The truth about vaccines that the CDC doesn’t want you to know

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.

This article was updated for accuracy (removing the claim that: “The results will shock you because you will see for yourself that the vaccines may have killed almost as many people as the virus.”) on July 22nd 2021

On July 15, 2021, the US Surgeon General called COVID misinformation an “urgent threat.” The White House also is working with social media companies to ban medical disinformation.

But what both Dr. Vivek Murthy and Press Secretary Jen Psaki neglect to say is that the biggest misinformation is coming from the CDC, FDA, and NIH. Those organizations do not want you to know how many people have been killed or permanently disabled by the COVID vaccines. And they want you to believe that early treatments don’t work.

They don’t want you to know that their own data shows that for the alpha variant, vaccination only makes sense if you are over 30 years old and for the delta variant, because it is nearly 7 times less deadly, vaccination makes no sense at all: for all ages, it will kill more people than it will save. Finally, early treatments are the superior alternative: they are proven in practice to have a higher risk reduction and better safety profile than any of the current vaccines. The NIH and WHO are deliberately suppressing this information in order to push the “mass vaccination is the only option” false narrative (breaking with 70 years of established science).

Furthermore, the latest statistics show that vaccination could be making people more susceptible of dying from COVID, not less susceptible like everyone assumes. Is this due to ADE (antibody dependent enhancement)? There is a simple way to find out. We’ve asked the FDA why they aren’t doing autopsies to confirm or deny that this is happening, but they have not answered. This should be baffling to anyone in the medical community how we are not gathering this critical data.

Before publishing this article, we reached out several times by phone and email to Dr. Steven Anderson at the FDA who is in charge of monitoring the VAERS safety signals for the FDA. Neither Dr. Anderson nor his staff would respond to our offers to provide the FDA with the information our team had learned from extensive analysis of the VAERS data. This made it clear to us that the FDA would simply like to avoid having to address all the safety signals we found (we found a lot and they are very significant).

Let’s take a look at the OFFICIAL PRIMARY DATA SOURCE that is used by the CDC and FDA to monitor adverse events caused by the vaccines. It is known as VAERS: vaccine adverse event reporting system.

Do you see anything “unusual” in 2021? 

Normally, once over 50 people die, you’d stop the vaccine. For example, Back in 1976, 9 states halted the swine flu vaccine after just 3 deaths! Before it was halted nationwide, up to 32 people were estimated to have died and over 450 people were diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.

But today, the rules have been scrapped. Now there is no limit to how many people can be killed. Nobody in government will call for a halt. We are at 438 cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome, over 9,000 deaths reported, and 438,440 adverse event reports. This is a clinical trial without a stopping condition.

It is the responsibility of the FDA and CDC to monitor the VAERS data for safety signals. These organizations are inept. They haven’t found a single death that they have asked the drug companies to look into. That’s unbelievable. We found we could prove causality via Bradford-Hill criteria for a huge range of adverse events. These events were off the charts. We even asked if anyone could find a death coded with the vaccine where the vaccine didn’t play a role in the death. There were no responses. Yet, the CDC found nothing suspicious in 9,000 death reports?!?!? There are two papers, one by Jessica Rose, the other by Scott Mclachlan, both showing likelihood of causality for death. Therefore, the safest course for the public in the interim, is to assume that all of these events are caused by the experimental vaccines. This would then require the FDA to immediately shut down the trial for safety concerns.

Many people who write articles about VAERS (such as this article on VAERS by Dr. David Katz) claim that there is nothing to see that all the reports are simply “background” events that would have happened anyway, even if the injection were just a saline solution. Yet none of these people have ever actually looked INSIDE the database itself. If they did, they would find that they would be unable to explain the cause of the 9,000 excess deaths.

Can anyone find a single case in VAERS in 2021 where the person got the COVID19 vaccine, died within 30 days, and where the vaccine was not a significant (if not sole) contributor to the cause of death? Please let us know in the comments. We couldn’t find one and nobody we asked publicly on Twitter could find one either. We expect that 2% of the fatality records will be coincidental and not causal. Note that death by suicide right after vaccination is pretty common because people are so despondent on the damage done by the vaccines. This is something that is well known to vaccine victims. Ask yourself: if you were planning to kill yourself tomorrow, would you get vaccinated today?

The mainstream media is unlikely to ask the CDC for their analysis of the death data, because it would instantly reveal that the CDC, NIH, and FDA have been lying to the American people since the start of the vaccination program. The data in the published literature suggests that the vast majority of the reported deaths have no plausible explanation other than the vaccine.

People are now starting to speak out that the CDC recommendations are nonsensical.

  1. In his July 15 episode, Del Bigtree is as outraged about this as we are: The VAERS data is off the charts, the vaccines should have been stopped, and NOBODY is asking any questions about any of this. This is an excellent episode we highly encourage everyone to at least watch the first 10 minutes.
  2. Peter Doshi, associate editor of BMJ, and 26 other leading scientists have filed a citizen’s petition to stop approval of the vaccines.
  3. Doctors for Covid Ethics released this statement questioning the risk/benefit case for COVID vaccination.
  4. A Professor at John Hopkins wrote this article published in the Wall St. Journal entitled “The Flimsy Evidence Behind the CDC’s Push to Vaccinate Children.”
  5. Wired has pointed out that the CDC recommendations are nonsensical. They euphemistically call it “strange math.”

The 9,048 deaths reported and 438,000 adverse event reports in VAERS are likely to be under-counted by at least a factor of 4.5 and possibly by 15x or more, according to a report commissioned by the NIH

Based on multiple independent methods (direct people survey comparing # dead from COVID vs. # dead from vaccine, doctor surveys (COVID deaths, vaccine deaths, # of patients), news stories of 4 BA pilots dead out of 4,000 total pilots, and 5 JetBlue Pilots dead out of 3714 pilots), we can make an estimate that the death rate from these vaccines is over 1 in 1,500 which suggests that at least 100,000 previously healthy Americans have died.

That estimate based data from multiple sources suggests that VAERS could be under-reported by a factor of 10. So the 438,000 people who reported one or more adverse events would translate into over 4M people who have been impacted.

When we look in detail into the fatalities by age, we find that if you are under 30, VAERS shows that the vaccines will kill more people than will be saved (see the download for detailed calculation which was done with a 4.5 conservative multiplier).

But the other thing you have to consider is that the 300 to 500 deaths each year on that chart are almost all “background deaths” that are coincidental because people die every day… The actual deaths caused by previous vaccines are typically fewer than 10 per year reported to VAERS per vaccine. So when cases reported into VAERS spikes to over 10,000 death reports in the first 6 months, and the propensity to report hasn’t changed significantly from previous years, it’s very clear that something is very seriously wrong. 

Some people say this is just due to increased “awareness.” But that is easily shown to be false. If you look at the deaths reported from all other vaccines combined, they are comparable in 2021 to other years (166 deaths for all other vaccines in the first 6 months of 2021 which is the background rate). So if we excluded the COVID19 vaccines from the graph above, it would look perfectly normal! No one can explain how this can happen if the vaccines are “perfectly safe” (but if you think you know, please tell us in the comments below).

Even more spectacular is that the rates of influenza vaccinations are up in 2020-2021 to a record level. “The survey results indicate much of the increase in flu vaccine uptake is being driven by people 60 years old and older.” So it isn’t just younger people getting jabbed. Yet we see no safety signals on that vaccine. So why are we ONLY seeing safety signals for the COVID vaccines?

We have multiple ways other ways to prove there is no excess reporting (e.g., by looking at event counts that are unrelated to the vaccine, e.g., ear aches).

When we take a closer look at the VAERS data, we have multiple ways to prove the COVID vaccines are causing a large number of serious adverse events, including death (we use the Bradford-Hill criteria for determining causality).

To do a quick reality check, we did a public survey (in plain sight on Twitter) and asked people, “how many people do you know who have been killed by COVID?” and “How many people do you know who died shortly after vaccination?” Assuming the respondents answers were truthful, we were surprised: the numbers were comparable!  

We encourage a larger, scientific random sampling to determine if this is the case.We are concerned that the vaccines are causing more serious adverse events. Consider the tweet below. Assuming it’s an accurate depiction, how can that happen if the vaccines are fully safe? We recommend multiple investigations into existing reports of serious adverse events and deaths that haven’t received sufficient attention.

So when Anthony Fauci said on July 11 that it is “almost inexplicable” that some people resist getting vaccinated you have to wonder how Fauci can be so completely clueless about the safety data that is in plain sight. He should be asking the opposite question: why would anyone want to get the vaccine now when it is more likely to kill them than to save them?

The NIH, FDA, and CDC do not see anything wrong at all. They think this is a perfectly safe vaccine that has killed nobody. Which is very strange because when we looked at the VAERS data we can clearly see a large number of serious event rates that are, in almost every case, more than 10X above “normal.” There is a nice table in the download summarizing this. You can replicate all these queries yourself.

It got us thinking…. wouldn’t it be great if we had a Q&A document that was … honest?

So we decided it was about time that somebody wrote a comprehensive FAQ that didn’t pull any punches and answers all questions honestly.

Questions such as:

  1. How many previously healthy people have been killed or permanently disabled by these vaccines? Could it be more than 100,000? How do we know?
  2. Why aren’t they stopping these vaccines after 50 deaths reported in VAERS?
  3. How did the CDC prove that the vaccines didn’t cause all the neurological and cardiovascular events? It certainly appears that the majority of deaths satisfy the Bradford-Hill causality criteria.
  4. Since analysis of the VAERS fatality data by age and the CDC data clearly shows that for people under 30 the vaccine kills more people than it would save, why would the CDC want to vaccinate anyone under 30? (Answer: because the CDC has no cost-benefit analysis by age that takes into account the VAERS fatality data; there is a reason they don’t show it to you).
  5. If the vaccine isn’t causing any symptoms, then why is there a dramatic difference between the number of events associated with the first dose vs. the second dose? Note: This question is extremely problematic. Nobody at the FDA or CDC can answer that question. And the press will never ask it. They don’t want you to learn the truth.
  6. Will the CDC ever figure out that the vaccines are unsafe and should have been stopped after 50 people were killed? (Answer: that is really unlikely. The are not focused on safety at all. Any competent unbiased statistician who looks at the VAERS data is appalled and the more they look, the more appalled they get).
  7. How serious can these vaccines be long-term? (The answer to this should frighten everyone)
  8. Why is the CDC recommending that women who are pregnant get vaccinated when we don’t have the data on the effect of the vaccine on the baby? Couldn’t we be setting ourselves up for a huge tragedy for the family, the baby, and society? Why not at least wait 9 months to see if the vaccines are safe for pregnant women? Why did Moderna start a trial for pregnant women on July 14, 2021? The CDC has said it is safe. Why didn’t Moderna just ask the CDC? Answer: At least one of them has been lying to you. Can you tell which one(s)?
  9. How come everyone is ignoring the obvious reproductive safety signals in VAERS? Answer: They are ignoring all the other signals so why should reproductive health be any different.
  10. Why does the FDA’s Director of the Office Of Biostatistics And Epidemiology  (Steven Anderson) refuse to even look at the data showing all the adverse events caused by these vaccines? What is he afraid of?
  11. Will anyone in Congress ever ask for the FDA report showing that the vaccine couldn’t have caused any of the deaths reported in VAERS? Why is Congress so afraid to ask for this?
  12. Why is the vaccine causing so many neurological and cardiovascular problems (see our giant table in the document)?
  13. Is there a significant neurological and/or cardiovascular adverse event that is not triggered by the vaccines (Answer: we haven’t found one yet).
  14. How can I treat my post-vaccine inflammation syndrome (PVIS)?
  15. How can I fight vaccine mandates from my employer or school? What did they do wrong in the Houston Methodist case? Where can I join a class action?
  16. Can I get compensated for my vaccine injuries? 
  17. Is this vaccine really more deadly than all of the other 70 vaccines combined in the last 30 years? (answer: Yes)
  18. They claim there are no deaths from the vaccines. How are they categorizing all the dead bodies from the vaccine? (this answer to this one surprised us and it will really surprise you; it was buried in one sentence in a paper that few people have read)
  19. Why haven’t the FDA and CDC investigated the fraud in the Pfizer Phase 3 trial where a 12 year old (Maddie de Garay) became permanently paralyzed less than 24 hours after taking the vaccine? Pfizer reported as a minor event. The FDA knows about the case, promised to investigate, and did nothing. Why? And why isn’t the press asking about the fraud??
  20. Is early treatment a better option than vaccines? Why has the NIH not promoted any of these treatments despite clear and compelling evidence that they work with well over 98% risk reduction?
  21. Why aren’t there any autopsies for people who die after vaccination? Don’t people want to prove that it wasn’t the vaccine that killed these people?
  22. If the vaccine is so safe, then how come half the deaths happen within 3 days of vaccination? And why does the death rate peak on the second day since there would be a higher propensity to report a death within 24 hours? How do you explain that? (we explain why this is in the document)
  23. If the vaccine is so safe, how come there are so many deaths of people under 30 in their sleep less than 24 hours after vaccination? That never happens so how do you explain those deaths?
  24. Why were people who died 15 minutes after vaccination removed from the VAERS reporting system?
  25. How many people have to die before they call a halt to the nonsense?
  26. Why isn’t the press asking any of these questions?
  27. How can four British Airways pilots all die shortly after vaccination? How can BA claim that the deaths aren’t linked if they don’t know the vaccination dates of the four pilots? And why won’t they answer that question (as to how they KNOW the deaths are not linked)?
  28. Why is it up to 2,500 times safer to opt for early treatment rather than the vaccine if you want to avoid permanent neurological or cardiovascular damage? (it’s a simple calculation anyone can do)
  29. Why aren’t any Democratic committee chairmen asking NIH for Tony Fauci’s unredacted emails so they can expose the fact that he funded the creation of the virus and then tried to cover it up after he became aware that the virus escaped? And why isn’t the press asking them this question? (Note: we’ve asked the chairmen, but all of them refuse to give ANY answer).
  30. Why are the NIH and WHO pretending that early treatments don’t work when it is obvious to everyone, including the WHO’s top consultant on ivermectin, that they do work? He even published a paper in a top peer-reviewed journal about it. Where is the science that the WHO used to overrule their own consultant? (Answer: there is no science. Politics drives the recommendations, not science.)
  31. How can Moderna send the University of North Carolina a coronavirus vaccine to test two weeks before anyone knew COVID even existed? How did Moderna know in advance the exact best vaccine to create? (if you want to see a copy of the MTA, download the doc and then download the reference doc listed at the end of that doc)
  32. Will a safe vaccine be available soon? From what company? When? (Answer: Yes. Read the download to find out more.)
  33. Why are top universities like Stanford and Harvard requiring vaccination for students when they’ve never done the calculation that would show the policy would kill (and disable) more students than it would save? Shouldn’t they at least have the numbers derived from the VAERS system to show the parents? (sure, but they don’t!) Why aren’t any parents asking for this? (answer: Parents trust the CDC assertions). How can we be telling our kids to get a vaccine that is more likely to kill them than to save them if we’ve never looked at the numbers? (answer: Most parents don’t think to question authority. They go along with narrative.)
  34. How come there is still no informed consent for the vaccine experiment underway? Isn’t the CDC supposed to share the rates of death and disability? (Answer: If there was informed consent, nobody would take the vaccine).
  35. Aren’t these experiments a violation of multiple parts of the Nuremberg Code? (Answer: yes)
  36. Where is the proof that nobody has been killed or permanently injured from the vaccines? Where is the CDC analysis showing none of the deaths were related to the vaccine? (Answer: no proof. CDC is inept.)
  37. Can we at least see Pfizer’s analysis of Maddie de Garay’s case where she was permanently paralyzed less than 24 hours after the shot? Why is the press not asking for this analysis? Or asking why nobody at the CDC, FDA, or NIH followed up on this case even though they know about it for sure. She was in the Pfizer 12-15 year old clinical trial. Surely, there must be an analysis proving her sudden paralysis was caused by “something else” but as of July 15, 2021 nobody has contacted the family to get the case history. Why is this girl being ignored? (Answer: investigating the case would invite press attention. Then the narrative would stop. So there is no investigation and there never will be. The mainstream press has agreed to cover it up.)
  38. Why is the US government giving Merck over a billion dollars for an unproved antiviral, when we already have a very safe old drug that is extremely effective against all COVID variants and is available now? Why not give Merck the money to do a large randomized control trial of ivermectin? Antivirals typically can’t be given early enough to halt the virus because the patients don’t realize they have the virus until they are in the inflammatory stage of the disease. This seems like a government boondoggle. What are we missing here? (Answer: it is a government boondoggle).
  39. How can the White House say ivermectin is disinformation? Ivermectin has a peer-reviewed systematic review. That is the highest level of evidence possible in evidence-based medicine. Yet, paradoxically, masks are mandated even though the only randomized trial on mask wearing showed it made no statistically significant difference. We require infinite clinical trials for ivermectin (not even a systematic review is accepted), yet for mask wearing, no scientific proof at all is required and nobody is asking for it. Huh??!?! (Answer: if people knew ivermectin worked, nobody would take the vaccine. Mask wearing will never have a real clinical trial or people would learn it is actually dangerous. That’s why NIH has never paid for a mask study. The 80 references the WHO cites in support are all irrelevant and just for show (nobody is expected to read the references)).
  40. Why aren’t we leveling with the American people that the scientific evidence supporting mask wearing for COVID is non-existent? All the inconvenience we went through was pure political theater. Haven’t you ever wondered why the NIH never funded a legitimate mask study? The answer is simple: they know it doesn’t work so doing a study would expose the existing recommendations as foolish, unnecessary, and unhealthy and it would also discredit every public health official in the US as going along with the narrative without questioning it at all. NO ONE WILL DEBATE Tyson Gabriel of Premier Risk Management, Arizona. They will instead try to censor him like they do to anyone else who tries to argue using facts and evidence. This is why his video exposing the facts on mask wearing isn’t on YouTube.
  41. The Washington Post claimed Ron Johnson was lying when he said that natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity and that the vaccines have killed thousands of people. We challenged Rizzo to defend his article, but he refused. Glenn Kessler said they don’t debate, but would consider any counter arguments. We started by disputing the first sentence (“No study or case has established this”) on July 20 showing two studies that claimed vaccines caused deaths. We’ll see how far we get. What generally happens is you submit your arguments and then they ignore you. One of our team members wrote: “I’ve met extensively with Washington post editor xxx and the entire Wapo editorial board.  It’s like talking to a wall. They concede nothing, make no arguments, sit in silence and promise to “look into it”. Same with New York Times where I went with an entourage  of top scientists and physicians. They have no arguments but the ultimate power to ignore. “The greatest power of the mass media is the power to ignore. The worst thing about this power is that you may not even know you’re using it.”” This is why they NEVER NEVER will do a live debate.
  42. The White House released their list of the misinformation dozen which included Bobby Kennedy and asked social media to censor their accounts. Is this what we’ve come to as a nation to use censorship to silence people with opposing viewpoints? The facts are that for the last 20 years, Bobby Kennedy has pleaded to debate anyone with scientific credentials about vaccine safety. The only person to accept the debate was Alan Dershowitz, and Dershowitz lost. Why in 20 years has nobody from the scientific community dared to debate Kennedy? (see the image below for the reason why censorship is the only pathway). We reached out to Imran Ahmed who created the “list” and asked him if he would debate RFJ, Jr on the accusations they made in their own document. He ignored multiple requests. He ignored our DM to him as well. They all do. Censorship is the only option when you don’t have the facts to support your accusations.
  43. We asked Monica Gandhi, a prominent infectious disease expert at UCSF, “Are scientific dissenters best dealt with through assassination threats and government encouraged censorship? Or do you support open scientific debate?” She did not respond. We found out why through a backchannel. Even taking a nuanced approach in trying to move the world to a better place has gotten her in a lot of trouble. So she is not permitted by her institution to promote anything but the false narrative.
  44. We challenged UCSF to a debate, but they declined saying it would be “unproductive.” What they mean is that all their NSF funding would disappear if they spoke out. If all institutions joined them, they can do it, but that’s too risky. So they all remain silent and pretend nothing is happening by arguing that the VAERS data is simply all background deaths. Since they never have to debate it, they avoid academic challenge. Nobody ever finds out.
  45. Over 40 faculty members of the University of Guelph wrote a letter criticizing Dr. Byram Bridle for his views on vaccine safety. None of them would agree to debate Dr. Bridle in a fair open debate. Not a single one.
  46. Why won’t anyone from any of the federal agencies (CDC, FDA, NIH), the fact checkers employed by mainstream media, the White House, the Surgeon General, Congress, or academia will answer (or ask) any of these questions posed above? Why are they all afraid to debate Dr. Robert Malone, Professor Byram Bridle, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Bret Weinstein, Dr. Chris Martenson, Dr. Jessica Rose, Mathew Crawford, Dr. David Martin, and others on vaccine safety? Answer: they are afraid of losing badly, very badly.
Nobody will debate us on vaccine safety. We keep asking for a debate, but all we hear are crickets. The White House is encouraging censorship as the proper way to deal with dissenting viewpoints, not open scientific debate.

If you want to know the answer to these and more questions, you’ve come to the right place. 

Here’s the link to the answers you seek. It is a long document, you will find that the time you invest in reading it is time that is well spent. It may save your life or the lives of your kids. Because it is a living document and it is an opinion piece, it can’t be peer reviewed. However, readers are welcome to identify any errors in the comments below.

Twitter: @VaccineTruth2
Email: [email protected]

Responses

    1. we can’t rely on that CDC data. Basically, when you die from the vaccine, you are counted as a COVID death. This makes the virus look dangerous, and the vaccine look safe. It perfectly hides the deaths so nobody is the wiser. It’s published in one of the papers referenced in the long doc you download.

      1. You missed the point of the video: These “unclassified” deaths surge only after the vaccines were introduced. The fact that this is on the CDC website makes it all the more compelling to people who do not follow alternative media. It leaves them wondering why the CDC is doing this.

      2. if we can’t rely on the CDC data, and I don’t believe we can for the same reason we can’t rely on the CCP data, then why do you seem to acknowledge the so called deaths from the virus?

  1. PLEASE include documentation of some of these things, especially THIS — THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS PUBLICATION DEPENDS ON SUCH DOCUMENTATION: “How can Moderna send the University of North Carolina a coronavirus vaccine to test two weeks before anyone knew COVID even existed?”

    1. NOTE that I am by no means inclined to believe everything out of either PoltiFact or 3-letter agencies. However, they do include their sources, which this piece does not and hence diminishes this website. “Researchers at the National Institutes of Health and Moderna have been studying ways to develop vaccines against coronaviruses for several years, well before the identification of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
      The documents referenced in the articles are from a December 2019 agreement about mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus, known as MERS-CoV. It was signed weeks before the first COVID-19 case was identified in Wuhan, China.” Our Sources
      HalTurnerRadioShow.com, DOCUMENTS: U.S. Gov’t Sent “mRNA Coronavirus Vaccine Candidates” to University Researchers WEEKS BEFORE “COVID” Outbreak in China! How did they know . . . Unless they caused it?, June 14, 2021

      GreatGameIndia.com, Secret Docs Reveal Moderna Sent Coronavirus Vaccine To North Carolina University Weeks Before Pandemic, June 20, 2021

      NIH-Moderna Confidential Agreements, December 2019

      Axios, The NIH claims joint ownership of Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine, June 25, 2020

      Public Citizen, The NIH Vaccine, June 25, 2020

      World Health Organization, Archived: WHO Timeline – COVID-19, April 27, 2020

      Email interview with the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, June 23, 2021

    2. all the documentation is there already. You have to read the reference doc. The doc you read is the summary doc. The reference doc is the first one listed at the end.

  2. I feel we are better just using our very efficient immune systems to stem most diseases like colds, which is mostly what COVID is.
    I was also able to get some Ivermectin to have on hand for low-dose regimen.

  3. I searched WHO database Vigiaccess.org for suspected adverse reactions they are informed of.
    It doesn’t allow to know the numbers of severe event or deaths, so I just compared adverse events numbers, for Covid-19 vaccines (vigiaccess makes no difference between them) and for the 15 most used vaccines in the world (5billion doses in 2019, for instance.)
    The graph of ADRs year by year looks like VAERS’s: a huge spike in 2021, linked to Covid vaccines.
    Another graph is built, showing the total number of suspected ADRs for these 15 usual vaccines + covid vaccine since 1968, according to people’s age. In all age ranges where the covid-vaccines have been allowed for a while (people over 18), Covid vaccine adverse events are already the majority of all adverse events since 1968. For 12-17 yo people, covid-vaccines are hardly allowed in a few countries, and ADRs are already 14% of all ADRs reportes since 1968.
    Graphs are in this blog entry (in French): https://blogs.mediapart.fr/enzo-lolo/blog/120721/covid-19-les-vaccins-vu-travers-la-pharmacovigilance-de-loms

    1. all the graphs for all countries look the same. huge spike in 2021. it’s the vaccines, it’s not like people all changed their reporting behavior in lock step unison. the paper shows this clearly.

  4. It is stunning that nobody has found any errors in the calculations that were presented in the downloaded paper (or the paper with the detailed calculations, e.g., VAERS events by age). If you do find any errors, post them here for everyone to see along with the correct calculation. So far, nobody has been able to do that.

  5. For those who have a problem with this post, how do you account for the spike in VAERS? Shrieking Gorski said the adverse events don’t exceed those of the background population. Vinay Prasad said VAERS isn’t set up to detect events in excess of the background. Who’s right? We’ve heard this before: “The vaccines are safe and effective.” It turns out that’s all relative to your demographic and health, which is why there’s a debate about vaccinating children due to risks of myocarditis discovered from VAERS.

    1. The fact is that VAERS is *THE* primary data source relied on by the FDA and CDC for detecting adverse events. The CMS database is used as well, but that is primarily only for events in older people. We have yet to find anyone with any credibility who takes a serious look at the VAERS database and says “there is nothing wrong this year. it is completely normal.” What they do is ignore the adverse event reports and ignore all the Black Swan (and double Black Swan) events that do not comport with their “safe” hypothesis.

      1. In his latest post, Shrieking Gorski mentions two other databases that are better: VSD and CISA. I have never heard of them. Have doctors? My doctor reported vaccine adverse events to VAERS, so I suspect he doesn’t know about the other two. What good are they if the medical community doesn’t know about them?

        Dr. Howard’s article was written much more clearly and without the emotivism. If Dr. Howard is reading this, I wonder how representative the Phase II trial population was of the general population. It’s true that rare events require a much larger trial to detect, but the safety data of a smaller trial can be skewed by a healthier-than-normal trial population. The original Phase II Pfizer trial data seemed to indicate that many patients got only one dose (this was true in Israel as well) and the odds of having an adverse reaction lasting up to a week were 5-10% I don’t know why anyone would expect this to improve in the general population. Pfizer promised a 6-month follow-up study. Where is it? What data were taken for the Phase IV trial?

  6. Lots of very scary and not necessarily attached items. Writer says all claims are supported in “paper”. They aren’t but more “detail is coming”? While I believe there is, like most wild claims, a kernel of truth and while the writer is quite correct in a subset truth he puts forward- early treatment with ivermectin is better, I do not accept the balance on it’s face and consider it inflammatory.

    1. all the numerical claims in the document are supported from the same data sources used by the FDA and CDC. Did you have a an example of where this wasn’t the case? Do you have a specific claim you can show is false?

  7. Thank you for being so brave to share this info.
    People who are vaccine proponents are pointing to the reductions in hospitalisations and deaths in countries like Israel and the UK. Clearly the vaccines are reducing hospital burden.
    This is confusing me. You say the absolute risk reduction is only 1%. So basically the benefits of the vaccine isn’t that profound.

    How do we reconcile these two?

    Is it because the UK and Israel haven’t had a third wave yet?

      1. Peer reviewed please… who else can back this up on a scholarly level? One cannot simply upload a link and say “search for this”. You should know your own content. Not seeing any smoking gun evidence here. If I upload a link and say Bigfoot exists and then tell everyone to look at my document I uploaded for clues, that is not convincing at all. Context helps when presenting facts and backing them up with peer reviewed findings that support your claims. Hope this helps. Thanks

    1. This is not a “gene-based vaccine.” The vaccines used in the USA are based on a messenger RNA that codes for a modified version of the spike protein, stabilized by the substitution of proline at four positions in place of the “original” amino acid. This sequence changes produces a spike protein that tends to stay in the configuration pre-binding configuration, so that it will generate mostly antibodies that block attachment to the ACE2 receptor, rather than non-blocking antibodies.
      Fauci is not at fault for supporting this vaccine.
      He is at fault for not informing the public about the importance if having normal vitamin D3 levels when the virus is first encountered, and suggesting a dosage of at least 2000 IU per day, or 5000 IU for high risk individuals. There is now a huge body of data that supports the fact that severe Covid develops almost exclusively in those who have poor vitamin D nutrition.
      He is at fault for not supporting the use of fluvoxamine or ivermectin at the first symptom of infection. There is a huge body of data that support IVM and two very strong studies that support fluvoxamine. It is a general principle of infectious disease that the earlier an antibiotic or antiviral is started the more effective it is.
      These two measures (pre-exposure D and early use of antiviral) would have saved at least as many lives as the mRNA vaccines and ended the pandemic much quicker.

      1. the reason is dimple why they had to shoot down all existing treatments that were found to be effective early in the scam, and the reason is that if there is known effective treatment, then an eua can not be implemented, and the pharma/faux-ci coffers would not be riding the current unprecedented gravy train

        1. Nope. Fauci could simply have asked Congress to change the law. They all trust him. After all, he created the coronavirus so nobody knows more about it than he does.

          1. Again where is the evidence that supports this? And importantly is it peer reviewed and by who? I understand you don’t like Fauci but where are your facts to support this claim? I await your reply. Thanks

          2. @Bears1981: The Constitution supports the ability for Congress to make laws. The facts to support the claim are in Chris Martenson’s excellent video series on Fauci. These take you step by step through the emails. And Fauci admitted in Senate testimony (Rand Paul questioned him) that he funded the work. ANY Democratic committee chairman can request the UNREDACTED emails from Fauci that would show the world the cover up. But NONE OF THEM will do it. My question to you: Have you asked them why they haven’t??? If you do that, they will not answer. You can bank on that. So you should be asking, if they have NOTHING to hide, why not get the full emails? They were illegally redacted as Martenson’s videos show. Start at EPISODE 7, but all of his videos are awesome.

      2. Not a “gene-based vaccine? I wonder about this…I read a chapter from an upcoming book by Dr. Sukarit Bhakdi, MD and Dr. Karina Reiss (see link below, page 5) that says the exact opposite: “Especially for completely novel, gene-based vaccines such as the mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, a careful study of the possible risks would be particularly important, because according to the current state
        of scientific knowledge, a variety of severe side effects are conceivable.”

        Are they wrong? If so, how is a layperson like myself able to sift through b.s. and discover the truth?

        Thanks

        1. A lay person can’t shift through everything. Robert Malone is the inventor of the mRNA vaccine and he refers to these as “gene-based vaccines” meaning that the antigen is made INSIDE your body.

          Many lay people can get through the downloaded document. It isn’t rocket science.

          1. The problem with your “documentation” is it is opinion based and lacks scientific merit. Has this been peer reviewed? If so by who? If you claim the flu kills more people than covid, you clearly aren’t very educated in this topic and challenge you to provide your credentials that make you an expert in this area. You might be convincing a lot of uneducated people out there who are unable to separate facts from opinions, but wanted to point out your “research” really needs more work. Thanks

          2. Yes, it has been “peer reviewed” in that we’ve had many scientific peers review it and provide corrections. One is a top scientist at MIT who went through everything in detail.

            The other peer review is the comments. If there were anything amiss, with over 100,000 “reviewers” all of whom can comment, they’d have highlighted any mistakes. Do you see any mistakes highlighted in the comments?

            We are not interested in spreading misinformation. If there is misinformation, it discredits the entire purpose of the article. None of the observations were crafted to fit a narrative.

            Everyone will have a different point of view on what is stated.

            For example, some people will say “you can’t make ANY conclusions from VAERS.” So are they right? You’ll have to decide that for yourself. The CDC **REFERS** people to report adverse events into VAERS. So if it is useless, then those “reviewers” are basically telling you the CDC doesn’t know what they are doing.

      3. Dr. Robert Malone, vaccine specialist and advocate, original inventor mRNA vaccine (and DNA vaccine) core platform technology. Extensive training in bioethics from the University of Maryland, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, and Harvard Medical School ..
        Dr Malone stated: ‘In the Security and Exchange Commission filings for both Pfizer and Moderna, there’s explicit statements that acknowledge that these are gene therapy-based (vaccines) and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) perceives them as such.’
        Scandal of the rushed rollout: Censored vaccine expert speaks out.
        https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/scandal-of-the-rushed-rollout-censored-vaccine-expert-speaks-out/

        mRNA vaccine tech simplified (1 of 2). DNA is your hard drive, the way the DNA is “written” are software programs. Protein translation machines (robosomes) are industrial robots that can do many things. mRNA is the messages sent from the programs to control the robots.

        mRNA vax tech made simple (2 of 2). mRNA vaccines are like a hacker inserting code into the bitstream to make the industrial robots start making vaccine instead of the usual stuff they would be making.
        the actual spelling is “ribosomes”, not “robosomes”.

        Dr. Robert Malone-Tweeter