13 reasons why you should not allow your child to get the Covid-19 Vaccine

13 reasons why you should not allow your child to get the Covid-19 Vaccine

At a press conference on Monday September 13th, the four Chief Medical Officer’s (CMO’s) of the United Kingdom advised the UK Government to offer the Pfizer vaccine to children aged between 12 and 15.

Around 3 million under-16s are due to be offered the jabs after Chris Whitty endorsed the move, claiming it may “help prevent outbreaks in classrooms and further disruptions to education this winter”.

Doses will be largely administered through the existing school vaccination programme and parental consent will be sought. But children will be able to overrule their parents’ decision in the case of a conflict if they are deemed mature and competent enough, which has rightly caused fury.

For a child to be competent enough to make the decision to have the vaccine they should be made aware of all the facts before they reach their decision, and the same can be said for parents who wish to consent to their child having the jab. So we’ve compiled 13 factual reasons why you should not allow your child to get the Covid-19 vaccine…

Reason No. 1
86% of Children suffered an Adverse Reaction to the Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccine in the Clinical Trial

The information is publicly available and contained within a US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) fact sheet which can be viewed here (see page 25, table 5 on-wards).

That fact sheet contains two tables that detail the alarming rate of side effects and damage experienced by 12 – 15- year-old children who were given at least one dose of the Pfizer mRNA injection.

The tables shows that 1,127 children were given one dose of the mRNA jab, but only 1,097 children received the second dose. This fact in itself raises questions as to why 30 children did not receive a second dose of the Pfizer jab.

Of the 1,127 children who received a first dose of the jab 86% experienced an adverse reaction. Of the 1,097 children who received a second dose of the jab 78.9% experienced an adverse reaction.

Reason No. 2
1 in 9 Children suffered a Severe Adverse Reaction leaving them unable to perform daily activities in the Pfizer Clinical Trial

For children 12 to 15 years of age, the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine clinical trial found the overall incidence of severe adverse events which left them unable to perform daily activities, during the two-month observation period to be 10.7%, or 1 in 9, in the vaccinated group and 1.9% in the unvaccinated group.

Consequently, children who received the vaccine had nearly six times the risk of a severe adverse event occurring in the two-month observation period compared to children who did not receive the vaccine. In addition, the incidence of Covid-19 in the unvaccinated group was 1.6%, therefore, there were almost seven times more severe adverse events observed in the vaccinated group than there were Covid-19 cases in the unvaccinated group.

This information is all freely available to see in official Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents and official Centre for Disease Control (CDC) documents.

Reason No. 3
Just 9 deaths associated with Covid-19 have occurred in Children since March 2020

Official NHS data which can be viewed here (see Table 3 – COVID-19 deaths by age group and pre-existing condition of the downloadable excel document) shows that since March 2020 just 9 people under the age of 19 have died with Covid-19 who had no known pre-existing conditions in England’s hospitals, up to the 26th August 2021. The data also shows that just 39 people under the age of 19 have died with Covid-19 in the same time frame who did have other serious underlying conditions.

There are approximately 15.6 million people aged 19 and under in the United Kingdom which means just 1 in every 410,526 children and teenagers have allegedly died with Covid-19 in 18 months who had other serious pre-existing conditions. Whilst just 1 in every 1.7 million children have allegedly died with Covid-19 in 18 months, who had no know pre-existing conditions.

A scientific study titled ‘Deaths in Children and Young People in England following SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first pandemic year: a national study using linked mandatory child death reporting data’ (which can be found here), conducted by Clare Smith of NHS England and Improvement and several Universities also concluded that children are at negligible risk of death, hospitalisation, or serious illness due to the alleged Covid-19 virus.

The study collated data from the National Child Mortality Database; a mandatory system that records all deaths in Children under 18 years of age in England. What the researchers found is that just 25 children under the age of 18 died of Covid-19 between March 2020 and February 2021, with 15 of the 25 having a pre-existing life-limiting condition, and 19 of the 25 having a chronic condition.

The study also found that 16 of the 25 children who sadly died had two or more comorbidities with 8 children suffering pre-existing neurological and respiratory problems, 3 children suffering pre-existing neurological and cardiology problems, and 3 children suffering respiratory and cardiology problems.

Reason No. 4
The risk of Children developing serious illness due to Covid-19 is extremely low

A study (found here) led by Professor Russell Viner of UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, published on the medRxiv server, found that 251 young people aged under 18 in England were admitted to intensive care with Covid-19 during the first year of the pandemic (until the end of February 2021).  

The results of the study found that there were 5,830 admissions associated with Covid-19 among children up to 17 years of age during the pandemic year, this represents just 1.3% of secondary care admissions among children.

The lead author of the study said: “These new studies show that the risks of severe illness or death from SARS-CoV-2 are extremely low in children and young people”.

Reason No. 5
The Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccine is experimental and still in Clinical Trials

The Pfizer mRNA Covid-19 injection is in fact only temporarily authorised (see official MHRA document here) for emergency use only. In October the government made changes to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 to allow the MHRA to grant temporary authorisation of a Covid-19 vaccine without needing to wait for the EMA.

A temporary use authorisation is valid for one year only and requires the pharmaceutical companies to complete specific obligations, such as ongoing or new studies. Once comprehensive data on the product have been obtained, standard marketing authorisation can be granted. This means that the manufacturer of the vaccine cannot be held liable for any injury or death that occurs due to their vaccine, unless it was due to a quality control issue.

The reason the Pfizer mRNA Covid-19 injection has only been granted temporary authorisation is because it is still in clinical trials that are not set to conclude until May 2nd 2023. You can see the official Clinical Trial Study Tracker for the Pfizer jab on the US National Library of Medicine site here.

This is the first time mRNA injections have ever been authorised for use in humans (see here), and the long term side effects are not known, meaning the millions of people around the world who have had the Pfizer Covid-19 injection are essentially taking part in an experiment.

Reason No. 6
Three Scientific Studies conducted by the UK Government, Oxford University, & CDC, which were published in August have found the Covid-19 Vaccines do not work

New research in multiple settings shows that the alleged Delta Covid-19 variant, the now dominant variant in the UK, produces very high viral loads which are just as high in the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated population. Therefore, vaccinating individuals does not stop or even slow the spread of the alleged dominant Delta Covid-19 variant.

CDC Study

The CDC study (found here) focused on 469 cases among Massachusetts residents who attended indoor and outdoor public gatherings over a two week period. The results found that 346 of the cases were among vaccinated residents with 74% of them presenting with alleged Covid-19 symptoms, and 1.2% being hospitalised. However, the remaining 123 cases were among the unvaccinated population with just 1 person being hospitalised (0.8%).

Oxford University Study

The Oxford University study (found hereexamined 900 hospital staff members in Vietnam who had been vaccinated with the Oxford / AstraZeneca viral vector injection between March and April 2021. The entire hospital staff tested negative for the Covid-19 virus in mid May 2021 however, the first case among the vaccinated staff members was discovered on June 11th.

All 900 hospital staff were then retested for the Covid-19 virus and 52 additional cases were identified immediately, forcing the hospital into lockdown. Over the next two weeks, 16 additional cases were identified.

The study found that 76% of the Covid-19 positive staff developed respiratory symptoms, with 3 staff members developing pneumonia and one staff member requiring three days of oxygen therapy. Peak viral loads among the fully vaccinated infected group were found to be 251 times higher than peak viral loads found among the staff in March – April 2020 when they were not vaccinated.

UK Department of Health & Social Care Study

The UK Department of Health & Social Care study (found here) is an analysis of ongoing population wide SARS-CoV-2 monitoring in the UK and includes measures of viral load among the population.

The study found that viral loads among the vaccinated and unvaccinated population are virtually the same, and much higher than had been recorded prior to the Covid-19 injection roll-out. The study also found that the majority of cases among the vaccinated population were presenting with symptoms when they became positive.

The authors of the study conclude that the Pfizer and Oxford / AstraZeneca injection have lost efficacy against what they claim to be the Delta Covid-19 variant.

Reason No. 7
Public Health England Data shows the majority of Covid-19 Deaths are among the Vaccinated and suggests that the Vaccines worsen disease

A report titled ‘SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England’ (found here – see Table 5 Page 21), is the 22nd technical briefing on alleged variants of concern in the United Kingdom published by Public Health England.

From February 1st 2021 up to August 29th 2021 nearly twice as many unvaccinated people account for confirmed cases of Covid-19 than those who are fully vaccinated.

However when you include the number to have received one dose of a Covid-19 injection the number of cases among the vaccinated group (222,693) actually surpasses the number that have been recorded among the unvaccinated population.

The total number of deaths to have occurred since February 2021 involving the Delta Covid-19 variant that have been linked to vaccination status total 1,698. Of these just 30% have been among the unvaccinated population, despite the fact most second vaccinations were administered between April and June.

Whereas the fully vaccinated account for 64.25% of Covid-19 deaths since February 2021, and when including the partly vaccinated in those numbers they account for 70%.

The data published by Public Health England actually suggests that the risk of death increases significantly in those who have been fully vaccinated.

536 deaths have occurred among 219,716 confirmed cases in the unvaccinated population since February. This is a case fatality rate of 0.2%. Whereas 1,091 deaths have occurred among 113,823 cases among the fully vaccinated population. This is a case fatality rate of 1%.

This means the Covid-19 injections seem to be increasing the risk of death due to Covid-19 by 400% rather than reducing the risk of death by 95% as claimed by the vaccine manufacturers, Public Health bodies, and the Government.

Reason No. 8
There have been at least 1.18 million Adverse Reactions to the Covid-19 Vaccines in the UK alone

The thirty-second report highlighting adverse reactions to the Pfizer / BioNTech, Oxford / AstraZeneca, and Moderna Covid-19 injections that have been reported to the UK Medicine Regulator’s (MHRA) Yellow Card scheme reveals that there have been 1,186,844 adverse reactions reported since the 9th December 2020 up to the 1st September 2021.

The reports for each available vaccine can be found here under the analysis print section and include adverse reactions such as blindness, seizure, stroke, paralysis, cardiac arrest and many other serious ailments.

The Pfizer mRNA injections has left at least 107 people fully paralysed and a number of other people partly paralysed up to the 1st September 2021. However, the MHRA state that an estimated 10% of adverse reactions are actually reported to the Yellow Card scheme, meaning the true figure of adverse reactions is immensely higher.

Reason No. 9
There have been more deaths in 8 months due to the Covid-19 Vaccines than there have been due to all other available Vaccines since the year 2001

The UK Medicine Regulator responded to a Freedom of Information (found here) request demanding to know how many deaths have occurred in the past 20 years due to all vaccines, and their response revealed that there have been four times as many deaths in just eight months due to the Covid-19 injections.

The request was made via email to the Medicine and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on the 6th August 2021, and in answer to the question asked on the number of deaths due to all other vaccines in the past twenty years, the MHRA revealed that they had received a total of 404 reported adverse reactions to all available vaccines (excluding the Covid-19 injections) associated with a fatal outcome between the 1st January 2001 and the 25th August 2021 – a time frame of 20 years and 8 months.

However, according to the MHRA Yellow Card Report (see here – under each analysis print section) there have been 1,632 deaths reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines from December 9th 2020 up to September 1st 2021. This includes 16 deaths due to the Moderna jab, 24 deaths where the brand of vaccine was unspecified, 1,064 deaths due to the AstraZeneca vaccine, and 524 deaths due to the Pfizer mRNA injection.

Reason No. 10
The risk of Myocarditis (Heart Inflammation) in Children due to the Pfizer Vaccine

Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle, whilst Pericarditis is inflammation of the protective sacs surrounding the heart. Both are serious conditions due to the fact the heart muscle cannot regenerate, and both conditions have officially been added to the safety labels of the Pfizer jab and Moderna jab by the MHRA (see here).

Myocarditis and pericarditis happen very rarely in the general (unvaccinated) population, and it is estimated that in the UK there are about 6 new cases of myocarditis per 100,000 patients per year and about 10 new cases of pericarditis per 100,000 patients per year.

The MHRA has undertaken a thorough review of both UK and international reports of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination against Covid-19 due to a recent increase in reporting of these events in particular with the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, with a consistent pattern of cases occurring more frequently in young males.

Scientific Study published on the JAMA network, has also found that the incidence of myocarditis among vaccinated individuals is at least double what Health Authorities are claiming.

The new JAMA study (found here) showed a similar pattern to a CDC study (found here), although at higher incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination, suggesting vaccine adverse event under-reporting.

The researchers calculated the average monthly number of cases of myocarditis or pericarditis during the pre-vaccine period of January 2019 through January 2021 was 16.9 compared with 27.3 during the vaccine period of February through May 2021.
The mean numbers of pericarditis cases during the same periods were 49.1 and 78.8.

Dr. George Diaz who conducted the study told Medscape that “Our study resulted in higher numbers of cases probably because we searched the EMR, and [also because] VAERS requires doctors to report suspected cases voluntarily,” Diaz told Medscape. Also, in the governments’ statistics, pericarditis and myocarditis were “lumped together”.

Reason No. 11
Children have died and are dying due to the Covid-19 Vaccines

The US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which can be searched here by inputting the specific VAERS ID shows that several children have died in the US after having the Covid-19 vaccine, with many suffering cardiac arrest.

A 16 year-old female received the Pfizer vaccine on the 19th March 2021. Nine days later the same female went into cardiac arrest at home. By the 30th March 2021 she had sadly died. Found under VAERS ID 1225942.

A 15 year-old female suffered cardiac arrest and ended up in intensive care four days after having the Moderna mRNA jab. She also sadly died. Found under VAERS ID 1187918.

Another 15 year-old female received her second dose of the Pfizer jab on the 6th June 2021. Sadly one day later she died suddenly without reason. Found under VAERS ID 1383620.

A 15 year-old male die due to an unexplained reason twenty-three days after having the Pfizer jab. Found under VAERS ID 1382906.

The above are sadly just a few examples of the deaths to have occurred among children due to the Covid-19 vaccines in the USA.

Reason No. 12
Who profits from your Child getting the Covid-19 Vaccine?

It may surprise you to know that GP’s were already being incentivised to inject the adult population with the Covid-19 vaccine with a payment of £12.58 for every dose administered.

So it may surprise you further to know that GP’s are being offered an additional payment of £10 on top of the £12.58 already offered for every injection administered to a child in the United Kingdom. All of this is documented in an official NHS document found here.

According to the last count made in 2020 there are approximately 3,154,459 children between the ages of 12 and 15 in the United Kingdom. Therefore GP’s across the UK could stand to make a combined £142.45 million if every child is injected with a Covid-19 vaccine.

A Freedom of Information request (found here) which the MHRA responded to in May 2021 revealed that the current level of grant funding received from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation amounts to $3 million and covers “a number of projects”. The MHRA being the UK Medicine Regulator to have granted emergency use authorisation for the Pfizer / BioNTech mRNA vaccine to be given to children.

Coincidentally, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation bought shares in Pfizer back in 2002 (see here), and back in September 2020 Bill Gates ensured the value of his shares went up by announcing to the mainstream media in a CNBC interview that he viewed the Pfizer jab as the leader in the Covid-19 vaccine race.

“The only vaccine that, if everything went perfectly, might seek the emergency use license by the end of October, would be Pfizer.”

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also coincidentally bought $55 million worth of shares in BioNTech (see here) in September 2019, just before the alleged Covid-19 pandemic struck.

Can we really trust the MHRA to remain impartial when its primary funder is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who also own shares in Pfizer and BioNTech?

Reason No. 13
The Joint Committee on Vaccination & Immunisation have refused to recommend the Pfizer Vaccine be offered to Children

On the 3rd September 2021 the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) announced (see here) they were not recommending the Pfizer Covid-19 injection be offered to all children over the age of 12.

The assessment by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is that the health benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms. However, the margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal vaccination of healthy 12 to 15 year olds at this time.

The JCVI cited the following –

“For the vast majority of children, SARS-CoV-2 infection is asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic and will resolve without treatment. Of the very few children aged 12 to 15 years who require hospitalisation, the majority have underlying health conditions.”

Since 1st April 2009 the Health Protection (Vaccination) Regulations 2009 place a duty on the Secretary of State for Health in England to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the recommendations of JCVI are implemented (See here – page 6).

Yet in an unprecedented move, the Secretary for Health and the Government decided to bypass the JCVI and seek the advice of the four Chief Medical Officers (CMO’s) of the United Kingdom.

In their letter to the Government (found here), the UK CMO’s state they looked at wider public health benefits and risks of universal vaccination in this age group to determine if this shifts the risk-benefit either way. They claim in their letter that “the most important in this age group was impact on education”.

This raises some serious questions –

  1. Did Covid-19 close the schools? The answer is of course no. Schools were closed because of Government policy.
  2. Should a person take a medical treatment so that they are able to partake in society or education? The answer is couse no. A person should only ever take a medical treatment for a medical reason, in the case of the Covid-19 vaccine that reason should be to prevent infection; which it does not do, or prevent illness; which it will not do as children are at such low risk of suffering serious illness due to Covid-19.

The decision by Chris Whitty and his fellow Chief Medical Officers to advise the Government that the Covid-19 vaccines should be offered to children is not a decision based on science, it is instead a decision based on politics.

But we have just presented 13 factual reasons why you should not allow your child to get the Covid-19 vaccine, and each and every one is based on the science.

Now the choice is yours, or perhaps that of your child, we hope you make the correct one.

To view the original article, please visit >> https://theexpose.uk/2021/09/14/13-reasons-why-you-should-not-allow-your-child-to-get-the-covid-19-vaccine/

The Rationale for the Continued Vaccine Roll-Out is Not Evident

The Rationale for the Continued Vaccine Roll-Out is Not Evident

Friday, 30th July 2021

We appear to have serious problems with the Covid-19 vaccination programme. The evidence underpinning the claimed efficacy and safety of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine is highly questionable. Statistical analysis raises numerous issues, and until these are addressed, the alleged benefits cannot be shown to outweigh the risks. 

With wider concerns expressed by some of the world’s leading immunologists, virologists and epidemiologists, justification for the continued vaccination programme appears to be lacking. Possible unacceptable risk is evident in every nation which has vaccinated a significant proportion of its population.

The vaccines appear to increase the mortality risk from Covid-19, something the authorities and the regulatory agencies have so far shown little or no interest in investigating.

Some of what we are about to discuss is necessarily speculative. It is based upon a full statistical analysis—but, absent a comprehensive investigation, we cannot be certain why this analysis appears to show an increased Covid-19 mortality risk following vaccination.

Equally, refusal to investigate this correlation is untenable. No claim of either vaccine safety or efficacy is justified without properly accounting for this statistical analysis.

Concerning Data Emerges in Israel

Recently, the UK Column interviewed, among others, Dr Hervé Seligmann (Part 1 here). Dr Seligmann has a B.Sc. in Biology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He earned an M.Sc. in 1991 and gained his Ph.D in 2003. He has had over 100 scientific papers published. He works at the Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Aix-Marseille University, Marseilles, France. His statistical research partner is the engineer Haim Yativ.

Dr Seligmann and Mr Yativ have posted an informative English-language resource page where you can see recent updates to their research. Their analysis of Israeli data appears to show a significant increased risk of Covid-19 mortality (for the vaccinated) during the period between receipt of the first and second vaccine doses, and for a brief period following the second dose. Their research has focused upon the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine (tozinameran).

Their research impacts the risk/benefit analysis for the Pfizer BioNTech mRNA vaccine. It brings the claims made about its efficacy and safety into considerable doubt. Their analysis should be assessed in light of the absence of completed clinical trials for the BNT162b2 vaccine, which are still in the recruitment phase.

Nor are there any completed clinical trials for any of the other leading vaccines used in western nations. AstraZeneca’s AZD1222 (or ChAdOx1-S) trial (NCT04516746) is due to be completed in February 2023. Moderna’s mRNA vaccine phase III trial (NCT04470427) should be concluded by October 2022. Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen trial (NCT04614948) is expected to near completion in May 2023.

There are no posted results for any of these trials. The vaccines have all been approved for population use under emergency authorisation for this reason. They are unlicensed medications and do not have marketing authorisation. The approval decision was made based solely on data provided to the regulators by the manufacturers.

In Israel, on 11 February 2021, Ynet published an article in which they made the following claim:

Data from the Ministry of Health obtained by Ynet show the huge gap between the completely vaccinated and the unvaccinated. According to them, the effectiveness of the vaccine is higher than 90% in all age groups, both in preventing coronary heart disease and in preventing serious illness and death.

It is important to note that Ynet’s statement is based upon an analytical comparison made between the “completely vaccinated” and the “unvaccinated”. Further data from the Israeli Ministry of Health was then made available and was reported on 11 March by the German media outlet Correctiv.org. Dr Seligmann and Mr Yativ then reanalysed the original datasets and found clear discrepancies between the data and the reported “benefits” of the vaccines.

Key to this issue was that the claimed “benefits” were only measured from completion of the second dose, and took no account of the risks in the five-week period between and immediately following the first and second dose. Seligmann and Yativ referred to this window as the “period of vaccination”. We will use the abbreviation “PoV” for this period throughout the rest of this article.

Seligmann and Yativ analysed the data from the Israeli Ministry of Health (included in their report—linked above) and the data from Dagan et al., 2021. They continue to monitor the datasets but, as already stated, this analysis was for the period up to 11 March.

They calculated an unvaccinated person’s Covid-19 mortality baseline risk from data covering the 303-day period between 1 March 2020 and 20 December 2020, when the Israeli BNT162b2 vaccine rollout began. They analysed the percentage of cases and deaths for the two age groups in the Israeli data (those below and those above 60 years of age) published by the actuaries at the health insurance company Clalit.

Using this data, Seligmann and Yativ calculated the daily percentage chance of Covid-19 mortality for the respective, unvaccinated cohorts. For those under 60, it was 0.00000257% per day. For Israeli citizens over 60, it was 0.00022631% per day. The data released by the Israeli Ministry of Health, for various intervals in the PoV, were then compared to these unvaccinated baselines.

Between 0 and 13 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine, the Covid-19 daily mortality risk for the over 60’s was 0.003303%. This was more than 14.5 times higher than for the unvaccinated. More than thirteen days following the first dose of vaccination, this risk increased to 0.005484% per day; a risk more than 24.2 times greater than among the unvaccinated. This increased further, for the first six days after the second dose, to 0.006076% — representing a 26.85-fold increased risk of Covid-19 mortality for the vaccinated.

In the second week following the second dose, the risk for the over-60s remained at 18.4 times higher for the vaccinated. This gradually reduced to 6.7 times worse than the unvaccinated at fourteen days following the second dose, and the excess risk continued to decrease over the the next few weeks. The data showed that there is a a PoV of approximately five weeks during which there is a significantly increased risk of dying from Covid-19 for the vaccinated over-60s.

A similar increased risk of Covid-19 mortality was seen in the data for the under-60s. In the first two weeks following the first dose, the risk was increased 23.86 times. This increased further to a 42.4-times elevated risk in the second week after the first dose. In the first week following the second dose, the data indicated a 94-fold increase in the daily Covid mortality risk for the vaccinated. For the period studied, there was no noted increased risk to the under-60s beyond the first week following the second dose.

The Missing "Benefit" of BNT162b2 Vaccination

Seligmann and Yativ’s statistical analysis clearly showed a significantly higher risk of Covid-19 mortality for the vaccinated during the PoV. They then noted that once the vaccine had taken full effect, the Covid-19 mortality risk for the vaccinated reduced below the risk for the unvaccinated. They found an apparent benefit from the vaccine once the PoV had ended.

Taking into account that the general population risk of Covid-19 mortality is so low, they were able to calculate how many days of full vaccine protection would be required to compensate for the significant increased daily mortality risk during the PoV.

For the over-60s, after the first dose, the BNT162b2 vaccine would have to provide nearly two years of full protection (690.62 days) to achieve any net benefit. Seligmann and Yativ stated:

Pooling both age classes, on average, in order to not lose more lives than gain lives due to vaccination, the protective effects of the vaccine, without costs associated with 3d [a third dose] and more shots, would have to be absolute and with no other vaccine-related but COVID19-unrelated deaths for a period of at least 658 days.

The researchers also noted a number of important caveats. For example, the age distribution and relative risk classes for the unvaccinated wasn’t clear in the Israeli data. This could be a compounding factor for their analysis, and they have requested clarification. They have yet to receive a response.

Their initial analysis did not take account of non Covid-19 mortality patterns. They also disregarded the fact that vaccine protection is not absolute. They went on to extrapolate their research to look at broader mortality patterns. This indicated even further reason for concern, especially among children, suggesting that the vaccinated pose a risk to the unvaccinated.

Seligmann and Yativ noted that the Israeli Ministry of Health and the co-authors of the Dagan, et al. paper had commercial conflicts of interest with Pfizer. However, sticking to the data presented in the Dagan, et al. paper, they noted an overall threefold increase on Covid-19 infection rates for the vaccinated during the five-week PoV.

We might add our own caveat at this point: a positive RT-PCR test is not evidence of a “case” of Covid-19. However, Seligmann’s calculations are based upon the government’s definition of a case.

In summation, Seligmann and Yativ have identified an elevated risk of both infection and subsequent Covid-19 mortality, during the PoV with BNT162b2. This is so marked that to justify it, the absolute protection conferred by the vaccine (an absolute protection which is known not to exist) would have to be prolonged (for many years—without any need of boosters or further vaccination). If this is not the case, then any net benefit from the vaccine is extremely unlikely.

Media reports from Israel would seem to admit that a net benefit does not exist. The New York Times recently reported:

Researchers estimated that the Pfizer shot was just 39 percent effective against preventing infection in the country in late June and early July, compared with 95 percent from January to early April.

The Daily Telegraph reports that BNT162b2 recipients are already being required to take a booster. Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla announced that Pfizer’s claimed efficacy drops to 84% within six months. Bourla stated that supposed “efficacy” against severe disease declines by 6% every two months. He alleges that this necessitates the booster.

If Seligmann and Yativ’s statistical analysis is correct, this strongly indicates that there is no possible Covid-19 health benefit for the BNT162b2 vaccine. Consequently, a “booster”—of something which appears to cause harm—would be irrational.

Corroboration from Others

Seligmann and Yativ’s findings have seemingly been corroborated by the research of Dr Steve Ohana and Dr Alexandra Henrion-Caude. They found a large spike in mortality among the 20-49 age group in Israel. They then compared this to other nations with a high vaccine coverage (taking the jurisdiction of England & Wales) and noted the same phenomenon. They concluded:

Surges in mortality among young people are very rare events, and are usually associated with wars […] The mortality peak among 20 to 49-year-olds in February-March 2021 is therefore unprecedented and indeed concerning […] Our additional observation supporting this possible link between vaccination and youth mortality is the fact that common patterns of excess mortality were also observed in England and Wales […] [T]he established link between the Pfizer vaccine and myocarditis/autoimmune diseases in young adults further lend a physiological support. Such accumulation of concern should, in our view, urgently prompt a pause in the vaccination campaign, until the reasons of the youth excess mortality observed in mass vaccination countries are clarified.

In addition, Peter Schirmacher, director of the Pathological Institute in Heidelberg, Germany, who advocates Covid-19 vaccination, has highlighted the need for immediate post-mortem examinations of the vaccinated. Schirmarcher carried out more than forty autopsies on people who died shortly after vaccination in Germany. He found that up to 40% of them died from cerebral vein thrombosis or autoimmune disease that could be attributable to the vaccines

There is even a suggested mechanism explaining how this increased mortality could be occurring. An autopsy of a recently vaccinated 86-year-old decedent found that the S-protein (spike protein), whose production is induced by the BNT162b2 vaccine, was found in almost every organ of the man’s body. This is contrary to the claims of the mRNA vaccine manufacturers, who maintain that the S-protein is only produced by and remains at the vaccine site.  

Doctors for Covid Ethics are among the many renowned scientists and physicians who have raised concerns about the S-protein produced by the body’s cells following an mRNA Covid jab. They state:

The first injection will induce the expression of spike protein, and the formation of specific antibodies to it. Re-vaccination will lead to a second round of spike protein production, including in endothelial cells. The antibodies, now already present, will bind to these spikes and will direct attack of the complement system to these cells. Neutrophil granulocytes, too, will be activated by antibodies bound to the endothelial cells. Vascular damage and leakage will ensue.

Not only is there statistical evidence suggesting cause for concern; there is physiological evidence that could account for the data. It is not known whether the apparent increased mortality is derived from this suggested mechanism—and that is the point. Without a proper investigation, no-one knows.

Reason for Concern in the UK

Currently in the UK, the MHRA Yellow Card scheme data suggests that more than 1,500 people may have died as a result of vaccination. In addition, the MHRA has stated that Yellow Card reports only represent 10% of total vaccine related mortality, suggesting a plausible 15,000 vaccine related deaths so far in the UK.

The MHRA now states that this under-reporting estimate should not be used for Covid-19 vaccines, because (they allege) awareness of their Yellow Card scheme for vaccine adverse drug reactions has somehow improved. They have offered no evidence to substantiate this claim.

We might ask what the point of the MHRA Yellow Card scheme is. On the one hand, the agency states that its purpose is to act as an “early warning system” for possible vaccine harm. Yet the MHRA also states:

The suspected ADRs described in this report are not interpreted as being proven side effects of COVID-19 vaccines.

This would be acceptable if the MHRA had investigated those possible adverse reactions to establish whether they were ADRs. Again, there is no evidence that they have. All we can say is that the MHRA does not interpret them as vaccine ADRs. Therefore, the chance of their Yellow Card scheme actually providing an “early warning” would appear to be nil.

If we apply Seligmann and Yativ’s analysis to the UK vaccine rollout data, a very worrying picture emerges. The Israeli researchers considered the BNT162b2 vaccine in Israel. This brand was also the first vaccine administered to the most vulnerable in the UK. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to apply their findings to the UK data.

The first dose of the BNT162b2 was given to Margaret Keenan on 8 December 2020. The vaccine rollout began in earnest between a week and two weeks later. As in Israel, it was in full swing by 20 December 2020.

Brian Pinker was the first person in the UK to receive an AstraZeneca vaccine, on 4 January 2021, nearly a month later. The rollout of the AstraZeneca vaccine also took a couple of weeks to get fully up to speed.

The vaccines were distributed in keeping with the UK Government’s priority schedule. This meant that the first to receive the vaccine were the most vulnerable in British care homes, hospitals and other care settings.

On 10 January 2021, the then Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, confirmed figures reporting that 2.3 million people had been vaccinated for Covid-19 in the UK. While specific data on the vaccine distribution has not been released, it is clear that the vast majority of these people must have received BNT162b2.

On 22 November 2020, the seven-day average for daily Covid-19 mortality in the UK stood at 466.4. By 8 December—the day of Keenan’s vaccination—the average had dropped to 428.9. This represented a decline of 8% in the daily mortality average in just over two weeks.

By 19 January 2021, the seven-day daily Covid-19 mortality average had increased by nearly 300% to 1285.7. Using Seligmann and Yativ’s PoV—assuming a full BNT162b2 vaccine programme from 15 December onward, and using the UK Government’s own statistics—it appears that a significant proportion of 29,755 reported Covid-19 deaths may have been attributable to the increased mortality risk presented by the vaccine.

We cannot say, without a thorough investigation, what that proportion is. However, the distribution of that mortality does appear to correlate strongly with the distribution suggested by Seligmann and Yativ’s analysis.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Yellow Card data indicating a possible 1,500 vaccine-related deaths appears to underestimate vaccine harm considerably. The known phenomenon of under-reporting—combined with the remarkable correlation between the Israeli analysis, the vaccine rollout of BNT162b2 and the official UK Government statistics—suggests that the Pfizer vaccine is dangerous.

As the data currently stands, it seems that many thousands of alleged Covid-19 deaths may have occurred due to the additional risks posed by the BNT162b2 vaccine alone. Given the lack of clinical trials, it is not possible for anyone to state categorically that any of the major Covid-19 vaccines is either effective or safe; certainly not Pfizer BNT162b2. 

Government claims of lives saved do not stand up to scrutiny. When we also consider the growing evidence of risks associated with other vaccines, the rationale for the continued vaccine rollout is not evident.

To view the original article, please visit >> https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/the-rationale-for-the-continued-vaccine-roll-out-is-not-evident

Dr Peter McCullough reveals the Covid-19 Vaccines are Bioweapons and a CDC whistle-blower

Dr Peter McCullough reveals the Covid-19 Vaccines are Bioweapons and a CDC whistle-blower has confirmed 50,000 Americans have died due to the jabs

BY  ON 

The most highly cited physician on the early treatment of COVID-19 has come out with an explosive new interview that blows the lid off the medical establishment’s complicity in the unnecessary deaths of thousands.

Dr. Peter McCullough said these deaths have been facilitated by a false narrative bent on pushing an all-new, unproven vaccine for a disease that was highly treatable.

He said the alleged Covid-19 virus is a bioweapon and the vaccines represent “phase two” of that bioweapon.

“As this, in a sense, bioterrorism phase one was rolled out, it was really all about keeping the population in fear and in isolation and preparing them to accept the vaccine, which appears to be phase two of a bioterrorism operation,” McCullough said in a June 11 webinar with German attorney Reiner Fuellmich and several other doctors.

He noted:

“Both the respiratory virus and the vaccine delivered to the human body the spike protein, the gain of function target of this bioterrorism research.”

“Now I can’t come out and say all this on national TV today or at any time,” he continued. “But, what we had learned over time is that we could no longer communicate with government agencies. We actually couldn’t even communicate with our propagandised colleagues in major medical centres, all of which appear to be under a spell, almost as if they are hypnotized right now.”

He did not hold back in his criticism of his colleagues in the medical community.

“And doctors, good doctors, are doing unthinkable things, like injecting biologically active messenger RNA that produces this pathological spike protein into pregnant women. I think when the doctors wake up from their trance they’re going to be shocked to think what they’ve done to people.”

McCullough is professor of medicine and vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University and also teaches at Texas A&M University. He is an epidemiologist, cardiologist and internist and has testified before the Texas State Senate related to COVID-19 treatments. He holds the distinction of being the most widely cited physician in the treatment of COVID-19 with more than 600 citations in the National Library of Medicine.

In the interview McCullough said:

“The first wave of the bioterrorism is a respiratory virus that spread across the world, and affected relatively few people—about one percent of many populations—but generated great fear.”

He said the virus targeted primarily people over 50 with multiple medical conditions. It poses almost no risk to children.

He said 85 percent of the more than 600,000 U.S. deaths could have been prevented with a multi-drug treatment given in the early to mid-point of the disease.

Instead, people were told to stay home and not return to the hospital unless their symptoms got worse, such as severe breathing problems. By then it was too late for many. They were placed on ventilators and died.

The vast majority of doctors jumped in lockstep to follow these erroneous “guidelines” handed down by the World Health Organisation and the U.S. Centre for Disease Control. Those guidelines neglected to place any focus on the treatment of sick patients and, from the beginning, as early as April 2020, started emphasizing the need for a vaccine as the only real hope of beating back the virus.

The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS] logged 5,993 reports of deaths of people injected with the COVID vaccine between Dec. 14, 2020, and June 11, 2021. That’s more than all the deaths reported to VAERS from all other vaccines combined over the last 22 years.

But these numbers, as shocking as they are, don’t scratch the surface of the actual number of dead Americans, said McCullough.

“We have now a whistleblower inside the CMS, and we have two whistleblowers in the CDC. We think we have 50,000 dead Americans. Fifty thousand deaths. So we actually have more deaths due to the vaccine per day than certainly the viral illness by far. It’s basically propagandized bioterrorism by injection.

McCullough added that “every single thing that was done in public health in response to the pandemic made it worse.”

He said the suppression of early COVID treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine and especially Ivermectin, “was tightly linked to the development of a vaccine.”

Without the suppression of the already-available treatments, the government would not have been able to legally grant Emergency Use Authorisation to the three vaccines rushed to market in the USA by Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson.

In the case of Moderna, the U.S. government is co-patent holder through the National Institutes of Health, a clear conflict of interest, and confidential documents reveal Moderna sent a coronavirus mRNA vaccine candidate was sent to a US University in December 2019, weeks before Covid-19 was allegedly known to even exist.

“I published basically the only two papers that teach doctors how to treat COVID-19 at home to prevent hospitalisation and death…If treated early, it results in an 85 percent reduction in hospitalisations and death,” McCullough said.

So not only were the vaccines rolled out unnecessarily by suppressing already available, effective treatments, but the FDA and CDC are now covering up tragic numbers of deaths caused by their experimental mRNA injections.

McCullough said he has organized groups around the world that emphasise early treatment.

“Governments have actually tried to block early treatment of Covid patients, so we created a home patient guide,” he said.

“We broke through to the people, and the people who got sick with COVID called in to get medications from mail-order distribution pharmacies. So without the government even knowing what went on, we crushed the epidemic here in the United States towards the end of December and January.

“We basically took care of the pandemic with about 500 doctors and telemedicine services. And to this day we treat about 25 percent of the US COVID-19 population that actually are at high risk, over age 50 with medical problems or present with severe symptoms. And we basically handled the pandemic, and at the same time we’ve tried to keep ourselves above the political fray.”

McCullough said his focus has recently turned to the unnecessary and dangerous injections.

“We are working to change the public view of the vaccine. The public initially accepted the vaccine and we had to kind of slowly turn the ship. Now, in the U.S. the rates of vaccination have been dropping since April 8. Most of the vaccination centres are empty.

“We have a lot going on in the United States. We are engaging more and more attorneys.

Source

Looking More Closely at U.S Death Rates

Looking More Closely at U.S Death Rates

In the John-Hopkins newsletter a very interesting article emerged by Yanni Gu, revealing interesting research done by Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins.

In her examination of the US death rates she found the following:

By retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September.

 

According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in her webinar titled “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data.”

From mid-March to mid-September, U.S. total deaths have reached 1.7 million, of which 200,000, or 12% of total deaths, are COVID-19-related. Instead of looking directly at COVID-19 deaths, Briand focused on total deaths per age group and per cause of death in the U.S. and used this information to shed light on the effects of COVID-19.

She explained that the significance of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths can be fully understood only through comparison to the number of total deaths in the United States. 

After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared. 

Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same. 

“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” Briand said.

Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 emerged. Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths. 

These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.

This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception? 

To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.

Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.

“This is true every year. Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes,” Briand pointed out.

When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes. 

Graph depicts the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018.

This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19. 

The CDC classified all deaths that are related to COVID-19 simply as COVID-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but are infected with COVID-19 count as COVID-19 deaths. This is likely the main explanation as to why COVID-19 deaths drastically increased while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.

“All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary,” Briand concluded.

In an interview with The News-Letter, Briand addressed the question of whether COVID-19 deaths can be called misleading since the infection might have exacerbated and even led to deaths by other underlying diseases.

“If [the COVID-19 death toll] was not misleading at all, what we should have observed is an increased number of heart attacks and increased COVID-19 numbers. But a decreased number of heart attacks and all the other death causes doesn’t give us a choice but to point to some misclassification,” Briand replied.

In other words, the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the U.S. is considered problematic only when it increases the total number of deaths or the true death burden by a significant amount in addition to the expected deaths by other causes. Since the crude number of total deaths by all causes before and after COVID-19 has stayed the same, one can hardly say, in Briand’s view, that COVID-19 deaths are concerning.

Briand also mentioned that more research and data are needed to truly decipher the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the United States.

Throughout the talk, Briand constantly emphasized that although COVID-19 is a serious national and global problem, she also stressed that society should never lose focus of the bigger picture — death in general. 

The death of a loved one, from COVID-19 or from other causes, is always tragic, Briand explained. Each life is equally important and we should be reminded that even during a global pandemic we should not forget about the tragic loss of lives from other causes.

According to Briand, the over-exaggeration of the COVID-19 death number may be due to the constant emphasis on COVID-19-related deaths and the habitual overlooking of deaths by other natural causes in society. 

During an interview with The News-Letter after the event, Poorna Dharmasena, a master’s candidate in Applied Economics, expressed his opinion about Briand’s concluding remarks.

“At the end of the day, it’s still a deadly virus. And over-exaggeration or not, to a certain degree, is irrelevant,” Dharmasena said.

When asked whether the public should be informed about this exaggeration in death numbers, Dharmasena stated that people have a right to know the truth. However, COVID-19 should still continuously be treated as a deadly disease to safeguard the vulnerable population.

To read the original article:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201127231611/https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19