites in eight countries (Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, New Zealand and Scotland) were included, encompassing more than 99 million jabbed individuals.
Of the thousands of side effects Pfizer listed in its confidential report of post-authorization adverse events submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,14 the GCoVS focused on 13 AESIs that fall into three primary categories: Neurological, hematologic (blood-related) and cardiovascular conditions.
They calculated the AESI risk for each of the 13 AESIs based on the number of observed versus expected (OE) incidents occurring up to 42 days after injection. The "expected" number of side effects were based on vaccine adverse event data from 2015 to 2019. These rates were then compared to the adverse event rates observed in those who got one or more of the COVID jabs, either Pfizer's BNT162b2, Moderna's mRNA-1273, or AstraZeneca's ChAdOx1.
Largest Study to Date Confirms COVID Jab Dangers
The analysis15 revealed several concerning side effects, including increased risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, blood clots in the brain, and various neurological conditions. Here's a quick summary of the findings:
•Myocarditis and pericarditis:
◦Pfizer vaccine — OE ratios for myocarditis were 2.78 and 2.86 after the first and second shots, with the risk remaining doubled after the third and fourth shots.
◦Moderna vaccine — OE ratios for myocarditis were 3.48 and 6.10 after the first and second shots. Doses 1 and 4 also showed OE ratios of 1.74 and 2.64 for pericarditis.
◦AstraZeneca vaccine — OE ratio for pericarditis was 6.91 after the third shot.
•Blood clots in the brain (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, CVST):
◦An OE of 3.23 for CVST was observed after the first AstraZeneca shot.
◦A significant increase in CVST risk was also noted after the second Pfizer dose.
•Neurological conditions:
◦Guillain-Barré syndrome — An OE ratio of 2.49 was observed following the AstraZeneca jab.
◦Transverse myelitis — Risk nearly doubled with the AstraZeneca shot.
◦Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis — OE ratios of 3.78 (Moderna) and 2.23 (AstraZeneca) were noted.
These findings really underscore the potential for serious side effects from the COVID shots, including conditions that may lead to other consequences in the longer term, such as stroke, heart attack, paralysis and death.
Effectiveness and Safety Was Wildly Exaggerated in Trials
Considering those findings, it's no surprise to find that effectiveness and safety were exaggerated in clinical trials and observational studies. In a guest post on Dr. Robert Malone's Substack, Raphael Lataster, Ph.D., writes:16
"An unofficial series of four crucially important medical journal articles, two by me, appearing in major academic publisher Wiley's Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice reveals that claims made about COVID-19 vaccines' effectiveness and safety were exaggerated in the clinical trials and observational studies, which significantly impacts risk-benefit analyses.
Also discussed are the concerning topics of myocarditis, with evidence indicating that this one adverse effect alone means that the risks outweigh the benefits in the young and healthy; and perceived negative effectiveness, which indicates that the vaccines increase the chance of COVID-19 infection/hospitalization/death, to say nothing about other adverse effects."
Summary of Papers
The four papers in question include:
1."Sources of Bias in Observational Studies of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness" published in the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice in March 2023, co-authored by BMJ editor Peter Doshi, Ph.D., statistician Kaiser Fung and biostatistician Mark Jones, which concluded that "case-counting window bias" had a significant effect on effectiveness estimates.17
As explained by Lataster, this "concerns the 7 days, 14 days, or even 21 days after the jab where we are meant to overlook jab-related issues, such as COVID infections, for some odd reason as 'the vaccine has not had sufficient time to stimulate the immune system.'
This may strike you as quite bizarre since all of the 'fully vaccinated' must go through the process of being 'partially vaccinated,' sometimes even more than once. To make matters worse, the unvaccinated do not get such a 'grace period,' meaning that there is also a clear bias at play.
In an example using data from Pfizer's clinical trial, the authors show that thanks to this bias, a vaccine with effectiveness of 0%, which is confirmed in the hypothetical clinical trial, could be seen in observational studies as having effectiveness of 48%."
2."Reply to Fung et. al. on COVID-19 Vaccine Case-Counting Window Biases Overstating Vaccine Effectiveness," authored by Lataster, which discussed how the counting window bias not only affected effectiveness estimates in observational studies but also safety estimates, suggesting a need for reassessment of vaccine safety.18 The article also addresses "the mysterious rise in non-COVID excess deaths post-pandemic."19
3."How the Case Counting Window Affected Vaccine Efficacy Calculations in Randomized Trials of COVID-19 Vaccines," again co-authored by Doshi and Fung, which detailed how case-counting window issues also overestimated effectiveness in Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials.20
4.A second article by Lataster, in which he highlighted and summarized the evidence showing that clinical trials were affected by adverse effect counting window issues that led to exaggerated safety estimates.21
"Together, these four articles make clear that claims made about COVID-19 vaccines; effectiveness and safety were exaggerated in the clinical trials and observational studies, whilst also finding time to discuss myocarditis and perceived negative effectiveness, meaning that new analyses are very much needed," Lataster writes."
Comments