COVENTRY MESSAGE BOARD

Researcher Calls Out Censorship After Journal Pulls COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Events Analysis

Jessica Rose didn’t ask for any of this. She started to analyze data on adverse reactions after COVID-19 vaccines simply as an exercise to master a new piece of software. But she couldn’t ignore what she saw and decided to publish the results of her analysis. The next thing she knew, she was in a “bizzarro world,” she told The Epoch Times.

A paper she co-authored based on her analysis was withdrawn by the academic journal Elsevier under circumstances that raised eyebrows among her colleagues. The journal declined to comment on the matter.

Rose received her PhD in computational biology from the Bar-Ilan University in Israel. After finishing her post-doctoral studies on molecular dynamics of certain proteins, she was looking for a new challenge. Switching to a new statistical computing software, she was looking for an interesting data set to sharpen her skills on. She picked the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a database of reports of health problems that have occurred after a vaccination and may or may not have been caused by it.

She said she wasn’t looking for anything in particular in the data.

“I don’t go in with questions,” she said.

What she found, however, was disturbing to her.

VAERS has been in place since 1990 to provide an early warning signal that there might be a problem with a vaccine. Anybody can submit the reports, which are then checked for duplicates. They are largely filed by health care personnel, based on previous research. Usually, there would be around 40,000 reports a year, including several hundred deaths.

But with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines, VAERS reports went through the roof. By Jan. 7, there were over a million reports, including more than 21,000 deaths. Other notable issues include over 11,000 heart attacks, nearly 13,000 cases of Bell’s palsy, and over 25,000 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis.

Rose found the data alarming, only to realize authorities and even some experts were generally dismissing it.

“Clearly, there’s no concern [among these authorities and experts] for people who are suffering adverse events,” she said.

The usual arguments against the VAERS data have been that it’s unverified and unreliable.

Rose, however, sees such arguments as irrelevant—VAERS was never meant to provide definitive answers, it’s meant to give early warning and, as she sees it, it’s doing just that.

“It’s emitting so many safety signals and they’re being ignored,” she said.

She teamed up with Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist, to write a paper on VAERS reports of myocarditis in youth—an issue already acknowledged as a side effect of the vaccination, though usually described as rare.

As of July 9, they found 559 VAERS reports of myocarditis, 97 among children ages 12–15. Some of them may have been related to COVID itself, which can also cause heart problems, but there were too many cases to dismiss the likelihood the vaccines were involved, according to the authors.

“Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12–15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group,” the paper said.

After two weeks, on Oct. 15, the paper disappeared from the Elsevier website, replaced by a notice of “Temporary Removal.” Not only weren’t the authors told why, they weren’t informed at all, according to Rose.

“It’s unprecedented in the eyes of all of my colleagues,” she said.

When they brought up the issue with the journal, they were first told the paper was pulled because it wasn’t “invited,” Rose said. That was shot down as irrelevant by McCullough, who threatened to sue for breach of contract. The journal then turned to its terms of use, saying it has the right to refuse any paper for any reason.

It’s still not clear why the paper was pulled.

“I do apologise, but Elsevier cannot comment on this enquiry,” said Jonathan Davis, the journal’s communications officer, in an email to The Epoch Times.

In late November, the paper was replaced by a notice that the “article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor.”

“It just feels like weird censorship that isn’t really justified,” Rose said.

The paper’s conclusions are not necessarily controversial. A recent Danish study concluded, for example, an elevated risk of myocarditis for young people following the Moderna COVID vaccine.

It’s common, however, even for papers that examine potential issues with the vaccines to frame their results in a way that still endorses vaccination.

“That’s what you have to say to get your work published these days,” Rose said.

Her paper did no such thing.

“As part of any risk/benefit analysis which must be completed in the context of experimental products, the points herein must be considered before a decision can be made pertaining to agreeing to 2-dose injections of these experimental COVID-19 products, especially into children and by no means, should parental consent be waived under any circumstances to avoid children volunteering for injections with products that do not have proven safety or efficacy,” the paper said.

The paper also called the vaccines “injectable biological products”—a reference to the fact that they are distinct from all other traditional vaccines.

A traditional vaccine uses “whole live or attenuated pathogens” while the COVID vaccines use “mRNA in lipid nanoparticles,” Rose explained via email. She said the lipid nanoparticles include “cationic lipids which are highly toxic.” Pfizer, the manufacturer of the most popular COVID-19 vaccine in many countries, addressed the issue by saying the dose is sufficiently low to ensure “an acceptable safety margin,” according to the European drug authority, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (pdf).

Rose also noted that the COVID-19 vaccines haven’t gone “through the 10-15 years of safety testing that vaccines have always had to go through … for obvious reasons.”

By this point, Rose is no longer a dispassionate observer. Reading through countless VAERS reports gave her a window into the hardships of those who believe they’ve been harmed by the vaccines.

“I speak for all of those people,” she said.

In the past, 50 reports of deaths in VAERS would prompt authorities to hit the brakes and investigate, Rose said. In her view, that should have happened with the COVID-19 vaccines a year ago.

Not only has that not happened, but it isn’t even clear what would be enough to convince the authorities to do so.

“What’s the cut-off number for the number of deaths?” Rose asked.

The counterargument is that the vaccines save more lives than they cost. But in Rose’s view, this logic is flawed since the vaccines haven’t been around long enough and studied thoroughly enough to tell how many lives they may cost.

It is known, however, that VAERS understates adverse events following vaccination—by a factor of anywhere between 5 and as much as 100, based on some estimates.

Submitting a VAERS report takes about 30 minutes and many medical practitioners simply don’t have the time, Rose said. Some may feel that filing the report may get them labeled as “anti-vaxxers.” Some may simply not associate whatever health issue they’re facing with the vaccination. Some may not even be aware VAERS exists.

It’s unlikely that any significant number of the reports would be fraudulent, she suggested, noting it’s a federal offense to submit a false report.

Rose has now joined the ranks of dissident doctors and researchers skeptical of the official line on the vaccines and the pandemic in general. She described it as something she’s compelled to do despite the disincentives involved.

“We don’t want to be doing this. But it is our duty. Doctors swore an oath to do no harm. And researchers with integrity cannot look away from this,” she said via email.

NHS workers’ purple ribbon revolt over mandatory vaccination grows



The Twitter account NHS100K has posted pictures of NHS workers participating in a ‘purple ribbon revolt’ against mandatory vaccination for health staff, to be implemented from April.

NHS workers have taken to wearing purple ribbons as a sign that they are against Sajid Javid’s decision to make vaccination against COVID mandatory for all health staff.

A Twitter account with thousands of followers called NHS100K has shared photos of different members of the NHS all wearing purple ribbons as a symbol of their opposition to the mandate, stating that “so many wonderful healthcare staff are showing solidarity and uniting together in support of stopping these mandates”.

The post included a photo of the nurse Hannah Gardner, who said: “Good enough through the pandemic on the front line for two years, but soon to be sacked for not wanting the Covid jabs just yet. My body, my choice. Wearing my purple ribbon with pride”.



One of the founders of the account, Jay Weston, an emergency medical technician, said that the colour purple had been chosen to “encourage discussion between staff who feel isolated for choosing not to receive a vaccine”.

The new measure means that from April, NHS workers who do not have an exemption will have to be double-jabbed if they wish to work. The mandate also applies to private hospitals and any other health or community organisation.

Ending mandate too little, too late, says care worker sacked for vaccine refusal



A care worker who lost her job after refusing to be vaccinated against Covid-19 has said scrapping the vaccine mandate would be “too little, too late” for the care sector.

On Monday, the Government said it was “looking again” at scrapping the measure that will require all NHS and care staff to be vaccinated.

Katrina Aslet-Clark, from Greater Manchester had worked in the care sector for 25 years until she was sacked in November.

The 49-year-old, who worked as a deputy manager at a private care village in the North West described the mandate as “utterly senseless and crazy”.

She told the PA news agency: “All the way through, I thought they’re not going to do this – it was one of the most upsetting and stressful things that I’ve had to go through.

“I do believe in vaccines, but I don’t trust this one and I don’t believe that my choice should have been taken away. So I stood my ground and in the end, I got sacked.”

Ms Aslet-Clark said she is “very pro-vaccine normally” and believes that jabs to protect against infections such as hepatitis B are “sensible”.

However, since refusing to have the Covid-19 vaccine she said she has lost her job, her home and has been “practically disowned” by her family.

“The more I looked into it, the more I realised I don’t want this vaccine and I felt so strongly about it I was willing to lose my job,” she said.

“My family don’t understand my stance and I’ve lost friends over this, it has been absolutely horrendous.

“I believe if people want to have the jab then that’s entirely up to them – but nobody should be forced to have this.”

Despite “loving” her job, Ms Aslet-Clark said the pandemic made it difficult and that enforcing restrictions felt “akin to managing a prison” and left her considering leaving the sector.

She said: “We have to keep our residents safe but ultimately, a resident’s wellbeing is an important part of their care and denying them their loved ones was frankly inhumane.

“To see the effects of that first-hand was awful.”