By Bharat Dogra*
Excessively high adverse impacts of COVID-19 vaccines, as reported in several countries, have led to an intense debate on this subject. It is important to note that such high adverse impacts have been reported mostly in those countries, such as the USA and some European countries, which have relatively much better systems of recording such adverse impacts.
In the context of this debate a peer-reviewed research paper published in late January 2024 has attracted a lot of attention. This has been published in Cureus-Journal of Medical Science which has been described as a “web-based peer-reviewed open access general medical journal.”
This paper is titled ‘COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign’. This paper has been authored by M. Nathaniel Mead, Stephanie Seneff, Russ Wolfinger, Jessica Ruse, Kris Denhaernck, Steve Kirsh and Peter A. McCullough.
The authors state, “Our understanding of COVID-19 vaccinations and their impact on health and mortality has evolved substantially since the first vaccine rollouts. Published reports from the original randomized phase 3 trials concluded that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could greatly reduce COVID-19 symptoms. In the interim, problems with the methods, execution, and reporting of these pivotal trials have emerged.
“Re-analysis of the Pfizer trial data identified statistically significant increases in serious adverse events (SAEs) in the vaccine group. Numerous SAEs were identified following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), including death, cancer, cardiac events, and various autoimmune, hematological, reproductive, and neurological disorders.”
In addition, the paper says, “Furthermore, these products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing in accordance with previously established scientific standards. Among the other major topics addressed in this narrative review are the published analyses of serious harms to humans, quality control issues and process-related impurities, mechanisms underlying adverse events (AEs), the immunologic basis for vaccine inefficacy, and concerning mortality trends based on the registrational trial data."
Excessively high adverse impacts of COVID-19 vaccines, as reported in several countries, have led to an intense debate on this subject. It is important to note that such high adverse impacts have been reported mostly in those countries, such as the USA and some European countries, which have relatively much better systems of recording such adverse impacts.
In the context of this debate a peer-reviewed research paper published in late January 2024 has attracted a lot of attention. This has been published in Cureus-Journal of Medical Science which has been described as a “web-based peer-reviewed open access general medical journal.”
This paper is titled ‘COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign’. This paper has been authored by M. Nathaniel Mead, Stephanie Seneff, Russ Wolfinger, Jessica Ruse, Kris Denhaernck, Steve Kirsh and Peter A. McCullough.
The authors state, “Our understanding of COVID-19 vaccinations and their impact on health and mortality has evolved substantially since the first vaccine rollouts. Published reports from the original randomized phase 3 trials concluded that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could greatly reduce COVID-19 symptoms. In the interim, problems with the methods, execution, and reporting of these pivotal trials have emerged.
“Re-analysis of the Pfizer trial data identified statistically significant increases in serious adverse events (SAEs) in the vaccine group. Numerous SAEs were identified following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), including death, cancer, cardiac events, and various autoimmune, hematological, reproductive, and neurological disorders.”
In addition, the paper says, “Furthermore, these products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing in accordance with previously established scientific standards. Among the other major topics addressed in this narrative review are the published analyses of serious harms to humans, quality control issues and process-related impurities, mechanisms underlying adverse events (AEs), the immunologic basis for vaccine inefficacy, and concerning mortality trends based on the registrational trial data."
USA and some European countries have relatively much better systems of recording adverse impacts of Covid vaccines
“The risk-benefit imbalance substantiated by the evidence to date contraindicates further booster injections and suggests that, at a minimum, the mRNA injections should be removed from the childhood immunization program until proper safety and toxicological studies are conducted. Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits.”
The authors of this paper recommend, “Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are addressed.”
In view of the very serious implications of what this paper states, as well as the fact that what it has stated is supported by a lot of scattered but important evidence, this paper as well as its recommendation deserves wide attention, of people, medical personnel and public health authorities.
---
*Honorary convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include “Protecting Earth for Children”, “Planet in Peril” and “A Day in 2071”
The authors of this paper recommend, “Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are addressed.”
In view of the very serious implications of what this paper states, as well as the fact that what it has stated is supported by a lot of scattered but important evidence, this paper as well as its recommendation deserves wide attention, of people, medical personnel and public health authorities.
---
*Honorary convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include “Protecting Earth for Children”, “Planet in Peril” and “A Day in 2071”
Comments