CONTRIBUTORS

Largest COVID Vaccine Study Ever: What You’re Not Being Told

Someone is lying to you. Big time.

Share this:

• X
• Facebook
• Email
• Telegram
• Twitter

Published

 5 seconds ago 

on

 February 22, 2024

By

 vnninfluencers

This article originally appeared on Steve Kirsch’s Substack and was republished with permission.

Guest post by Steve Kirsch

Executive summary

A new study of over 99 million vaccinated people has been highly promoted in the press with headlines like “Covid Vaccines Linked To Small Increase In Heart And Brain Disorders, Study Finds—But Risk From Infection Is Far Higher.”

I’m going to convince you that this is bullshit.

Results at a glance

A safe vaccine would be indistinguishable from a placebo. Does this look safe to you?

Quick summary of what the article would like you to believe

Here are the key points of the study which was funded by the CDC and HHS so no conflict of interest at all:

1. They looked at the medical records of 99,068,901 vaccinated individuals.
2. They compared observed vs. expected (“OE”) rates of “13 selected adverse events of special interest (AESI) across neurological, haematological, and cardiac outcomes.”
3. They only looked for 42 days after the shots since everyone knows you can’t get adverse events after 42 days (I’m being sarcastic).
4. They didn’t evaluate mortality due to the shot since everyone knows the vaccines are safe and didn’t kill anyone (I’m being sarcastic).
5. They found clearly increased risk of the various AESI, but the end conclusion is that the risks after COVID infection are far higher, so people should take the shots. This is unbelievable. I don’t know a single cardiologist whose business dropped after the COVID vaccines rolled out. Do you?
6. As usual, they aren’t allowed to share the data so you have to take their word for it.

The benefits of the COVID vaccine

There aren’t any I’m aware of.

A JAMA paper inadvertently revealed that the flu vaccine and COVID vaccine don’t work at all.

Nobody has been able to explain away that result. Nobody. Ever. They just don’t want to talk about it.

Why take a vaccine if the benefit is not measurable? That VA study was the perfect proving ground. The signal should have been large. There was no signal for either the COVID or flu vaccine. It was a stunning paper.

I always love it when a paper inadvertently blows the whole narrative out of the water and the medical community is completely clueless as to its significance.

The risks of the vaccine

The paper selected just 13 AESIs to evaluate.

But did you know that the CDC has determined that there are over 500 AESIs that were more serious than myocarditis? They simply forgot to tell people that!

Here are the actual numbers from this excellent article by Josh Guetzkow:

After dropping the new COVID-era AEs, there are 503 AEs with PRRs larger than myocarditis (PRR=3.09) and 552 with PRRs larger than pericarditis (PRR=2.82).⁵ This means that 66.4% of the AEs had a bigger safety signal than myocarditis and 77.3% were larger than pericarditis. You can see what those were by using this Excel file provided by the CDC and sorting the 18+ tab by the 12/14-07/29 PRR column (Column E). Then just look at which AEs have PRRs larger than the ones for pericarditis and myocarditis.

At a minimum, they should have warned people about myocarditis and everything more serious than that. So you should have been handed a long list of serious adverse events before you got the shot.

They claim that risks for GBS, etc. are higher from the virus than from the vaccine

The paper claims that even though the risks were elevated, that multiple studies show the virus itself is more dangerous:

But even if that was true (which it isn’t), it doesn’t matter because, as I mentioned earlier, the vaccine doesn’t prevent you from getting COVID, so the vaccine is simply adding to the risk.

The reality that I see shows that the vaccine is way more dangerous than the virus ever was

I have huge difficulty believing that the virus is more dangerous than the vaccine. If that were true and the vaccine resulted in a net benefit, we’d be seeing cases of myocarditis DROP after the vaccines rolled out.

Where is the evidence for that?

I can’t find a single cardiologist whose myocarditis rates in kids went DOWN after the vaccines rolled out. Can you?

In a survey of 1,000 randomly selected Americans that was done by a professional market research firm, nearly half the deaths reported in the survey were ascribed to the vaccine, not to the virus. That’s a very serious safety signal. How could this study have missed it? Of course, no health authority is willing to run their own survey. They don’t really want to learn the truth.

Here’s what people actually observed in real-life, but these are just anecdotes of course:

As you can see, there is a huge disconnect here. Someone is lying to you. Big time.

Unfortunately, no pro-vax person will try to replicate this survey. They just don’t want to know for some reason.

The myocarditis risk is all over the place in the peer-reviewed literature

According to the peer-reviewed literature, myocarditis risk is elevated by 1.5 to 1.7X after a Pfizer shot, but if you got the virus, your risk of myocarditis is 11X higher if you are unvaxxed and 5X higher if you are vaxxed. So the claim in the literature is that the virus is more dangerous which is clearly at odds with the surveys above.

That same paper admitted if you are male <40, your risk of myocarditis is over 6X higher than after the virus for the 2nd dose of the Moderna shot. So if you are a male <40, vaccination makes no sense, especially since it’s all downside. But the CDC will never tell you that and the paper doesn’t make any distinction at all for different ages.

Let’s look at a paper authored by scientists at the New Zealand Ministry of Health entitled “Adverse Events Following the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) in Aotearoa New Zealand.” They found that the COVID vaccines are indistinguishable from placebo (no statistically significant results in 11 of the 12 AESIs studied), except that there was a safety signal for myo/pericarditis which was 25.6X higher than expected in the 5-19 age group after Dose 2.

A 25.6X higher rate of myocarditis in kids is an insane safety signal. What does our CDC do about it? They recommend everyone get the shot. And top universities like Harvard require the COVID shots if you want to attend classes there as a student (faculty and staff are exempted because that’s how “science” works).

It doesn’t add up

How can there be 770 adverse events that are generating CDC safety signals and these studies are claiming that the vaccines are safe? The New Zealand study is stunning… they only found myo/pericarditis was elevated; the other 11 events studied were insignificant.

Yet from Josh’s article:

• The CDC analysis shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000).

It’s a federal crime to make a false VAERS report. There is no benefit to the reporter to make a false VAERS report. And it’s not like the CDC did any kind of VAERS awareness campaign either.

So if the vaccine is as safe as a placebo, how do they explain all the AEs?

Confused? Watch “THE UNSEEN CRISIS” and decide for yourself whether the vaccine is “safe”

This movie is superb. Many of my friends are in it. I’m in it too!

If you are an Epoch Times subscriber, you get to watch the movie for no extra charge. Just go to this link. If you aren’t logged in, you can see the 2 minute preview… I’m featured at the end with a great quote. Use the two buttons in the upper right to login (if you already have an account) or subscribe.

You can also check out the movie’s website: https://www.unseencrisis.com/

Try to get your family to watch it.

Someone is lying to you about the safety of the COVID vaccines. This movie can help you decide whether the 99 million patient study is telling you the truth or not.

This movie should be required watching for anyone thinking of getting the COVID vaccine. If you are going to have mandates (which are a bad idea in general), they should mandate people watch the film.

I don’t think anyone can watch the movie and then opt to get the COVID shot.

Summary

Read the paper. Watch the movie. Decide for yourself who is telling you the truth.

And remember: the data used in the study is NOT available to the public.

All my attempts at data transparency have been rejected. The health authorities have determined that you get better public health outcomes if you keep the public in the dark. So all my calls for data transparency fall on deaf ears. The best “ground truth” data we have is from the New Zealand data leak…and it clearly shows that the vaccine increases mortality. The critics acknowledge I’m right, but say that “it must be due to a confounder.” More on that coming up tomorrow.

Jamie Dimon Is Desperate to Pin the Jeffrey Epstein Scandal on...

 

Jamie Dimon Is Desperate to Pin the Jeffrey Epstein Scandal on Jes Staley; Bloomberg News Is Carrying His Water — Again

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: February 16, 2024 ~

SOURCE

Jeffrey Epstein (left); Jamie Dimon (right).

After hurling salacious allegations for months against Jes Staley in a federal lawsuit JPMorgan Chase had brought against its former executive, the bank decided last September to quietly settle the case without disclosing the terms.

The bank sued Staley after it had been sued by victims of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and after it had been sued in a separate lawsuit by the Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein owned a private island compound that was a frequent venue of Epstein’s sex trafficking of minors. Lawyers for the U.S. Virgin Islands charged that JPMorgan Chase had “actively participated in Epstein’s sex-trafficking venture from 2006 until 2019.” (Both cases were settled last year by the bank, with it paying a whopping $290 million to the victims and $75 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands.)

The bank’s lawsuit against Staley appeared to be a damage control effort to redirect the media’s attention to Staley and away from the man he reported to – Jamie Dimon, the Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase who has survived a breathtaking array of criminal charges against the bank while he has sat at its helm. (See JPMorgan’s Board Made Jamie Dimon a Billionaire as the Bank Rigged Markets, Laundered Money, and Admitted to Five Felony Counts.)

While evidence submitted to the court showed Staley was deeply involved with Epstein, the evidence is also overwhelming that more than a dozen other bank personnel, including top executives, facilitated Epstein’s ability to keep his sex trafficking of minors’ scheme alive.

A Memorandum of Law filed by the U.S. Virgin Islands made the following points:

“Even if participation requires active engagement…there is no genuine dispute that JPMorgan actively participated in Epstein’s sex-trafficking venture from 2006 until 2019. The Court found allegations that the Bank allowed Epstein to use its accounts to send dozens of payments to then-known co-conspirators [redacted] provided excessive and unusual amounts of cash to Epstein; and structured cash withdrawals so that those withdrawals would not appear suspicious ‘went well beyond merely providing their usual [banking] services to Jeffrey Epstein and his affiliated entities’ and were sufficient to allege active engagement.”

The U.S. Virgin Islands alerted the court to the unfathomable sums of hard cash that Epstein was able to take from the accounts he maintained at JPMorgan Chase without the bank filing the legally mandated Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The U.S. Virgin Islands tallied up the hard cash dispersals as follows:

“Between September 2003 and November 2013, or approximately ten years, JPMorgan handled more than $5 million in outgoing cash transactions for Epstein — ignoring its own policy discouraging large cash withdrawals….”

The U.S. Virgin Islands’ attorneys cite to internal emails at JPMorgan Chase showing that employees at the bank were aware of Epstein’s “[c]ash withdrawals … made in amounts for $40,000 to $80,000 several times a month” while also being aware that Epstein paid his underage sexual assault victims in cash.

On August 25 of last year, JPMorgan Chase filed a document with the court as part of a discovery demand showing that, in addition to Staley, 14 of its executives, private bankers and other staff had made visits to Epstein’s private residences. One of those employees, Justin Nelson, visited Epstein’s residences more times than Staley. Nelson was at Epstein’s Manhattan mansion – a key location of the sex trafficking operation – 12 times and one time at Epstein’s Zorro Ranch in New Mexico – an additional location of the sex trafficking ring. That’s a total of 13 visits to the residence of a sex trafficker. Staley’s visits to Epstein’s residences tally up to 11, according to JPMorgan’s chart. (See pages 3, 4 and 5 at this link.) Eight of Nelson’s visits to Epstein’s residences occurred after 2013, the year that the bank claims it fired Epstein as a client. Disbursements from Epstein accounts were occurring long after 2013 according to court documents, raising questions about just when, or if, Epstein was terminated as a client from the Private Bank or the bank’s brokerage unit, J.P. Morgan Securities. Nelson was dually employed at both units.

Notwithstanding this hard evidence of JPMorgan Chase’s culpability in the Epstein saga, on February 7 of this year – months after the bank had quietly settled its case against Staley and the matter had disappeared from news headlines – Bloomberg News inexplicably decided to put Staley and Epstein back in its headlines. (Paywall.) In an article written by Harry Wilson, Ava Benny-Morrison, and Jason Leopold, one sentence jumps out. It reads: “The bank, which through Staley served Epstein as a client….”

The bank’s own chart, linked above in the ninth paragraph, shows that the following 14 individuals, in addition to Staley, were making visits to Epstein’s private residences while employed at the bank:

Paul Barrett (Managing Director, Private Bank); Mary Casey (Managing Director, Private Bank); John Duffy (CEO, Private Bank); Mary Erdoes (CEO, Asset & Wealth Management); David Frame (Global Chief Executive, Private Bank); Christopher French (Managing Director, Private Bank); Joanna Jagoda (Assistant General Counsel, Legal); Jeffrey Matusow (Managing Director, Private Bank); Thomas McGraw (Managing Director, Private Bank); Paul Morris (Banker, Private Bank); Justin Nelson (Managing Director, Private Bank); Carolyn Reers, Managing Director, Private Bank); James von Moltke (job title not provided by the bank).

If Dimon is fearful of Staley providing evidence against the bank in the Epstein matter to the criminal division of the U.S. Department of Justice, it would have an incentive to continue to undermine Staley’s credibility in the press.

What was JPMorgan Chase’s incentive to keep such a clearly dangerous man as Epstein as a client? The U.S. Virgin Islands makes a very credible case that the bank was getting lots of profits – both from trading in Epstein’s own accounts as well as his referrals of rich clients to the bank. It tells the court in one filing:

“In 2003, Epstein was, by double, the top revenue generator in the Private Bank, and the source of Google co-founder Sergey Brin (‘one of the largest [relationships] in the Private Bank, of +$4BN’), Glenn Dubin (billionaire founder of Highbridge), and many other ultra-wealthy clients and connections, which would come to include Bill Gates, Leon Black, Larry Summers, the Sultan of Dubai, Prince Andrew, Ehud Barak, Thomas Pritzker, Lord Peter Mandelson, and Prime Minister Netanyahu.”

And what would be the incentive for Bloomberg News to carry water for Jamie Dimon?

Michael Bloomberg, the former Mayor of New York, is the majority owner of the publishing and data terminal empire that has, for years, published flattering articles about Jamie Dimon. In 2016, Michael Bloomberg even co-authored an opinion piece with Dimon. The same year, the New York Post reported that JPMorgan Chase was the second largest customer of Bloomberg’s data terminal business with 10,000 leases of Bloomberg’s terminals. At the time, the terminals cost around $21,000 each per lease, per year, or approximately $210 million being forked over by JPMorgan Chase to Michael Bloomberg’s company annually. Bloomberg’s data terminals are the cash cow of the company.

During JPMorgan Chase’s London Whale scandal in 2012 and 2013, where the bank gambled with bank depositors’ money in its federally-insured bank by making exotic derivative trades in London and losing at least $6.2 billion, Michael Bloomberg was Mayor of New York City. Instead of condemning this outrageous risk-taking with federally-insured deposits, Mike Bloomberg was quoted in the Wall Street Journal calling Dimon “a very smart, honest, great executive,” adding “The controls failed. He’ll look at that and fix it.” That statement appeared in May of 2012. The five felony counts brought by the Justice Department and admitted to by the bank, followed from 2014 to 2020.

Related Article:

The Craziest Video You’ll Ever Watch on JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon

Using AI to address the corruption of regulatory bodies

 Sometimes I use AI engines to get some suggestions about what to do.

Here is a chat with ChatGPT (from poe.com):

What happens if regulators are controlled or corrupted by an industry - for example the military-nuclear industry - and cannot reveal the truth about the side effects of widespread distribution of lethal products?

"When regulators are controlled or corrupted by a specific industry, it can have serious implications for public safety and trust in regulatory systems. Here are some additional points to consider:

Lack of independence: Regulators should ideally operate independently from the industries they oversee. Independence helps ensure that decisions are made based on objective analysis and the best interests of the public. When regulators are unduly influenced or controlled by an industry, it compromises their ability to act in the public's interest.

Suppression of information: If regulators are compromised, there is a risk that information about the harmful effects of certain products may be suppressed or downplayed. This can prevent the public from being fully informed about potential risks associated with the products they use.

Whistleblower protection: Whistleblowers play a crucial role in exposing corruption and wrongdoing within regulatory bodies. It is important to have mechanisms in place to protect these individuals from retaliation when they come forward with information about misconduct. Whistleblower protection laws can help encourage transparency and accountability.

Independent oversight and accountability: To prevent and address corruption, it is essential to have independent oversight mechanisms in place. This can include external audit bodies, ombudspersons, or other independent entities tasked with monitoring regulatory activities. These oversight mechanisms should have the authority to investigate allegations of corruption and take appropriate action.

Strengthening regulations and enforcement: To address the influence of industry over regulators, it may be necessary to strengthen regulations and enforcement mechanisms. This can involve stricter conflict-of-interest rules, enhanced transparency requirements, and increased penalties for regulatory violations. It may also be beneficial to establish clear guidelines on interactions between regulators and industry representatives to minimize undue influence.

Civil society and media scrutiny: Civil society organizations, advocacy groups, and independent media outlets play a vital role in holding regulators accountable. Their work in investigating and exposing potential corruption can raise public awareness and put pressure on authorities to take action.

Addressing the issue of regulators being controlled or corrupted by specific industries requires a multi-faceted approach involving legal reforms, institutional safeguards, public awareness, and active citizen participation. It is crucial to promote transparency, integrity, and accountability within regulatory systems to ensure the protection of public health and safety."

Tell me more.

"Certainly! Here are some additional points to expand on the topic:

International cooperation: In cases where regulatory capture or corruption occurs at a national level, international cooperation and collaboration can play a significant role. Sharing best practices, experiences, and knowledge among countries can help strengthen regulatory frameworks and identify potential vulnerabilities. International organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), can provide guidance and support in establishing robust regulatory systems.

Whistleblower incentives: In addition to protection, offering incentives to whistleblowers can help encourage individuals with inside knowledge to come forward. These incentives can include financial rewards or legal protections, which can further motivate individuals to expose corruption and misconduct.

Strengthening legal frameworks: It is crucial to have comprehensive and effective legal frameworks that address corruption and conflicts of interest within regulatory bodies. This may involve enacting specific legislation that prohibits undue influence, establishes clear ethical standards, and imposes severe penalties for violations. Strengthening anti-corruption laws and ensuring their enforcement are essential steps in combating regulatory capture.

Public engagement and awareness: Educating the public about the importance of independent and transparent regulation is key. Promoting awareness campaigns, providing accessible information, and encouraging public participation in regulatory processes can help create a more vigilant and informed society. This can empower consumers to demand accountability and put pressure on regulatory bodies to act in the public's best interest.

Continuous monitoring and evaluation: Regular monitoring and evaluation of regulatory bodies and their decision-making processes are necessary to detect and prevent corruption. This can involve conducting internal and external audits, independent reviews, and performance evaluations to identify potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement.

Strengthening civil society organizations: Supporting civil society organizations that advocate for transparency, accountability, and good governance is crucial. These organizations play a vital role in monitoring regulatory activities, conducting research, and advocating for reforms. Providing them with resources, training, and legal support can enhance their effectiveness and impact.

Political will and commitment: Addressing regulatory capture requires strong political will and commitment from government leaders. It is essential for policymakers to prioritize the establishment and maintenance of independent and effective regulatory systems. This includes appointing competent and impartial individuals to regulatory positions and ensuring they have the necessary resources and authority to carry out their duties.

Combating regulatory capture and corruption is an ongoing challenge that requires a comprehensive and multi-stakeholder approach. By implementing robust legal frameworks, fostering transparency and accountability, and promoting public participation, it is possible to mitigate the risks associated with undue industry influence and protect the public interest."

Tell me some cases where the approach you suggested was successfully adopted to solve a global issue involving many victims.

ChatGPT:

"One notable case where the approach of transparency, accountability, and public participation has been successful in addressing a global issue involving many victims is the response to the tobacco industry's influence and the subsequent implementation of tobacco control measures. Here are some key points about this case:

Tobacco control as a global issue: Tobacco use is a significant public health concern worldwide, leading to millions of deaths each year. The tobacco industry has historically used various tactics to promote its products, suppress scientific evidence of the harmful effects of smoking, and influence regulatory bodies.

Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC): In response to the global tobacco epidemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed the FCTC, an international treaty aimed at reducing tobacco use and protecting people from exposure to tobacco smoke. The FCTC provides a framework for countries to implement evidence-based tobacco control measures.

Scientific evidence and transparency: One key aspect of the successful response to tobacco control has been the dissemination of scientific evidence on the health risks associated with tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke. Researchers and public health advocates have worked to uncover and publicize industry efforts to conceal the harmful effects of tobacco.

Civil society mobilization: Civil society organizations, such as non-governmental organizations and public health advocacy groups, have played a crucial role in raising awareness about the tactics of the tobacco industry, advocating for evidence-based policies, and holding governments accountable for implementing tobacco control measures.

Public participation and media campaigns: Public participation has been a driving force in tobacco control. Social movements, grassroots campaigns, and public opinion have pressured governments to take action. Effective media campaigns have helped educate the public about the dangers of smoking and the industry's tactics, leading to increased awareness and support for tobacco control measures.

Strong regulations and enforcement: Countries that have successfully implemented tobacco control measures have enacted comprehensive legislation that includes measures such as smoke-free laws, graphic warning labels on cigarette packages, bans on tobacco advertising and promotion, and increased taxes on tobacco products. Effective enforcement of these regulations has been crucial in reducing tobacco use and protecting public health.

International cooperation and sharing best practices: The international community has collaborated through the WHO and other organizations to share best practices and provide technical assistance to countries in implementing tobacco control measures. This collaboration has facilitated the adoption of evidence-based policies and supported countries in overcoming industry opposition.

The global response to tobacco control demonstrates that a comprehensive approach involving transparency, accountability, public participation, and strong regulations can effectively address a global issue with significant public health consequences. While challenges persist, progress has been made in reducing tobacco use and protecting individuals from the harms associated with smoking."

What happens if it turns out that the tobacco case was just a way to hide on a large scale the effects of radioactive contamination produced by the fallout from atomic experiments in the atmosphere?

"The scenario you've presented, suggesting that the tobacco case was used as a cover-up for the effects of radioactive contamination from atomic experiments, would involve a significant conspiracy and manipulation of information. While I cannot comment on specific hypothetical situations or conspiracies, I can provide some general insights:

Complexity of uncovering large-scale cover-ups: Uncovering and proving large-scale cover-ups can be challenging due to the complexity of the involved systems and the potential for powerful entities to suppress information. It often requires significant evidence, investigative journalism, whistleblowers, or official inquiries to bring such cover-ups to light.

Investigative journalism and whistleblowers: Investigative journalists and whistleblowers can play a crucial role in exposing hidden information and shedding light on potential cover-ups. Their work in uncovering evidence, conducting research, and bringing forth credible allegations can contribute to public awareness and scrutiny.

Independent scientific research: Independent scientific research is essential in assessing the effects of radioactive contamination or any other potential hazards. By conducting thorough studies and peer-reviewed research, scientists can contribute to understanding the risks associated with radioactive materials and their impact on human health.

Collaboration and international oversight: In cases involving potential cover-ups of environmental or public health hazards, international collaboration and oversight can be crucial. International organizations, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), are responsible for promoting nuclear safety and monitoring the peaceful use of nuclear energy. They can provide expertise, guidance, and oversight to ensure compliance with international standards and investigate allegations of cover-ups.

Legal actions and accountability: If evidence of a large-scale cover-up were to emerge, legal actions could be pursued to hold those responsible accountable. This could involve investigations, lawsuits, or international legal mechanisms to address the alleged wrongdoing and ensure justice for those affected.

It's important to note that specific cases require thorough investigation and evidence to determine the validity of any claims. Government agencies, regulatory bodies, and independent organizations play a critical role in verifying information and addressing concerns related to public health and safety."