The writer is in New Zealand
UNDER the headline ‘Three jabs best for preventing Covid infections, global analysis finds’, on May 31 the Guardian reported on a study published by the BMJ on the same day. The paper’s authors searched global World Health Organisation (WHO) databases in an effort to discover whether mixing vaccine types was better than sticking to one brand.
The study concludes that a combination of any three mRNA vaccines is 95 per cent effective against hospital admissions. It also says that even two doses of mRNA vaccine are 99 per cent effective at preventing severe Covid.
Did the authors realise that these astonishing and entirely unconvincing headline effectiveness figures will grossly mislead and deceive the public? I don’t know, but I do know that real world figures from around the world show the exact opposite. At the very least, there is no statistical difference between rates of hospital admissions for the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Here in New Zealand and in many other countries which still publish data, official figures show that the triple-vaccinated are in fact more likely to be hospitalised with Covid. In other words, mRNA vaccination damages health.
The paper illustrates just how far our understanding of Covid outcomes has drifted away from rigorous scientific inquiry and into a self-congratulatory faith. The Guardian report says that ‘the effectiveness of individual coronavirus vaccines is well known’. This must be a typo – surely the journalist meant to write ‘ineffectiveness’?
Hidden in the conclusion of the BMJ paper is a vital clue: ‘The vaccine effectiveness against death in people who received three doses of mRNA vaccine remains uncertain.’
Correct me if I am wrong, but surely if a vaccine is claimed to be 95 per cent effective against hospitalisation and 99 per cent effective against severe Covid, it must prevent deaths? Yet according to the paper’s authors, their comprehensive review of WHO databases cannot confirm this. How come?
The answer lies in the interpretation of data and the use of statistics. While editing and curation of hospitalisation and infection data is possible, death has a finality which is hard to ignore. Mortality statistics are carefully recorded everywhere. These show that all-cause mortality is on the rise.
The possible culprits are either Covid itself or Covid vaccination. Whichever is the case, the argument for the effectiveness of Covid vaccination against death is a non-starter.
Vaccine proponents are out in force these days arguing (without credible evidence) that increased deaths, especially the significant increases in cardiac illness and deaths among working-age people, have nothing to do with mRNA vaccines and everything to do with Long Covid. View a heart specialist in New Zealand recently commenting to this effect.
A report headed ‘Increased emergency cardiovascular events among under-40 population in Israel during vaccine rollout and third COVID-19 wave’ published in Nature found to the contrary: emergency cardiac callouts were related to vaccination, but not to prior Covid infection.
The authors concluded: ‘It is essential to raise awareness among patients and clinicians with respect to related symptoms (eg chest discomfort and shortness of breath) following vaccination or Covid-19 infection to ensure that potential harm is minimised.’ Further: ‘It is ’critical to better understand the risk-benefits of the vaccine and to inform related public policy and prevent potentially avoidable patient harm.’
In fact over the last 18 months the whole mythic edifice of mRNA vaccination safety and effectiveness has come tumbling down due to new scientific findings and assessments. So what do you do if you are a Covid mRNA vaccine proponent? Of course, you double down on your faith, you plough on regardless.
At first mRNA vaccination was claimed to be 95 per cent effective against infection and completely safe. Then it was discovered it rapidly waned in effectiveness. So it was pronounced effective against severe infection and hospitalisation.
Then it was realised a very wide range of adverse effects followed vaccination, so these were designated as unrelated or caused by vaccine anxiety.
Then the volume of myocarditis cases was too high to ignore, so these were described as mild and short-lived.
Then post-vaccine myocarditis was discovered to be long-lasting and potentially serious or even fatal, so it was suggested that early intervention would work well.
Then it was discovered that all-cause mortality was rising, so it was suggested this must be due to post-Covid infection complications and not to vaccination.
The approach of the NZ Government remains unchanged by the evolution of Covid scientific publishing, note:
· Their lack of ability to change policy in the face of evolving scientific publication;
· Their lack of empathy for those suffering adverse effects;
· Their scapegoating of the unvaccinated without basis in fact;
· Their rejection of alternative approaches to health;
· Their adherence to mask-wearing even though studies show it is ineffective at stopping the spread of infection and also damaging to health.
More worrying are efforts around the world to establish so-called disinformation offices devoted to:
· attacking anyone who questions the safety of mRNA Covid vaccination;
· issuing reassuring but patently false bulletins about Covid vaccination safety and effectiveness.
The NZ government has joined in with ‘The National Centre of Research Excellence for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism’ (yes, this does appear to be concerned with the investigation of anyone doubting the safety of mRNA Covid vaccination).
For a prime example of the doublespeak of disinformation officers, try the BBC’s ‘Health and Disinformation Reporter’ Rachel Schraer who weighed in on Saturday with a graphic presentation entitled ‘Covid: Why do some vaccines protect you longer than others?’ The bright and breezy Schraer was ‘very sure that the jabs are safe and effective’, but unsure exactly how long they last – somewhere between measles and influenza jabs, she hazarded. No mention of any side effects and no mention of mRNA technology, just the reassuring generic term ‘vaccine’ and oblique references to unnamed ‘experts’.
The saddest part of this is the fact that examination of the Pfizer documents gradually being released under court order shows that the adverse effects and the waning effectiveness, and much more worrying prospects such as suppression of the immune system or pregnancy complications, were known or suspected after the earliest Pfizer trial results, but hidden from the public.
It is a year since my best mate died from cardiac and immune suppression, conditions which he suddenly and unexpectedly acquired following Covid vaccination. We have not forgotten him. Exposing the risk of genetic experimentation is still our priority. Nor have we forgotten the Wuhan Institute of Virology and similar programmes around the world. Recent publications show that the Wuhan lab is continuing to experiment with dangerous viruses.
Man-made viral experimental genetic material is mobile and invasive. It can take control of your life and change it irrevocably. Its ultimate effects are unknown and unknowable. History shows us it cannot be safely contained in a lab indefinitely. The peril is ours, and we can’t pretend it doesn’t exist or even successfully hide from it.
We are already a long way down the road to ruin, but possibly it is still not too late to turn back. The only road back to safety involves pausing risky biotechnology experimentation immediately.