We now have a clear estimate of the rate of vaccine injuries
Includes an excerpt from: "The Forgotten Side of Medicine"
A court case that forces us to ask questions…
Picture: “Class action lawsuit targeting Australian government over COVID vaccine injuries alleges a cover-up” (26th April 2023)
Of the three plaintiffs in this lawsuit, one (Gareth O'Gradie) suffered pericarditis, another encephalomyelitis and a third, a severe cognitive impairment. The injured parties (or one of them at least) are not against vaccines, they do however feel there has been 'misinformation about the safety' of the vaccines from their government. 'I think there has been some cover-up,' said Mr O'Gradie.
A plaintiff says there’s been a cover-up. Why does he say that? Why do the plaintiffs feel a need to take their case to court? How many people, like these plaintiffs, have been sufficiently injured that they must spend time in hospital? This article answers the questions.
Summary
Introduction: it’s useful to review the history of the tobacco industry
The story of the discovery of tobacco industry harms shows similarities to the story of the discovery of vaccine industry harms
Five independent surveys identify that 5-8% of Covid vaccinated persons required a hospital visit subsequent to one or more of their vaccinations
Many of these persons will recover to near normal health, but not all
Now that herd immunity has reached a high level and risk of serious COVID illness in young and healthy persons is essentially zero, it’s time to re-do the math on the risks and benefits of this controversial medical procedure
According to Forgotten Side of Medicine, the modified RNA Covid vaccinations may qualify to be the most harmful consumer product ever distributed.
Topic headings
Part 1:Tobacco industry marketing: a pattern that the vaccine industry follows
Quote the experts(???), to sell the cigarettes!
More doctors smoke camels! (so this brand of cigarettes is healthy???)
Tobacco mega-corporations exist to grow bigger and return profits to shareholders
Mortality in relation to smoking: the British Doctors Study
The Bradford Hill criteria
Tobacco industry fights back
Part 2: A look at the recent independent research into the rates of Covid Vaccine harms
We Now Have A Clear Estimate Of The Rate Of Vaccine Injuries
Covid Vaccine Surveys
Most dangerous products in history?
Introduction: it’s useful to review the history of the tobacco industry
Before we begin to show how survey science is beginning to clarify the issue of the rate of vaccine injuries, it’s useful to review the history of how science provided clarity on the issue of tobacco injuries. As you will see, injury from the tobacco product was not something the mega-corporations were ever likely to admit. It took independent researchers (not funded by tobacco companies) to clarify that smoking is harmful. Likewise, injury from vaccines is not something that vaccine companies are ever likely to admit. Therefore it will require independent researchers (not funded by vaccine companies) to clarify that vaccines (or at least some vaccines) may be harmful. We shall present the history of tobacco marketing and the independent research that quantified tobacco harms. And then we shall report on independent research that quantifies Covid vaccine harms. By comparing the two industries we will learn how mega-corporations function, and why there may have been a vaccine injury coverup.
Part 1: Tobacco industry marketing: a pattern that the vaccine industry follows
Until the 1950s, the tobacco industry funded huge, sophisticated PR campaigns. Seventy years later we know these campaigns were not about fairness, reasonableness, or honesty but were, in fact, built around lies and deception. We see now that the tobacco mega-corporations were not there to prevent harm to the consumer but existed solely to build business empires that would return profits to their shareholders. People were smoking and dying, but no independent researcher had done the research, so nobody knew, and nobody worried. The tobacco companies continued to hire PR firms and multiply their sales and profits. Good for the shareholders and praiseworthy for the boards of directors. But as we shall find out, not good for the consumers. Examples of these now-known-to-be-immoral PR campaigns now follow.
Quote the doctors to sell the cigarettes!
Pictured below: The first cigarette company to use doctors in their ads was American Tobacco, maker of Lucky Strike cigarettes. In 1930 it published an ad claiming “20,679 Physicians say ‘LUCKIES are less irritating” to the throat. To get this number, the company’s ad agency had sent physicians cartons of Lucky Strike cigarettes and a letter asking if they thought Lucky Strikes were “less irritating to sensitive and tender throats than other cigarettes,” while noting “a good many people” had already said they were. Unsurprisingly, many doctors responded positively to this biased, leading question, and Lucky Strike ads used their answers to imply their cigarettes must be medically better for your throat (Ref.)
The survey results quoted in the following ad appeared to “quote the medical experts”. But - since the doctors had never done any clinical or scientific research - they were not experts. They were merely consumers like you and me, who had been tricked into a positive answer by bribery and suggestion.
More doctors smoke camels (so they must be healthy!?)
Pictured below: This exquisitely well worded full-page advertisement was published in 1946. It is part of a collection of 62,104 original tobacco adverts on display at “Stanford University’s Research into Tobacco Advertising” (SRITA). This collection contains 51“doctors smoke camel advertisements”. This advertisement (and the mega-corporation behind it) had nothing to do with honesty or consumer health. It did however have everything to do with growing a business empire with ever-increasing sales and shareholder dividends (these are the things that big public companies care about).
Tobacco mega-corporations exist to grow bigger and return profits to shareholders
Up until the 1950s the tobacco industry funded huge, sophisticated PR campaigns. Seventy years later we know these campaigns were not about fairness, reasonableness, or honesty but were, in fact, built around lies and deception. We know that the tobacco mega-corporations were not there to prevent harm to the consumer, but existed solely to build business empires that would return profits to their shareholders. People were smoking and dying, but nobody was worried. But that changed in 1950…
Mortality in relation to smoking: the British Doctors Study
In 1950 a study was published by Richard Doll and Austin Bradford Hill (English epidemiologist and statistician, 1897–1991) who demonstrated that the risk of lung cancer was related to the number of cigarettes smoked per day (the risk was 25 times higher in those who smoked >25 cigarettes a day than in nonsmokers).
The study was continued for 40 years and more results were published in the 1990’s These results:-
suggested that half of all regular cigarette smokers would eventually be killed by their habit
suggested a relationship between smoking and 12 types of cancer
confirmed the association between smoking habits and many severe diseases (vascular, neoplastic and respiratory diseases)
The study was performed via a questionnaire sent out to 34, 440 doctors. The choice of the doctor’s cohort (a cohort is a group of people followed through time) was brilliant because follow-up of the UK doctors was easy, since they had to update their names on the British Medical Register to continue to work. Moreover, since the doctors had access to high-level medical care, their causes of death were accurately diagnosed and recorded.
Doll and Hill’s work was brilliant and became the pattern for all subsequent questionnaire-based and other statistical health surveys. And furthermore, resulted in the “Bradford Hill criteria of causation”!
The Bradford Hill criteria
“The Bradford Hill criteria, otherwise known as Hill's criteria for causation, are a group of nine principles that can be useful in establishing epidemiologic evidence of a causal relationship between a presumed cause and an observed effect and have been widely used in public health research (Wikipedia)”.
The Bradford Hill criteria are:-
In 1965 English Statistician Sir Bradford Hill gave 9 criteria's to provide epidemiological evidence of a causal relationship between presumed cause and observed effect. The criteria are as follows:
mnemonic- SCST ABCDE
S- Strength of association
C- Consistency
S- Specificity(Most difficult)
T- Temporality(Most important)
A-Analogy
B- Biological Plausibility
C- Coherence
D- Dose-response relationship
E - Experimental evidence
“These criteria are categories of evidence that can be used to infer causality…. …Causality means that we believe that we have identified a causal pathway that is worth acting on” Ref.
Suggestion:
Try searching Google and Yandex for “Bradford hill analysis of smoking injury”
(The search results are broadly similar between these two search engines indicating that neither search engine is censoring the results)Try searching Google and Yandex for “Bradford hill analysis of covid vaccine injury”
(The search results are dissimilar. Since the Yandex results cover a broader range of sources, this suggests that Google has manually curated this search and censored out the results that implicate vaccine harms)
Tobacco industry fights back
So the tobacco industry acknowledged the harm they had done and closed their factories? - No!
The following quote is from: Tobacco Control: Reports on Industry Activity
“Thousands of internal tobacco industry documents released through litigation and whistleblowers reveal the most astonishing systematic corporate deceit of all time”.
“The tobacco industry is still large and thriving, with one billion consumers worldwide”. Read: (Big tobacco targets the young in poor countries – with deadly consequences).
The above shows that the tobacco industry has no interest in protecting the health of individuals and every interest in maintaining a business empire that provides a return to its shareholders. Why would we expect the vaccine industry to be any different?
Part 2: A look at the recent independent research into Covid Vaccine harms
Since most of today’s authorities and institutions are funded by big pharma, finding fully independent research is difficult.
The following are the result of 15 minutes of internet research via Google and Yandex. (There’s plenty more evidence if you want to perform your own search):-
Two-thirds of the American Congress cashed a pharma campaign check in 2020,
The pharmaceutical Industry Provides 75% Of The American FDA's Drug Review Budget,
The drug industry funds patient organisations
Many medical journals have a substantial income from pharmaceutical companies from the purchasing of advertising and reprints and the sponsoring of supplements
Big Pharma Pays Universities for Most Medical Research in U.S. Today
BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, the two largest asset management firms in the world, in combination own a significant share of The New York Times and other legacy media, along with a significant share of Big Pharma. This is a conflict of interest that makes it difficult for newspapers to write anything other than good news stories about vaccines.
So where can we find independent research? Some answers are provided in the following excerpt from an article by The Forgotten Side of Medicine:
Article excerpt from:
“We Now Have A Clear Estimate Of The Rate Of Vaccine Injuries”
I believe one of the greatest weaknesses of Big Business is that our current economic model makes greed nearly unstoppable, and as a result, predatory industries will eventually push too far and cause a critical failure for the industry (e.g., a widespread public revolt against its product). This is very much the case for the pharmaceutical industry, as vaccines represent one of the best growth areas in medicine (due to the corruption within our system, a vaccine can be made for almost anything, absolved from liability, and mandated upon the population).
The vaccine industry has thus not surprisingly pushed and pushed for more and more, which has led to the situation we are seeing today where their conduct was so egregious that the public is revolting against its mandates, and at last, many want to learn the truth about vaccination. At the same time, many people who were recently red-pilled are beside themselves that much of the public cannot see what is going on, whereas I, and colleagues are profoundly grateful that this issue has at long last gone from a fringe political viewpoint to a mainstream political position, something that, to my knowledge, has not happened since the smallpox debacle a century ago.
Covid Vaccine Surveys
Note: the value of the following surveys is that they broadly agree with each other providing similar estimates for the rates of Covid vaccine injuries. The high level of consistency is evidence that they are unbiased and likely to be true estimates.
…[Data from hospitals and government regulatory services are not in agreement with each other, which throws doubt upon their reliability]…
Prior to this week (12th December 2022), I knew of a few polls that had attempted to assess this question.
First survey: four surveys, which Steve Kirsch commissioned
found the following results:
My comment:-
[Suggests that approximately 5-8% of participants required hospital care after vaccination, many of these will have recovered to near normal health, but not all - see start of article].
Second survey: the CDC developed a premier vaccine safety monitoring system,
V-Safe to address the shortcomings of VAERS for the COVID-19 vaccines. After collecting the data, the CDC refused to release it, but was eventually forced to by court order. From this we learned that of the 10,108,273 vaccinated individuals who participated in V-Safe:
•1,225,867 (12.13%) were unable to perform their normal activities.
•1,344,330 (13.3%) missed work or school.
•782,913 (7.7%) required medical care, on average 2.7 times.
My comment:-
…[Agrees with Steve Kirsch’s survey of 5-8% requiring hospital care]…
Third survey (not independent): Israel’s ministry of health surveyed approximately 4000 people that received COVID-19 boosters, of whom 2049 responded.
The survey found:
•0.29% were hospitalized.
•4.5% reported an adverse neurological event.
•3.9% reported signs of an allergic reaction.
•9.6% reported menstrual irregularities (31.1% of whom sought treatment).
… My comment: The Israeli survey reports the results from booster injections only. One has to ask why the Israeli Ministry of Health failed to report vaccine injury after the first injections? - It cannot be due to poor record keeping because the Israelis have a reputation for keeping very good health records. Here is a possible reason:
71% of Israelis got their first shot and of these approximately 8.5% did not return for a second shot, and so did not qualify for a mention in the vaccine injury survey. Perhaps some of them had sustained a vaccine injury and feared the consequences of further vaccinations? I personally know of two healthy young men (New Zealanders), who sustained racing hearts and chest pains after their initial shot and (despite harsh government and employer penalties) did not take further shots. These young men were not against vaccinations, they were merely scared by the possibility of crippling injury and/or death, that might have resulted from a further dose of this particular vaccine. I cannot blame them, and I hope you won’t either. Despite their vaccine scare, both recovered from their chest pains, and despite their not having all their shots, neither of them went on to suffer serious COVID illness.
Additionally, many [in the Israeli survey] reported an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition.
•Heart disease = 5.4%.
•Hypertension = 6.3%.
•Lung disease = 7.0%.
•Diabetes = 9.3%.
•Anxiety disorder or depression = 26.4%.
•Autoimmune disease = 24.2%.
The high rate of autoimmune exacerbations is particularly concerning and mirrors what both I and colleagues have observed, while the high rate of psychiatric exacerbations frequently result in patients being gaslighted and blamed for their own symptoms.
Fourth independent survey
Before we go to the final survey, I would like to share the Rasmussen’s results on this question:
[7% major side effects seems to be in broad agreement with Steve Kirsch’s rate of 5-8% rate of hospitalisation]
For reference, 7% of all currently vaccinated Americans is 12 million people. This is a big deal and I am relatively certain if it had been known at the start that major side effects or death were expected to occur in …[even just]… 1% of the people being given the vaccine, for the majority of those involved, this would have constituted a completely unacceptable risk profile for these products.
Fifth survey: (not an independent one, but independent reviewers assessed the details and made their conclusions): in the Journal of American Medical Association
Paul Marik also recently identified a large study published in JAMA designed to compare Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines where 216,836 Pfizer recipients and 216,836 Moderna vaccine recipients were compared to each other. Although the article understandably did not add up the cumulative incidence of side effects (as that would have prevented its publication), they were kind enough to share the data.
Precisely analysing this data without direct access to the data (like the authors can) is difficult because there are potential reasons for both underestimating and overestimating the incidence of vaccine side effects. However, if we assume:
•All the side effects were reported (under-reporting always occurs with these types of injuries, and it is quite possible that side effects were higher in those who the researchers chose to exclude from the trial so each group could match the other—45.8% of the Moderna recipients and 41.4% of the Pfizer recipients were not analyzed).
•Each of these injuries was drawn from the sample of the combined 433,672 people included in the study (in many cases they came from a smaller sample and thus had an artificially lowered adverse event rate which averaged to only 85.3% of the possible injuries entering the calculation below).
•Each individual was only injured once (most likely some individuals experienced injuries in multiple categories).
That means that 8.5% of recipients of the Pfizer vaccine and 7.9% of those receiving the Moderna vaccine experienced a significant adverse event which they received medical care for, following vaccination. Given that other estimates have found that Moderna has a higher rate of adverse events due to its higher mRNA dose, this highlights that certain inaccuracies may have been present in this estimate. However, it again aligns with the 7% rate of major adverse events, which Rasmussen’s survey found [my comment:- and also Steve Kirsch’s survey - 5 to 8%].
Sixth independent survey
A reader sponsored a detailed survey of 5,000 people at the start of the vaccine rollout (I initially reviewed it 9 months ago), which attempted to estimate the magnitude and type of vaccine injuries they are presently replicating. The 2021 study, unfortunately, never ended up being published, but I was given permission to share it for this article. Interestingly, this survey’s results are also very close to those found by Rasmussen (6% and 38% vs. 7% and 34%, which may be partially explained by Rasmussen’s not having a category for “moderate” symptoms).
Similarly, if you review Kirsch’s surveys listed above you will see that a significant portion of those who were injured had symptoms that were quite severe. Based on all of the above data, I believe the respondents to the Rasmussen poll are not exaggerating what constitutes a major side effect and most of us would agree with each respondent’s assessment of their injury.
For those wishing to further review the previously unpublished survey, it can be found below: Its sponsor invites all who are willing to do an honest analysis of the survey (I believe it has quite a bit of useful data that should have outside eyes look at it). I must also mention that due to the political issue involved with both the sponsor doing the survey and the polling company wishing to remain unnamed (things were much worse in this regard 18 months ago), they are not identified in the survey.
Time to do re-do the risk benefit math?
(My comment):-
Now that herd immunity has reached a high level, and risk of serious COVID illness in young and healthy people is essentially zero, it’s time to re-do the math on the risks and benefits of this controversial procedure.
Most dangerous products in history?
If this data holds (repeated results like those shown here strongly support the accuracy of data), because the vaccines were mandated on the entire population, it makes the vaccines the most dangerous product in history both by the scale of the harm they have caused and because they are perceived as such by the public.
Millions of people being severely injured or killed in each country which pushed these products represents a nearly incalculable legal and financial liability, which helps to explain why these products received a blanket immunity and the government is working so hard not to provide any acknowledgment or compensation for an injury (unless it is labeled as long-haul COVID that did not arise from the vaccine).
I thought about this for a while, and I believe the only other possible contenders for that distinction I could think of were:
•Alcohol or Cigarettes
•The modern opioids that created our opioid epidemic, and opium in the past when it was forced upon an entire country.
•The early widespread usage of mercury in medicine.
•The original smallpox vaccines.
•Toxins in the food or water supply (e.g. high fructose corn syrup or fluoride).
•Lead being used in gasoline.
My assessment of the spike protein vaccines earning this distinction is both due to the large number of harms experienced from the vaccines and because they are recognised as such by those who were harmed (and most importantly, due to the propaganda and mandates associated with their deployment, those injured directly blame the government for what happened).