All these big wigs telling us how great the new vaccine is...

[rebbonk]

The tip of a very nasty iceberg; it's going to cost lots more people are found to have been damaged by these 'safe and effective' vaccines...

UK to pay out over £11.5m in Covid-19 vaccine damages

NHS body made 72 payments and approved further 24 claims for disablement from jabs

The UK government is set to pay out over £11.5 million in Covid-19 vaccine damages to nearly 100 claimants, according to official data released by the NHS Business Services Authority.

A freedom of information request from Research Professional News revealed that, as of May, 72 people have received a payment from the government for being severely disabled by a Covid-19 vaccine, or on behalf of someone who died from the vaccine.

In total, 96 people have been told that they are entitled to receive money via the UK’s Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, run by the NHS authority, which means 24 are still waiting on the cash.

The authority said that the scheme provides a “one-off, tax-free payment of £120,000 to successful applicants where, on very rare occasions, a vaccine has caused severe disablement”.

This means the authority has paid out just over £8.6 million, with a further £2.9m approved to pay.

Released on 13 June, the NHS authority data also reveal that 1,614 claims were rejected out of the 5,708 received, while 109 did not meet the service’s criteria for medical assessment. The data is not broken down by type of vaccine.

To claim for a payment under the scheme, people must prove on the balance of probabilities that the jab caused their illness and must be assessed as being at least 60 per cent disabled as a result of the vaccine.

The data also reveal that 3,889 claims have not yet reached an outcome. The NHS authority said that in some cases this was because it had not received medical records for the person making the claim from the healthcare providers listed on their form. They added that they could only start medical assessments once they had a person’s full medical records.

Of all the claims received, the data reveal 430 are related to someone who has died as a result of the Covid jab.

An earlier data release by the NHS authority, in April, said that the medical conditions of the claimants awarded a vaccine-damage payment until then were, in this order:

Vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis/cerebral venous sinus thrombosis
Guillain-Barré syndrome
Other

According to data from the Office for National Statistics, 53 people in England and Wales have died from adverse effect to the Covid-19 vaccine, where it was noted as an underlying cause, and a further 8 deaths involved the Covid jab, meaning it was mentioned on the death certificate.

There have been fears from some members of the public about vaccine safety, but available evidence from clinical trials and subsequent evaluations consistently shows that, overall, Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective in reducing Covid-19 deaths—despite extremely rare severe side effects in some individuals.

Source: https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-politics-2023-6-uk-to-pay-out-over-11-5m-in-covid-19-vaccine-damages/

[rebbonk]

Oh dear, people are beginning to open their eyes. Maybe (just maybe) a few of our politicians might just end up facing the courts? - I'll not hold my breath, but I can dream! The idea of a few of them being 'banged up with 'Big Jesus' and a few of his mates' is rather appealing.

A conspiracy of silence surrounds lockdown’s most disastrous flaw
Discussing the effects of lockdowns on children confirms that we are finally entering a phase of Covid ‘narrative collapse’

It is now widely acknowledged that lockdowns caused immeasurable harm, particularly to children, and new research highlights that the interests of the young were forgotten by policymakers during the pandemic. Yet those who are now prepared to wring their hands about this situation are also adamant that lockdowns were unavoidable. Indeed, there is a general reluctance to criticise the very basis on which the measures that damaged children were adopted.

It is understandable that, during lockdown, some professionals were cautious so as not to antagonise those who had the power to put an end to these practices. But it is time to put such concerns aside and establish a rational framework that prevents such a disaster from recurring.

It was clear from the outset that the risk of dying from Sars-CoV-2 infection was negligible in healthy children. It follows that they did not need protection from infection. Closing schools, forcing them to wear masks and endure the hardships of social distancing, and vaccinating them, could only be justified in terms of stopping community spread. None of these measures had a reasonable impact on the dynamics of infection.

So, is the lesson that, next time, we must lock down but keep schools open? Many of us would bargain for that, especially if we put higher education institutions into the mix, as young adults were also robbed of critical experiences at a delicate time in their lives. But by the time we implemented all these compassionate exclusions to lockdown, including the maintenance of all essential services, what we are looking at is the focused protection of the vulnerable rather than a policy that is effective against the spread of infection.

This is because there is no halfway house when it comes to halting the spread of a new pathogen. The curve between a full-scale lockdown and let-it-rip is anything but a steady slope.

It could be argued that the reason closing schools made hardly any difference was because lockdowns are, ultimately, an extremely ineffective way of stopping spread. Certainly, border closures can be used in very specific circumstances to prevent a pathogen from exiting or entering a community. But there were no credible empirical or theoretical reasons to believe that we could use social distancing measures to snuff it out once it was here. There were plenty of reasons to believe that trying to do so would cause a lot of harm.

The discussion around the effects of Covid policies on children confirms that we are entering a phase of “narrative collapse” in the perception of how the crisis was handled. But it still needs to be accepted that keeping a lid on the spread of Covid without closing schools is a fantasy; there is therefore no way to reconcile the philosophy of lockdown with avoidance of harm to children. The only coherent strategy is one of focused protection, in which vulnerable people are protected without imposing egregious costs on those not at risk.

It is my opinion that, rather than locking down earlier and harder, we should have put in place such a policy as soon as we were aware that the risks were so strongly stratified by age and linked to specific comorbidities. If the Covid Inquiry truly cares about the plight of the younger generation, it should be prepared to consider the option of immediately instituting focused protection, instead of being wedded to the notion that a rapid lockdown was the correct course.

Source:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/26/conspiracy-of-silence-lockdowns-most-disastrous-flaw/

[rebbonk]

If there is any truth to this, there are multiple grounds for criminal prosecutions.

Confidential Pfizer Document Shows the Company Observed 1.6 Million Adverse Events Covering Nearly Every Organ System

Over 10,000 categories of nearly 1.6 million adverse events – many of them serious and debilitating – brought to you by Pfizer!

You might not have heard it in the news, but in recent months, Pfizer’s pharmacovigilance documents requested by the European Union’s drug regulator, the European Medicines Agency, have been released. They show that Pfizer knew about a sickening level of injury early on. An August 2022 document shows that the company already had observed the following scope of vaccine injury:

508,351 individual case reports of adverse events containing 1,597,673 events;

One-third of the AEs were classified as serious, well above the standard for safety signals usually pegged at 15%;
Women reported AEs at three times the rate of men;

60% of cases were reported with either “outcome unknown” or “not recovered,” so many of the injuries were not transient;

Highest number of cases occurred in the 31-50 year age group, and 92% did not have any comorbidities, which makes it very likely it was the vaccine causing such widespread, sudden injury.

These numbers alone suggest that all COVID shots should be defunded and Congress must immediately remove liability protections from the manufacturers. But a more recent document released by the Europeans is even more devastating, because it breaks down the 1.6 million adverse events observed by Pfizer by category and subcategory of ailment and injury.

The 393-page confidential Pfizer document, dated Aug. 19, 2022, shows that Pfizer observed over 10,000 categories of diagnosis, many of them very severe and very rare. For example:

Pfizer was aware of 73,542 cases of 264 categories of vascular disorders from the shots. Many of them are rare conditions.

There were hundreds of categories of nervous system disorders, totaling 696,508 cases.
There were 61,518 AEs from well over 100 categories of eye disorders, which is unusual for a vaccine injury.

Likewise, there were over 47,000 ear disorders, including almost 16,000 cases of tinnitus, which even Mayo Clinic researchers observed as a common but often devastating side effect early on.
There were roughly 225,000 cases of skin and tissue disorders

There were roughly 190,000 cases of respiratory disorders.

Disturbingly, there were over 178,000 cases of reproductive or breast disorders, including disorders you wouldn’t expect, such as 506 cases of erectile dysfunction in men.

Very disturbingly, there were over 77,000 psychiatric disorders observed following the shots, lending credence to Dr. Peter McCullough’s research observing case studies showing psychosis correlating with vaccination.

3,711 cases of tumors – benign and malignant

Of course, there were almost 127,000 cardiac disorders, running the gamut of about 270 categories of heart damage, including many rare disorders, in addition to myocarditis.

There were over 100,000 blood and lymphatic disorders, for both of which there’s a wealth of literature linking them to the spike protein.

When reading what Pfizer knew early on juxtaposed to independent studies, it’s clear that nobody could have mistaken most of these AEs for mere incidental ailments. Here is a list of 3,129 case studies chronicling vaccine injury in every organ system observed in this Pfizer document.

What is so jarring is that there are hundreds of very rare neurological disorders that reflect something so systemically wrong with the shots, a reality that was clearly of no concern to the manufacturers and regulators alike. One of the infamous cases of vaccine injury was Maddie de Garay, an Ohio teen who became disabled for life immediately after participating in the Pfizer clinical trial. Her story is chronicled in chapter 16 of my book. I checked this confidential document and found that they knew of 68 cases of her rare diagnosis, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.

The broad scope of injuries affecting every single organ system is simply extraordinary. Yet to this day, the FDA continues to criminally label the Pfizer shot as safe and effective. To this day, the label indicates the shot is a fully protective vaccine and also fails to mention all of these side effects, as required by law.

Recently, Peter Doshi, editor of the British Medical Journal, wrote a letter to the FDA requesting that the agency update its labeling to reflect the reality of what we’ve learned about the shots. Specifically, he asked that they include the following side effects on the label: multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, pulmonary embolism, sudden cardiac death, neuropathic and autonomic disorders, decreased sperm concentration, heavy menstrual bleeding, and detection of vaccine mRNA in breast milk. The causal relationship of all these AEs to the vaccine is backed by substantial research, surveys, and adverse event reporting systems.

Unfortunately, the FDA denied the causal relationship between any of these side effects and the COVID shots. Even with regard to the request that officials clarify on the label that the shots don’t stop transmission, the FDA replied, “We are not convinced that there is any widespread misconception about this.”

“Product labeling should be informative and accurate, not promotional. The law requires it, and following the law shouldn’t be optional,” bemoaned Doshi and the other authors in a piece at TheHill.com.

The question is whether Republicans in the House will force the FDA to comply with the law by using the leverage of the appropriations bills for the FDA and HHS. So far, there has been no reckoning for their false marketing and the devastating human toll it has cost. Oh, and that is just the short-term human toll.

A confidential Pfizer document dated August 2022 shows the company observed 1.6 million adverse events covering nearly every organ system.

•73,542 vascular disorders

•696,508 nervous system disorders

•61,518 eye disorders

•47,000 ear disorders

•225,000 skin and tissue disorders

•178,000 reproductive disorders

•190,000 respiratory disorders

•77,000 psychiatric disorders

•127,000 cardiac disorders

•100,000 blood disorders

•3,711 tumors

The broad scope of injuries affecting every single organ system is simply extraordinary. Yet to this day, the FDA continues to criminally label the Pfizer shot as safe and effective.

Source: https://eraoflight.com/2023/06/17/confidential-pfizer-document-shows-the-company-observed-1-6-million-adverse-events-covering-nearly-every-organ-system/ (Includes further links)

[rebbonk]

Safe and effective? - It now appears that various batches of these drugs were not manufactured to the same standards!

This figure demonstrates:-


Numbers of suspected adverse events (SAEs) after BNT612b2 mRNA vaccination in Denmark (27 December 2020–11 January 2022) according to the number of doses per vaccine batch. Each dot represents a single vaccine batch. Trendlines are linear regression lines. Blue: R2 = 0.78, β = 0.0898 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0514–0.1281), green: R2 = 0.89, β = 0.0025 (95% CI 0.0021–0.0029), yellow: R2 = 0.68, β = 0.000087 (95% CI 0.000056–0.000118). Vaccine batches representing the blue, green and yellow trendlines comprised 4.22%, 63.69% and 32.09% of all vaccine doses, respectively, with 70.78%, 27.49% and 47.15% (blue trendline), 28.84%, 71.50% and 51.99% (green trendline), and 0.38%, 1.01%, and 0.86% (yellow trendline) of all SAEs, serious SAEs, and SAE-related deaths, respectively.
Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13998 An interesting read!

[rebbonk]

Yet more censoring about these 'safe' concoctions!

Significant COVID-19 Vaccine Study Censored by Medical Journal Within 24 Hours

A systematic review of 325 autopsies showing COVID-19 vaccination caused or significantly contributed to 74 percent of deaths was removed from The Lancet’s preprint SSRN server within 24 hours, adding to an increasing number of censored studies on the potential harms of COVID-19 vaccines.

The study, published July 5, examined all autopsies published in peer-reviewed literature to determine whether COVID-19 vaccination caused or contributed to the person’s death.

Researchers searched all published autopsy and necropsy reports related to COVID-19 vaccination through May 18, 2023, resulting in 678 studies. After implementing inclusion criteria, they chose 44 papers containing 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case. A panel of three expert physicians independently reviewed each case to determine whether COVID-19 vaccination was a direct cause or significant factor in each death.

Of 325 autopsies reviewed, 240 deaths, or 74 percent, were independently adjudicated as “directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.”

Findings showed the most affected organ system in COVID-19 vaccine-associated death was the cardiovascular system at 53 percent, followed by the hematological system at 17 percent, the respiratory system at 8 percent, and multiple organ systems at 7 percent. Three or more organ systems were affected in 21 cases. The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days—with most deaths occurring within a week of the last vaccine dose.

The study results suggest a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and deaths in most cases. Yet, the government’s narrative is still that people do not die after COVID-19 vaccination, lead author Dr. Peter McCullough, a practicing internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist, said in an interview on EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders: Now.” “The striking cases were people who were perfectly healthy and had no other medical problems. The only new thing in their life was the vaccine, and they died with an obvious syndrome like a blood clot or heart damage—myocarditis.”

Within 24 hours, the study was removed and replaced with the following notice:

“This preprint has been removed by Preprints with the Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.”

According to Dr. McCullough, the authors were not given an explanation for how their conclusions failed to meet the study methodology.

In an email to The Epoch Times, co-author Dr. Harvey Risch, a professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology at Yale, said he believes the paper was censored by The Lancet’s publisher, Elsevier, at the behest of the Trusted New Initiative (TNI), or a derivative organization of the TNI, based on the “study results providing strong evidence that some COVID-19 vaccine injections can have severe adverse effects leading to death.”

“This is my impression, given that the paper was removed at its preprint stage, before scientific peer review, and without any other professional scientific involvement in the censorship decision,” Risch added.

The Trusted News Initiative is an industry collaboration of major news and global tech organizations whose stated mission is to combat the spread of harmful vaccine disinformation.

TNI partners alert each other to disinformation that poses an “immediate threat to life so content can be reviewed promptly by platforms, whilst publishers ensure they don’t unwittingly republish dangerous falsehoods.”

Dr. McCullough said the project was approved through the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health, and the team used a standard scientific evaluation methodology known as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, to search through hundreds of papers to identify 44 that met the criteria before submitting them for adjudication.

Although the study didn’t go through a formal review, The Lancet accepted it for publication on its preprint server. To be published on SSRN, a paper must undergo “usual SSRN checks” and a “Lancet-specific check for appropriateness and transparency,” which the paper undoubtedly passed.

Dr. McCullough has broadly published more than 1,000 publications and 660 citations on a range of topics within the National Library of Medicine and is familiar with the process and standards that must be met.

The study’s co-authors, including top pathologist Dr. Roger Hodkinson, former chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada’s examination committee in pathology, Dr. Paul Alexander, former Trump administration official at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the COVID-19 pandemic, and Dr. Risch, are all accomplished in their fields.

Dr. McCullough said that before removal, the study was experiencing “hundreds of reviews per minute” and is now on the Zenodo preprint server and currently under review at another high-level journal.

“When it comes to the vaccines, papers get special attention. I think because there are individuals who don’t want to have a fair presentation of data when it comes to safety,” said Dr. McCullough. “This was simply what happened when someone died after a vaccine and the family, or the doctor, or the medical examiner requested an autopsy.”

Medical Journals Censor to Control Vaccine Hesitancy

Just as the U.S. government coordinated with social media companies to suppress truthful information about COVID-19 vaccines that may cause vaccine hesitancy, medical journals have censored numerous studies by accomplished experts about the potential harms of COVID-19 vaccination, often without explanation.

Elsevier, in October 2021, censored a different study by Dr. McCullough and molecular biologist Dr. Jessica Rose days after it was published in Current Problems in Cardiology. The study analyzed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and found myocarditis spiked in teenagers after COVID-19 vaccination.

The retraction notice said the publisher temporarily removed the paper, and a “replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated.”

In an email to Dr. McCullough, Elsevier said the journal was unwilling to publish the paper—after it had already published it. A reason was not provided, and the article was never reinstated. The National Library of Medicine’s website states the article was withdrawn at the ”request of the author(s) and/or editor.”

A paper reanalyzing earlier sponsored research (pdf) by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were safe for pregnant women found spontaneous abortions were 7 to 8 times higher than the authors reported. The researchers concluded that key policy decisions were made based on questionable and unreliable data. After immense pressure, the researchers retracted their reanalysis of the study.

A peer-reviewed paper published in June 2021 in Vaccines questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine policy was retracted after the journal experienced pressure to pull the study and numerous editorial board members threatened to resign. The study’s authors claimed that for “three deaths prevented by [COVID-19] vaccination, we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.”

The disgruntled editors feared the paper, which had over 425,000 views prior to retraction, would feed “antivaccine conspiracy theories” and be used by people to claim COVID-19 vaccines weren’t safe. The journal promptly retracted the article without providing specifics on how the paper failed in its methodology and established internal review procedures to ensure similar papers would not be published.

An academic study published in January 2023 in BMC Infectious Diseases was retracted after survey data estimated COVID-19 vaccine fatalities were as high as 278,000—showing a major discrepancy with the CDC’s VAERS database. The editors retracted the study over the “validity of the conclusions drawn after publication,” and a post-publication peer review concluded the “methodology was inappropriate as it does not prove causal inference of mortality, and limitations of the study were not adequately described.”

A paper in Toxicology Reports, published by Elsevier in 2021 questioning why children were being vaccinated against COVID-19, was retracted by the founding editor on the basis of “clear evidence that the findings are unreliable” and the focus of the paper was on a “critically important public health issue” and exhibited bias. At the time the study was published, U.S. regulatory agencies were in the process of authorizing experimental COVID-19 vaccines for children.

Dr. Vinay Prasad, professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California and author of more than 450 academic articles, wrote there should be more discussion about vaccines, but public debate on side effects is being censored. In a 2022 article, Prasad said censors are unaccountable and are as fallible as those they are trying to censor.

“This is especially true in science, where, as history shows us, consensus views can turn out to be false, while controversial or heretical ideas can be vindicated.”

Source: https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/significant-covid-19-vaccine-study-censored-by-a-medical-journal-within-24-hours_5388409.html

[dutchman]

[rebbonk]

The lies, falsehoods and misdirections are all unravelling. Sadly though, I doubt we'll see prosecutions for using the human race as one large and very stupid, experiment. Drug companies were granted immunity for their experimental concoctions and governments claim that nobody was forced to take the vile poisons. It was all your own fault, see!

US Military Confirms Myocarditis Spike After COVID Vaccine Introduction

Cases of myocarditis soared among U.S. service members in 2021 after the COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out, a top Pentagon official has confirmed.

There were 275 cases of myocarditis in 2021—a 151 percent spike from the annual average from 2016 to 2020, according to Gilbert Cisneros Jr., undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, who confirmed data revealed by a whistleblower earlier this year.

The COVID-19 vaccines can cause myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation that can lead to mortality, including sudden death. COVID-19 also can cause myocarditis.

The diagnosis data comes from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database.

Mr. Cisneros provided the rate of cases per 100,000 person-years, a way to measure risk across a certain period of time. In 2021, the rate was 69.8 among those with prior infection, compared to 21.7 among members who had been vaccinated.

“This suggests that it was more likely to be [COVID-19] infection and not COVID-19 vaccination that was the cause,” Mr. Cisneros said.

No figures were given for members who had been vaccinated but were also infected. The total rate, 20.6, also indicates that some members weren’t included in the subgroup analysis.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who has been investigating problems with the database, questioned how the military came up with the figures.

“It is unclear whether or how it accounted for service members who had a prior COVID-19 infection and received a COVID-19 vaccination,” Mr. Johnson wrote to Mr. Cisneros.

Department of Defense (DOD) officials didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Johnson asked for the information no later than Aug. 2.

Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist and president of the McCullough Foundation, looked at the newly disclosed data.

“The large increase in myocarditis cases in our military in 2021 was most likely due to ill-advised COVID-19 vaccination,” he told The Epoch Times via email, pointing to a study from Israel that found no increase of myocarditis in COVID-19 patients.

Some other papers have found COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of myocarditis. COVID-19 has been linked elsewhere to myocarditis, although the vaccines have never prevented infection and have become increasingly ineffective against it.

The military encouraged COVID-19 vaccination after U.S. regulators cleared the vaccines for use in late 2020. Military officials were among the first in the world to raise concerns about myocarditis after vaccination and published an early case series of 22 previously healthy members who suffered myocarditis within four days of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. U.S. officials have since said the vaccines definitely cause myocarditis.

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin mandated the vaccines in 2021, a requirement that remained in place until Congress forced its withdrawal.

Repeated Changes

Military officials have struggled to provide accurate data on 2021 diagnoses.

Whistleblowers revealed in 2021 that myocarditis, as reflected in the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), had soared to 2,868 percent higher than the average from 2016 to 2020. They downloaded the data in August 2021.

The number of 2021 myocarditis diagnoses, though, had plummeted from 1,239 to 263 when the data was downloaded later, prompting concerns of manipulation.

Military officials said they reviewed the data and found it was “faulty.” They said the data for the years 2016 to 2020 were “corrupted” during a “database maintenance process,” which resulted in the display of only 10 percent of the actual medical encounters for that time period.

Officials told Mr. Johnson in 2022 that the problem had been fixed. The fix significantly changed the records. Instead of a 2,181 percent increase in hypertension in 2021, for instance, the increase was just 1.9 percent. Female infertility, instead of increasing 472 percent, increased 13.2 percent.

The updated percentages, though, were called into question when another whistleblower looked at the database in 2023 and found they were different.

Testicular cancer, initially pegged as increasing 369 percent, was placed at 3 percent by the military. But the actual increase was 16.3 percent, the whistleblower found. Pulmonary embolism was among the other conditions that occurred more often in 2021 than the military had conveyed.

The whistleblower alerted Mr. Johnson, the top Republican on the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, who asked military officials for answers.

Mr. Cisneros acknowledged that the data given to the senator was incomplete. He said the change stemmed from December 2021 figures not being available when the corrected data was offered. There was a data “lag by about three months,” meaning the data wasn’t available in February 2022, when officials provided Mr. Johnson with the corrected data, Mr. Cisneros said.

Pentagon officials replicated the analyses from the whistleblower and found the data “are similar” to the data the whistleblower sent to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Cisneros said.

Military officials hadn’t previously mentioned any data lag previously while communicating with Mr. Johnson or the public, and they didn’t incorporate the available data when they sent him another missive in mid-2022.

“Without the whistleblower’s disclosure, I doubt DOD would have ever acknowledged that it provided incomplete information to my office in February 2022 and again in July 2022,” Mr. Johnson said.

He said the DOD had demonstrated “a complete disregard for transparency” and urged officials to make clear whether it has investigated whether any of the medical conditions for which diagnoses spiked are associated with the vaccines.

Source: https://www.theepochtimes.com/us-military-confirms-myocarditis-spiked-after-covid-vaccine-introduction_5411759.html

[rebbonk]

Something to placate the masses? A further opportunity for whitewashing and glossing over? I wonder just what those 'dangerous' theories are? - The truth, maybe?

Experts call for urgent investigation as excess deaths spark ‘dangerous' theories

An urgent investigation is needed into why excess deaths are near pandemic levels, because the lack of an explanation is fuelling "wild and dangerous theories", experts warn.

Government figures suggest the number of extra or "unnecessary" fatalities this year is higher than 2021 and 2022, and on a trajectory that could even surpass 2020.

Of particular concern is the 15 to 44 age group, where cumulative deaths are tracking above all recent years, including 2020.

Some commentators have suggested delayed medical treatment due to lockdown measures might be contributing to the rise.

Others have blamed the indirect impact of pandemic measures, such as increased loneliness and isolation, as well as a rise in alcohol consumption and recreational drug use.

Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty has previously hypothesised that rising non-Covid excess deaths could have been caused by a fall in heart drug prescriptions. But subsequent research has shown there was no such drop.

It was also claimed doctors' strikes coincided with the jump in deaths. However, the British Medical Association said walkouts were not "the root cause". It insisted: "There was no change in mortality trends during strike action."

The latest figures mean that since 2019 more deaths are being recorded each week than the five-year average. Only a small proportion of these are now being directly attributed to Covid.

Dr Charles Levinson, Medical Director of private GP service Doctorcall, said the "silence" from Government was allowing conspiracy theories to flourish, including from anti-vaxxers.

He said: "A refusal to openly discuss these statistics is an abdication of responsibility from parts of the scientific community, leading to an irreversible erosion of trust by parts of society.

"There has been radio silence on the crisis from almost all, leaving a vacuum which is being filled by dangerous theories."

Last night Professor Carl Heneghan, director of the Centre for Evidence-based Medicine at Oxford University, called for an urgent inquiry.

He said: "There has been a complete failure by the Government to investigate these deaths correctly. This means we don't know how to prevent further unnecessary deaths, fuelling wild speculation about the drivers."

The Department of Health and Social Care said: "A wide variety of factors have contributed to excess deaths in recent months and we're taking action to reduce them.

"Our forthcoming Major Conditions Strategy will look at how best to diagnose and manage the main drivers of ill health and death."

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1772647/excess-deaths-covid-nhs-investigation

[rebbonk]

Looking at the US, it appears that the truth will emerge there first, but not just yet...

‘Serious Doubt’ About COVID-19 Vaccine Safety After Forced Release of 15,000 Pages of Clinical Trial Data: Legal NGO

Conservative public interest advocacy group Defending the Republic (DTR) has obtained almost 15,000 pages of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data, claiming the data show an “utter lack of thoroughness” of the trials and calls the vaccine’s safety into “serious doubt.”

As a result of successful Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the group recently announced it had obtained—and is releasing—nearly 15,000 pages of documents relating to testing and adverse events associated with “Spikevax,” Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Since 2022, the group has been involved in litigation against the FDA relating to the production of data submitted by Moderna in support of its application to federal regulators for approval of its vaccine.

As a result, the FDA agreed to produce around 24,000 pages of the Moderna records by the end of this year, with the 15,000 pages being the first instalment.

The records, some of which relate to adverse events related to the vaccine, include important information related to the safety profile of Spikevax, which was first authorized for emergency use in the United States in December 2020 and in January 2022 received full approval for adults.

“The public can be assured that Spikevax meets the FDA’s high standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality required of any vaccine approved for use in the United States,” Acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock said in a statement earlier this year.

But the new data call this view into question. The advocacy group says that the tens of thousands of pages of clinical trial data released by the FDA supports the conclusion that there is “serious doubt” about both the safety of Spikevax and the FDA’s standards for approval.

Neither Moderna nor the FDA immediately responded to a request for comment.

More Details

DTR filed its FOIA lawsuit after the FDA rejected requests to produce the Moderna COVID-19 records, justifying its decision by claiming there was no pressing need for the public to review the information.

The documents obtained as part of the group’s litigation against the FDA are the first significant release of data from Moderna’s COVID-19 clinical trials.

The studies reveal the causes of deaths, serious adverse events, and instances of neurological disorders potentially associated with Spikevax.

One of the key takeaways from the documents is that many of those who died after receiving the Moderna vaccine were not given an autopsy.

“According to one study, 16 individuals died after being administered the Moderna vaccine. The study’s authors indicated that out of those 16 deaths, only two autopsies were performed, five of the dead were not autopsied, and the autopsy status of nine of the dead was ‘unknown,’” DTR said in a statement.

“Yet this did not stop those running these ‘studies’ from concluding, despite the absence of evidence, that the Moderna vaccine was not related to these deaths,” the group added.

As an example, the group gave the case of a 56-year-old woman who experienced ‘sudden death’ 182 days after receiving the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“The cause of death was unknown, and no autopsy was conducted. It seems they purposely decided not to investigate suspicious deaths in case the Moderna vaccine might be the cause,” the group stated.

There were also numerous examples in the clinical trial data of participants diagnosed with post-vaccination Bell’s Palsy and Shingles, with numerous vaccinated trial participants seeing the onset of Shingles less than 10 days after getting the shot.

The studies also showed that there were a number of serious adverse events noted in the vaccinated groups, with a number of participants experiencing heart attacks, pulmonary embolisms, and spontaneous miscarriages.

Overall, the group concludes that the 15,000 pages of data create “serious doubt concerning the safety of the Moderna vaccine and the FDA’s standards and approval of the Moderna vaccine.”

The 15,000 pages or so of data released by DTR, all of which can be found here, add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that the COVID-19 vaccines may not be as safe as advertised.

FDA Ordered to Speed Up Release of COVID-19 Data

Elsewhere, a federal judge in Texas ordered the FDA to make public data it relied on to license COVID-19 vaccines at an accelerated rate, requiring all documents to be made public by mid-2025 rather than, as the FDA wanted, over the course of about 23.5 years.

In a May 9 decision hailed as a win for transparency by the lawyer representing the plaintiffs (the parents of a child injured by a COVID-19 vaccine) in a lawsuit (pdf) against the FDA, the agency was ordered to produce the data on Moderna’s vaccine for adults and Pfizer’s for children about 10 times faster than the agency wanted.
“Democracy dies behind closed doors,” is how U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman opened his order (pdf), which requires the FDA to produce the data on Moderna’s and Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines at an average rate of at least 180,000 pages per month.

The FDA had argued it would be “impractical” to release the estimated 4.8 million pages at more than between 1,000 and 16,000 pages per month, which would have taken at least 23.5 years.

The January 2022 order (pdf), also issued by Pittman, forced the FDA to produce all its data on Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for those aged 16 and older at a rate of 55,000 pages per month, or much faster than the 75 years the agency had sought.

“That production should be completed in a few more months,” Siri said in a statement, referring to the earlier Pfizer data for those aged 16 and up.

The latest order requires the FDA to produce all of its data on Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for 12- to 15-year-olds (and Moderna’s product for adults) by June 31, 2025.

FDA officials didn’t respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

Source: https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/serious-doubt-raised-about-covid-19-vaccine-safety-after-forced-release-of-15000-pages-of-clinical-trial-data-5414614

[rebbonk]

A little more truth leaking out from the US...

Biden Admin Concedes No Evidence Behind Recommendation for 6 COVID Booster Shots a Year

President Joe Biden's administration concedes that there is no scientific evidence to support an apparent recommendation to receive as many as six COVID-19 booster shots in a year.

After Health Secretary Xavier Becerra, a Biden appointee, wrote in a social media post on Nov. 29, 2022, that people should get vaccinated “if it’s been over 2 months since your last dose,” the Functional Government Initiative (FGI) filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents supporting the statements.

The watchdog organization then sued after the administration didn't comply with timelines laid out in the law.

FGI asked for, among other documents: "Any scientific support relied on by Secretary Becerra when approving or issuing the tweet recommending that all Americans receive a booster shot every two months" and "any study, synopsis, or similar statement or document of scientific, academic, or government research on whether a bi-monthly booster shot will effectively prevent the transmission or susceptibility to COVID-19 and known active variants as of November 2022."

It also asked for internal communications regarding Mr. Becerra's statements.

In a new response, the government said it had no evidence to support Mr. Becerra's recommendation.

"The department reviewed 1,263 pages of potentially responsive records captured in the agency’s search for this FOIA request. After a careful review of these records, I determined the 1,263 pages were not relevant to your request," Alesia Williams, an official in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), told FGI.

"The lack of a single of a single record supporting Secretary Becerra’s bold public health recommendation for six COVID boosters a year is a startling development," Pete McGinnis, a spokesman for FGI, said in a statement.

"It is tremendously irresponsible for the government’s chief health official to fire off tweets recommending frequent injections of a new vaccine booster apparently based on no academic or scientific support," Mr. McGinnis added.

"How can the public be assured that the agency is ‘following the science’ on other important public health matters when it demonstrates such clear disregard for basic scientific integrity standards on an issue as important as COVID vaccine shots?"

The group noted that Mr. Becerra, a lawyer by training, lacks a background in health. Doctors typically lead that department.

Booster Recommendations

As newer COVID-19 variants have emerged, the vaccines have performed increasingly worse. Federal officials inside HHS first cleared booster shots in 2021 due to the flagging effectiveness, and have since authorized and recommended additional shots.

In the spring of 2023, regulators had authorized, without clinical trial data, newly formulated versions of the vaccines aimed at Omicron subvariants. Federal officials had said that people should get a booster if more than two months had elapsed since their most recent shot. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said most people should only receive one additional shot, but that certain groups could receive more.

In another statement promoting vaccination, Vice President Kamala Harris claimed that a single shot would protect people from COVID-19 for an entire year. There's no evidence supporting that claim.

Mr. Becerra said the day after the initial post: “An updated COVID vaccine can help protect you from the worst outcomes of COVID. If it’s been over 2 months since your last dose, make a plan to get one now.”

He later wrote: "Time to get your updated COVID vaccine if 1) You haven’t gotten the updated vaccine yet & had the primary series or original booster 2+ months ago 2) It’s been 3+ months since you’ve had COVID If you have a big event in 2+ weeks, it’s a good time to go."

FGI said the differing messages were causing confusion and made it appear as if Mr. Becerra was, at least at one point, recommending up to six shots in a year.

HHS has declined to comment on the suit.

"The clear message from across the Administration is: Don’t wait," an HHS spokesperson previously told The Epoch Times, after being asked about Mr. Becerra's statements. "Get your free COVID-19 vaccine. It’s safe and effective. People can go to vaccines.gov to find free and easily available vaccines in their community."

New Vaccines Coming

The updated slate of vaccines isn't working well, prompting plans to implement new formulations that, for the first time, won't include components of the Wuhan virus strain.

The updated shots are expected to be rolled out in the fall.

The CDC's new director, Dr. Mandy Cohen, said recently that the agency is poised to recommend annual shots.

"We anticipate that COVID will become similar to flu shots, where it is going to be you get your annual flu shot and you get your annual COVID shot," Dr. Cohen said.

The CDC didn't respond to a request for comment.

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), chairman of the U.S. Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, and other members asked the CDC (pdf) for information on the planned recommendation, noting that it would "mark a significant change in federal policy and guidance regarding COVID-19 vaccines and the way in which they are utilized."

Source: https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/biden-admin-admits-no-evidence-behind-6-covid-booster-shots-a-year-recommendation-5449289