A new peer-reviewed study has concluded that Covid mRNA shots have ended up killing more people than they saved.
After completing their study, the researchers issued an emergency alert calling on governments around the world to immediately pull the injections from public use.
According to the researchers, including world-renowned vaccine and health experts, the study confirmed “well-documented” serious adverse events and revealed an unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio.
With considerably lower efficacy rates, mRNA Covid vaccines cause more deaths than save lives, according to the study.
The researchers behind the study have called for the injections to be paused worldwide with an “immediate removal” from the childhood immunization schedules.
The peer-reviewed study was published in the prestigious Cureus journal.
The researchers involved in the study were:
- M. Nathaniel Mead
- Stephanie Seneff
- Russ Wolfinger
- Jessica Rose
- Kris Denhaerynck
- Steve Kirsch
- Peter A. McCullough
During their study, the researchers analyzed reports from the initial phase 3 trials of Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
The results from these trials led to the shots being approved under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States.
The study also looked into several other research and reviews of the trials.
It found that the vaccines had “dramatically lower” efficacy rates than the vaccine companies claimed.
Moreover, based on “conservative assumptions, the estimated harms of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines greatly outweigh the rewards: for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”
“Given the well-documented SAEs (serious adverse events) and unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse and enforce a global moratorium on these modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.”
The authors also recommended an “immediate removal” of the COVID-19 vaccines from the childhood immunization schedule.
They pointed out that children are at very low risk from the infection but are being placed in a position of unnecessary danger by being injected with the shots.
“It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 but a well-established 2.2 percent risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available.”
Following the first trials of Pfizer and Moderna, it was claimed that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines had a 95 percent reduction of symptomatic COVID-19.
The study pointed out that this efficacy assumption was false.
Pfizer’s claim was based on the fact that only eight out of 22,000 vaccine recipients contracted COVID-19 during the trial compared to 162 out of 22,000 people in the placebo group.
In total, 170 confirmed COVID-19 cases were reported in both groups.
However, the researchers pointed out that a large number of infections fell under the “suspected” COVID-19 category, which was ignored.
A total of 3,410 such suspected cases were identified in the trial, which is 20 times the 170 confirmed cases.
“There were 1,594 such cases in the vaccinated group and 1,816 in the placebo,” the study said.
“When factoring in both confirmed and suspected cases, vaccine efficacy against developing symptoms drops to only 19 percent, far below the 50 percent RR (relative risk) reduction threshold required for regulatory authorization.
“Thus, when considering both confirmed and suspected cases, vaccine efficacy appears to have been dramatically lower than the official 95 percent claim.”
The study’s authors declared no financial support from any organization for their work. A few conflict of interest disclosures were made.
One author received a grant from Quanta Computer Inc. Another author, cardiologist Peter A. McCullough, declared employment and owning stock/stock options in The Wellness Company.
A third author is the founder of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (VSRF).
Researchers criticized the Pfizer and Moderna trial reports for “exclusive focus” on relative risk or RR measure while omitting absolute risk reduction.
They argued that absolute risk reduction “gives a better indication of a drug’s clinical utility.”
“Both types of risk estimation are required to avoid reporting bias and to provide a more comprehensive perspective on vaccine efficacy.
“Omitting the absolute risk statistics leads to overestimation of the clinical benefits of the vaccines.”
In contrast with the 95 percent efficacy rate using the RR measure, absolute risk reduction for Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were 0.7 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively, the study stated.
“An absolute risk reduction of approximately 1 percent for the COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations meant that a substantial number of individuals would need to be injected in order to prevent a single mild-to-moderate case of COVID-19.”
To prevent one case of COVID-19 infection, 142 individuals would need to be vaccinated with Pfizer’s shot, the study said.
When it came to Moderna, 88 people had to be injected.
Taking into account these numbers as well as the infection fatality rates of COVID-19, the researchers concluded that roughly 52,000 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one COVID-19-related death.
This would mean two lives saved for roughly 100,000 injections of the Pfizer vaccine.
However, there is a risk of 27 deaths per 100,000 doses of Pfizer shot, the researchers calculated.
As such, for every life saved by the jab, almost 14 lives would be lost due to the mRNA vaccine, the study stated.
Authors noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) “did not include absolute risk reduction measures” when reviewing vaccine data.
This action deviated from FDA guidelines “which state that both approaches are crucial in order to avoid the misguided use of pharmaceuticals.”
Researchers cited a September 2022 analysis to detail the pervasiveness of serious adverse effects (SAE) among the vaccinated group in the trials.
The analysis looked at both Pfizer and Moderna trial data, discovering roughly 125 SAEs per 100,000 vaccine recipients.
This indicated one SAE per 800 vaccines.
“The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 percent higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group (compared to placebo),” the analysis stated.
“The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 percent higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group.”
“These findings stand in sharp contrast with the FDA’s initial claim that SAEs reported by the two pivotal trials were ‘balanced between treatment groups,’” researchers from the study noted.
This discrepancy could be because the FDA only counted the number of individuals with serious adverse events rather than the total SAEs experienced by the trial subjects, they said.
Since a single person can have multiple SAEs, counting only individuals would produce a lower number than the total number of such adverse events.
“When the SAEs were viewed collectively, the risks in the vaccine group were substantially elevated beyond those previously determined by the FDA,” the researchers wrote.
The analysis found that the excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest (AESI) among the vaccine group was 10.1 per 10,000 individuals. However, the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization in the placebo group was only 2.3 per 10,000 people.
This meant that the vaccinated subjects were at over four times the risk of suffering AESIs after getting the shots than the placebo subjects were of getting hospitalized from the infection.
In the Moderna trial, vaccinated individuals were more than two times at risk of experiencing AESI.
“To put these findings in perspective, the official SAE rate for other vaccines is only 1-2 per million,” the new study said.
The 2020 analysis’ “estimate based on the Pfizer trial data (1,250 SAEs per million) exceeds this benchmark by at least 600-fold.”
In the Jan. 24 study, researchers noted that the safety of mRNA products was “never assessed” in a manner consistent with scientific standards for vaccines or for gene therapy products (GPT), which they claim is “the more accurate classification” for these jabs. “Many key trial findings were either misreported or omitted entirely from published reports.”
The usual safety testing protocols and toxicology requirements were bypassed by the FDA and vaccine manufacturers.
As the two trials were terminated prematurely, there was never an “unbiased assessment” of potential serious adverse events.
“It was only after the EUA that the serious biological consequences of rushing the trials became evident, with numerous cardiovascular, neurological, reproductive, hematological, malignant, and autoimmune SAEs identified and published in the peer-reviewed medical literature.”
In addition, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines produced and evaluated in the trials were not the same ones that were manufactured and administered to people around the world.
The global vaccination campaign used a vaccine produced by a different process, which has been shown to have “varying degrees of DNA contamination.”
The researchers pointed out that several excess deaths, cardiac events, strokes, and other serious adverse events have wrongly been ascribed to COVID-19 rather than the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines since early 2021.
Injuries from these vaccines overlap with both post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) and severe acute COVID-19 illness, which end up often obscuring the vaccine’s contribution to such conditions.
“Multiple booster injections appear to cause immune dysfunction, thereby paradoxically contributing to heightened susceptibility to COVID-19 infections with successive doses.”
For the “vast majority” of adults below 50 years of age, the perceived benefits of the mRNA vaccines were dwarfed by their “potential disabling and life-threatening harm.”
The study said older adults may be at higher risk of such harm.
Commenting on the study, Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of nonprofit Liberty Counsel, said that in the paper, scientists “confirm what sound scientific research has been showing for years, that these shots have never been safe nor effective.”
“The FDA and the CDC are supposed to protect the people, but they have become the lapdog of the pharmaceutical industry.
“This must change,” Staver asserts.
The CDC is currently under scrutiny for suppressing an alert for myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccination.
Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle called the myocardium.
As Slay News recently reported, a document has now emerged showing that in May 2021, the CDC had prepared a draft alert for potentially fatal heart failure related to the shots.
The agency was supposed to send the alert to federal, state, and local public health officials and doctors nationwide through its Health Alert Network (HAN).
However, the alert was never sent as some officials were worried about appearing “alarmist” and feared they may cause “public panic.”
No comments:
Post a Comment