Recently we posted on the global vaccine industry’s attempt to downplay serious adverse events with its first safety study following the C-19 gene modifying injections. Remember, the ones which actually increase cases, and produce variants, and whose approval trial had more people die in the treatment group, and had a real world efficacy of 0.84 per cent, not the fantastical 95 per cent as widely marketed? The ones most likely to be causing sudden deaths, heart attacks and many other diseases since no authorities are looking at this data let alone refuting it scientifically? The ones for which ALL our talking-head experts have vested interests in promoting, and who many other paid-to-think decision makers have followed, blindly and thoughtlessly, ignoring repeated revelations about contamination, batch variability, and confirmations of the implicit front-loaded danger this ‘safe and effective’ platform was always going to bring?
The CIA coined the term “limited hangout” to describe a partial acknowledgement of truth to gain trust and make people think they are getting the full picture. We note the study’s conclusion: This multi-country analysis confirmed pre-established safety signals for myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. Other potential safety signals that require further investigation were identified.
You don’t say! Except none of them are merely potential at all, as we have informed officials and politicians many times.
Our academic colleague DrLatusDextro has just done a deeper dive into the problems with this thinly disguised PR exercise of a study, fraught with bias and opportunities to deceive and invent, and we reproduce this article from his substack below, with gratitude and respect.
From Drlatusdextro.substack.com
Read: Dr LatusDextro on The 99 Million Study
The study appears predictably appalling in multiple ways. To begin with, it artfully dodges the 1200 listed adverse events of special interest recorded by Pfizer in the, 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) received through 28-FEB-2021. The rank absurdity seen in the selection of, “13 [pre-eminent] conditions,” claimed in the paper to represent an AESI of specific relevance to, “the current landscape of real-world vaccine pharmacovigilance that were selected from the list compiled by the Brighton Collaboration SPEAC Project,” seems beyond belief.
For those unaware, the SPEAC (SAFETY PLATFORM FOR EMERGENCY VACCINES) is funded by the vaccine developer (CEPI) i.e. Gates Foundation and WEF, plus its many partners and investors that include countries like NZ. (Helen Petousis-Harris was a member of the Brighton Collaboration until 2020).
Please read that sentence over again should there appear any difficulty in understanding the multiple conflicts of interest at play.
The chief goal in the scientifically rigorous, many paged SPEAC protocol appears to exclude the causal association of a serious adverse event or death from an experimental “vaccine.” This appears to be implemented by demanding a rigorous reporting regime (as seen in any ethical experimental study with controls) BUT unethically, instead, it couples an experimental novel polynucleotide/lipid nanoparticled vector to USUAL clinical practice (without ‘controls’).
It is therefore designed at the very least to engender massive under-reporting by ensuring a clear and obvious reporting disincentive to clinicians, and by the forced introduction of an experimental intervention into usual clinical practice, which has the double benefit of reducing or eliminating critical thinking and questioning by richly incentivised clinicians.
While seemingly “scientifically” justified by apparently cruel and inhumane individuals, such a dichotomy of ethical standard remains horribly, despicably and irretrievably unethical. The SPEAC protocol is also designed to exclude the risk of a causal association by scrupulously and methodically identifying the presence of the tiniest slither of chance, bias or confounding in any given case of sickness, injury or death. In this paradoxical manner then, a routine clinical practice (actually a running ad hoc uncontrolled experiment) evades close scrutiny while simultaneously claiming rigorous scrutiny.
We can see through a disgusting bathos of “safe and effective” all the way through to a conniving corporate, national and supra-national occlusion that led to the devastating consequences of the monstrous attempt to jab the entire world. The paper is perhaps also a red-flag exemplar of an attempt to re-write history; and the ridiculous title gives it away. People who sell stuff know only too well that ‘99’ is employed as a very persuasive metric.
While keen to avoid circling the drain (aka. move on, nothing new to be seen here), it becomes irresistible to take took a closer look at “COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals” ~ Faksova, K. et al.), because several “concerns” immediately manifested before even troubling to look at the detailed data.
First; the paper was received by Vaccine on 29 January 2024 and astonishingly accepted the following day, 30 January 2024. No revisions were required. For a complex paper with an author line of of 35 named contributors claiming a data base of +99 million vaccinated individuals and a $10.15M funding price tag, one can only say that whatever masqueraded as ‘peer’ review could not have reasonably extended beyond a ticked box? Such it seems, is ‘pal’ review.
Second; the funding sources of the paper revealed an unbelievable concentration of vested interests (that are already well identified and well known by substack readers) harbouring a potential mountain of bias. Indeed, as declared by the paper the chief funding source rests with the US CDC and HHS. The Global COVID Vaccine Safety (GCoVS) project is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award of US$10,108,491 with 100% per cent funded by CDC/HHS.
Third; the 35 study authors make an interesting list as does their ‘Declaration of competing interest,’ … that really implies, ‘conflicts of interest’. Helen Petousis-Harris from the School of Population Health, University of Auckland, and Global Vaccine Data Network, Global Coordinating Centre (GVDN®), Auckland numbers among them. She is listed as a GVDN site lead. She also features in the line-up of the ‘Observed vs. Expected methodological development Work Group’ that was seminal to the methodology of this paper. She reported that financial support was provided by New Zealand Ministry of Health and that she has served on expert advisory boards (for example, the Brighton Collaboration that constructed the SPEAC protocol itself) and had speaking engagements for Pfizer and GSK. She has also received research funding from GSK. On the 24th September 2021, she was absolutely solid in her anti-vaxx hit piece that has fared quite terribly since then, “Covid whoppers: 10 of the biggest vaccine myths debunked” as published by the Otago Daily Times. The piece may now perhaps be described as a literal example of damning disinformation.
Fourth; the Global Vaccine Data Network, Global Coordinating Centre (GVDN®), Auckland NZ is an ensemble that derived its “seed” funding from none other than the Gates Foundation, and they benefit from research grants hosted by UniServices, a corporation owned by University of Auckland, which is just thrilled to declare that it was able to train 29,592 COVID-19 vaccinators. More conflicts of interest?
To reiterate, The Gates Foundation funds the WHO in large part, and launched CEPI with the WEF and Wellcome. These collective interests funded SPEAC … “safety platform”.
Fifth; an endless spigot of money. In April 2021, the GVDN® received significant funding from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for project over three years, entitled Global Covid Vaccine Safety (GCoVS). In August 2022, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention granted additional funding to extend the GCoVS project by another two years and expand the number of sites participating globally. Moreover, funding for New Zealand focused research has also been received from the New Zealand government, from the NZ Ministry of “Health.”
Sixth; this uncontrolled retrospective observational study made no attempt to use a matched control population, (ie. unjabbed people). One might indeed speculate that in the recruitment of unjabbed controls it would perhaps have been construed as an open concession by the NZ government in general, and PM Ardern and her institutionalised WEF sponsors in particular, that they had failed in their brutal and coercive attempt to jab the entire NZ population? …failure is likely a well lit bridge too far for BigPharma and Gates/WEF, funded/influenced academics, and certainly the MSM State propaganda machinery.
Seventh; anticipating the results of a properly controlled and methodologically sound study actually designed to capture death, sickness and injury from the jabs, and founded on an unequivocal and blinded differentiation between jab recipients and unjabbed controls would quite reasonably and predictably have been utterly damning. Whether prospective or retrospective, such a study would have lent an irrefutable causal hurricane across the mountain of recorded injuries and deaths, lent ignition to a litany of predicted physiological, immunological and genetic studies, and exposed all of the deleterious emergent and circumstantially consequential data. But instead, “expected” AESI rates were obtained from participating sites using pre-COVID-19 vaccination healthcare data stratified by age and sex, while “observed” rates were (under ~ see previous SPEAC remarks) reported from the same healthcare datasets since the COVID-19 vaccination program rollout.
Eighth; the statistical dodge was in; purporting to compare apples with apples but instead engineering a statistical justification for furnishing an ‘apples with lemons’ comparison. In other words, a statistical contrivance was used, …lies, damned lies and statistics. For God’s sake, the recipients of the novel synthetic polynucleotide and lipid nanoparticled shots were de novo recipients of de novo multiple shots that were a quintessential embodiment of uncertainty and unpredictable consequences, of something so thoroughly ill- and questionably tested and malevolently imposed that no usual pre-shot AESI routine “expectation” could possibly come close, or predict or reveal the carnage that appeared and will continue to occur. And that was quite intentional. If you didn’t make the 42 day cut-off after a shot, too bad. The majority of people with ‘turbo’ cancers, more slowly developing autoimmune conditions, or neurodegenerative conditions will be omitted, not to mention the legion of bizarre bafflement, those who simply dropped in their boots or in their sleep on day 43 or sometime after that, day 60 or day 100.
Ninth…. finally; the authors have had to concede in print that: “The results from our study should, however, be interpreted considering multiple limitations.”
Indeed, the under reporting appears truly colossal. The Harvard Vaccine Injury Study revealed an actual 1% report rate in VAERS (Principal Investigator: Lazarus, Ross: Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc.); commentary: ‘A Harvard Vaccine Injury Study conducted from 2007 to 2010, reveals on page 6 a fewer than 1% report rate in VAERS’.
The authors of the ‘99 million’ study (Faksova, K. et al.), are again forced to concede that,
‘Potential under reporting across countries may have led to an underestimation of the significance of potential safety signals’.
They appear to display a self-betraying level of disingenuity by downplaying under reporting by using the adjective “potential” when they may likely know or suspect exactly the opposite, or at the very least profess ignorance.
Still, with the US CDC/HHS paymasters to satisfy, the ‘99’ fix seems in for the moment.
So, it’s now down to the punters and their innate sense of survival.
Further Reading on the 99 Million Study:
This article originally appeared on NZDSOS.
