Vaccine expert admits why they hide negative vaccine Reports
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said the independent board that reviews data from multiple Covid-19 vaccine candidates has raised concerns about AstraZeneca's announcement of efficacy data from its vaccine trial.
Here's Vaccine pushers usually don't speak out
Dr. Peter Hotez, a vaccine expert and dean of tropical medicine at Baylor school of medicine, told CNN the NIAID statement was totally strange (to expose the truth).
"I can barely understand the dispute or why they would make it so public. My concern is that this will further erode public confidence in the AZOX vaccine.
Lies
In December of 2020, Dr. Fauci explained in a phone interview with then–New York Times reporter Donald McNeil that he had been moving the target estimate for herd immunity based in part on emerging studies. But that was a lie.
Fauci admitted, "When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, I can nudge this up a bit, so I went to 80, 85.
A Freedom of Information Act request revealed that Dr. Fauci privately gave the advice—against mask use—suggesting it was merely his outward stance to the broader public.
The Far Left website Slate.com had this to say recently
Such high-profile mixed messages in a short time frame, without substantive new data to justify the change, generated confusion and a backlash from politicians, other experts, and the general public.
Peer reviewed study Highlights
The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy
by Harald Walach 1,2,3,*,Rainer J. Klement 4OrcID andWouter Aukema 5OrcID
1
Poznan University of the Medical Sciences, Pediatric Hospital, 60-572 Poznan, Poland
2
Department of Psychology, University of Witten/Herdecke, 58448 Witten, Germany
3
Change Health Science Institute, 10178 Berlin, Germany
4
Department of Radiation Oncology, Leopoldina Hospital, 97422 Schweinfurt, Germany
5
Independent Data and Pattern Scientist, Brinkenbergweg 1, 7351 BD Hoenderloo, The
The COVID-19 vaccines are immunologically effective and can—according to the publications—prevent infections, morbidity, and mortality associated with SARS-CoV2; however, they incur costs. Apart from the economic costs, there are comparatively high rates of side effects and fatalities. The current figure is around four fatalities per 100,000 vaccinations, as documented by the most thorough European documentation system, the Dutch side effects register (lareb.nl). This tallies well with a recently conducted analysis of the U.S. vaccine adverse reactions reporting system, which found 3.4 fatalities per 100,000 vaccinations, mostly with the Comirnaty (Pfizer) and Moderna vaccines [12].
Conclusions
The present assessment raises the question whether it would be necessary to rethink policies and use COVID-19 vaccines more sparingly and with some discretion only in those that are willing to accept the risk because they feel more at risk from the true infection than the mock infection. Perhaps it might be necessary to dampen the enthusiasm by sober facts? In our view, the EMA and national authorities should instigate a safety review into the safety database of COVID-19 vaccines and governments should carefully consider their policies in light of these data. Ideally, independent scientists should carry out thorough case reviews of the very severe cases, so that there can be evidence-based recommendations on who is likely to benefit from a SARS-CoV2 vaccination and who is in danger of suffering from side effects.
Currently, our estimates show that we have to accept four fatal and 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2–11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations, placing risks and benefits on the same order of magnitude.
What do we trust? Who do we trust?
Comments
Post a Comment