Largest COVID Vaccine Study Ever: What You’re Not Being Told
Someone is lying to you. Big time.
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:
- They looked at the medical records of 99,068,901 vaccinated individuals.
- They compared observed vs. expected (“OE”) rates of “13 selected adverse events of special interest (AESI) across neurological, haematological, and cardiac outcomes.”
- 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).
- 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).
- 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?
- 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.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento