It's time somebody did a study like this. And its conclusions demand somebody else see whether these people are really correct. Last month the journal Cureus (published by the influential Springer Nature Group) ran an account of a study by several specialists in the vaccine field: “2024 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign."Its authors conclude that at least five times more lives were lost than were saved by the full course of Pfizer mRNA vaccinations. These are sensational claims and they require authoritative validation — or dismissal.The study further asserts that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines generally killed more people than they saved. These researchers have called for a ‘global moratorium’ pending study of longer-term serious adverse events and an unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio.Understanding of COVID-19 vaccinations and their impact on health and mortality has evolved since the first vaccine rollouts. Reports from the original randomized phase 3 trials concluded that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could greatly reduce COVID-19 symptoms. In the interim however, problems with the methods, execution and reporting of these pivotal trials have emerged. Re-analysis of the Pfizer trial data identified statistically significant increases in ‘serious adverse events’ (SAEs) in the vaccine group. Numerous SAEs were identified following the ‘Emergency Use Authorization’ (EUA,) including death, cancer, cardiac events and various autoimmune, hematological, reproductive and neurological disorders.Furthermore, these products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing under previously established scientific standards. Among the other major topics addressed in the narrative review are the published analyses of serious harms to humans, quality control issues and process-related impurities, mechanisms underlying adverse events (AEs,) the immunologic basis for vaccine inefficacy and concerning mortality trends based on the registrational trial data.The risk-benefit imbalance evidence says further booster injections should be stopped and that at a minimum, the mRNA injections should be removed from the childhood immunization program until proper safety and toxicological studies are conducted.US federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits.Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, the study urges governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions about causality, residual DNA and aberrant protein production are answered.To put findings in perspective, the official SAE rate for other vaccines is only one to two per million. Fraiman et al.’s estimate based on the Pfizer trial data (1,250 SAEs per million) exceeds this benchmark by at least 600-fold.The problems started in the beginning. The study designs for the pivotal trials that led to the EUA were never intended to determine whether the mRNA inoculations could help prevent severe disease or premature death. Before the rapid authorization process, no vaccine had been permitted for market release without undergoing a testing period of at least four years, the record set by Merck & Co., Inc. (New Jersey, US) in 1967 with the development of the world’s first mumps vaccine. Pfizer’s vaccine (BNT162b2) completed the process in a matter of months. Previous timeframes for phase 3 trial testing averaged 10 years. Health departments have stated that 10 to 15 years is the normal timeframe for evaluating vaccine safety. With the COVID-19 vaccines, safety was never assessed in a manner commensurate with previously established scientific standards, as numerous safety testing and toxicology protocols typically followed by the FDA were sidestepped. Pre-clinical studies of the mRNA product’s biodistribution and potential toxicities from repeated doses (to mimic multiple vaccinations) were circumvented to enable accelerated clinical testing. Perhaps the most important trial benchmark obviated by the rapid authorization process however, was the minimum six to12 month observation period typically recommended for identifying possible longer-term vaccine-related adverse effects (AEs) in the vaccine versus placebo groups. In retrospect, this was a grave misstep.Historical accounts bear witness to instances where vaccines were prematurely introduced to the market under immense pressure, only to reveal disabling or even fatal AEs later on. Political and financial incentives may have played a key role in undermining the scientific evaluation process. And, it would be understandable if political pressures to rapidly deliver a solution, may have compromised the thoroughness and integrity of the scientific evaluation process while downplaying and obfuscating scientific concerns about the potential risks associated with mRNA technology.When considering both confirmed and suspected cases, vaccine efficacy appears to have also been dramatically lower than the official 95% claim. Millions of severe and life-threatening events associated with the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be documented in the medical literature. The most concerning revelation from the trials that led to the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA,) was not the overstatement of 95% efficacy however, but rather the indication within those trials that the vaccines carried a significant risk in the longer term of serious adverse events (SAEs) and premature death, even among a relatively healthy group of participants.mRNA products were linked with increased risks of ischemic stroke, brain hemorrhage, acute coronary syndrome and other conditions known to reduce life expectancy.In a post-pandemic context, as the immediate urgency has subsided, exploratory narrative reviews such as the study reported by Cureus can play an important role in helping re-evaluate the scientific basis for the general public’s well-founded safety concerns regarding the COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations.Commenting on the study, Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of non-profit Liberty Counsel, said that in the paper, scientists “confirm what sound scientific research has been showing for years, that these shots have never been safe or effective.” “The American Food and Drug Administration and the Center for Disease Control are supposed to protect the people, but they have become the lapdog of the pharmaceutical industry. This must change,” Mr. Staver said.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is currently under scrutiny for suppressing an alert for myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccination. Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle called the myocardium.The following interview should wake up our population. The evidence is that thousands died, not from COVID-19 as was claimed but from the consequence of the so-called vaccines that caused other devastating consequences resulting in death. One has to listen carefully to the full 27-minute interview to understand. There might be criminal charges coming forward next year as the various researchers put together the real data. The drug companies have already started their undermining of these researchers for truth. Take the time to listen to the whole 27-minute interview. In my opinion, the sceptics about the safety of mRNA injections were right long ago.
It's time somebody did a study like this. And its conclusions demand somebody else see whether these people are really correct. Last month the journal Cureus (published by the influential Springer Nature Group) ran an account of a study by several specialists in the vaccine field: “2024 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign."Its authors conclude that at least five times more lives were lost than were saved by the full course of Pfizer mRNA vaccinations. These are sensational claims and they require authoritative validation — or dismissal.The study further asserts that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines generally killed more people than they saved. These researchers have called for a ‘global moratorium’ pending study of longer-term serious adverse events and an unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio.Understanding of COVID-19 vaccinations and their impact on health and mortality has evolved since the first vaccine rollouts. Reports from the original randomized phase 3 trials concluded that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could greatly reduce COVID-19 symptoms. In the interim however, problems with the methods, execution and reporting of these pivotal trials have emerged. Re-analysis of the Pfizer trial data identified statistically significant increases in ‘serious adverse events’ (SAEs) in the vaccine group. Numerous SAEs were identified following the ‘Emergency Use Authorization’ (EUA,) including death, cancer, cardiac events and various autoimmune, hematological, reproductive and neurological disorders.Furthermore, these products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing under previously established scientific standards. Among the other major topics addressed in the narrative review are the published analyses of serious harms to humans, quality control issues and process-related impurities, mechanisms underlying adverse events (AEs,) the immunologic basis for vaccine inefficacy and concerning mortality trends based on the registrational trial data.The risk-benefit imbalance evidence says further booster injections should be stopped and that at a minimum, the mRNA injections should be removed from the childhood immunization program until proper safety and toxicological studies are conducted.US federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits.Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, the study urges governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions about causality, residual DNA and aberrant protein production are answered.To put findings in perspective, the official SAE rate for other vaccines is only one to two per million. Fraiman et al.’s estimate based on the Pfizer trial data (1,250 SAEs per million) exceeds this benchmark by at least 600-fold.The problems started in the beginning. The study designs for the pivotal trials that led to the EUA were never intended to determine whether the mRNA inoculations could help prevent severe disease or premature death. Before the rapid authorization process, no vaccine had been permitted for market release without undergoing a testing period of at least four years, the record set by Merck & Co., Inc. (New Jersey, US) in 1967 with the development of the world’s first mumps vaccine. Pfizer’s vaccine (BNT162b2) completed the process in a matter of months. Previous timeframes for phase 3 trial testing averaged 10 years. Health departments have stated that 10 to 15 years is the normal timeframe for evaluating vaccine safety. With the COVID-19 vaccines, safety was never assessed in a manner commensurate with previously established scientific standards, as numerous safety testing and toxicology protocols typically followed by the FDA were sidestepped. Pre-clinical studies of the mRNA product’s biodistribution and potential toxicities from repeated doses (to mimic multiple vaccinations) were circumvented to enable accelerated clinical testing. Perhaps the most important trial benchmark obviated by the rapid authorization process however, was the minimum six to12 month observation period typically recommended for identifying possible longer-term vaccine-related adverse effects (AEs) in the vaccine versus placebo groups. In retrospect, this was a grave misstep.Historical accounts bear witness to instances where vaccines were prematurely introduced to the market under immense pressure, only to reveal disabling or even fatal AEs later on. Political and financial incentives may have played a key role in undermining the scientific evaluation process. And, it would be understandable if political pressures to rapidly deliver a solution, may have compromised the thoroughness and integrity of the scientific evaluation process while downplaying and obfuscating scientific concerns about the potential risks associated with mRNA technology.When considering both confirmed and suspected cases, vaccine efficacy appears to have also been dramatically lower than the official 95% claim. Millions of severe and life-threatening events associated with the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be documented in the medical literature. The most concerning revelation from the trials that led to the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA,) was not the overstatement of 95% efficacy however, but rather the indication within those trials that the vaccines carried a significant risk in the longer term of serious adverse events (SAEs) and premature death, even among a relatively healthy group of participants.mRNA products were linked with increased risks of ischemic stroke, brain hemorrhage, acute coronary syndrome and other conditions known to reduce life expectancy.In a post-pandemic context, as the immediate urgency has subsided, exploratory narrative reviews such as the study reported by Cureus can play an important role in helping re-evaluate the scientific basis for the general public’s well-founded safety concerns regarding the COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations.Commenting on the study, Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of non-profit Liberty Counsel, said that in the paper, scientists “confirm what sound scientific research has been showing for years, that these shots have never been safe or effective.” “The American Food and Drug Administration and the Center for Disease Control are supposed to protect the people, but they have become the lapdog of the pharmaceutical industry. This must change,” Mr. Staver said.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is currently under scrutiny for suppressing an alert for myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccination. Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle called the myocardium.The following interview should wake up our population. The evidence is that thousands died, not from COVID-19 as was claimed but from the consequence of the so-called vaccines that caused other devastating consequences resulting in death. One has to listen carefully to the full 27-minute interview to understand. There might be criminal charges coming forward next year as the various researchers put together the real data. The drug companies have already started their undermining of these researchers for truth. Take the time to listen to the whole 27-minute interview. In my opinion, the sceptics about the safety of mRNA injections were right long ago.
