Na veel strijd heeft Centers for Desease Control and Prevention (CDC) in de VS eindelijk moeten toegeven en de cijfers openbaar gemaakt over (ernstige) bijwerkingen, cijfers die ze als organisatie verplicht waren te melden aan het volk, maar wat ze dus lang hebben kunnen tegenhouden. Echter wat ze vrij hebben gegeven is nog uitermate beperkt. (vandaar ook de in de kop geplaatste aanhalingstekens)

In ons land is het wat betreft het openbaren van bijwerkingen die COVID-vaccins hebben gegeven en geven (en nog zullen geven!!) al helemaal huilen met de pet op in het donker: bijwerkingencentrum Lareb dat in ons land de veiligheid van medicijnen en
vaccins in de gaten moet houden is zwaar nalatig geweest met haar rapportage over de COVID-vaccins bijwerkingen(en is dat waarschijnlijk nog steeds)… 

Verder weigert men in Nederland botweg om aan te geven wat de oorzaak is van de enorme oversterfte, dit met een beroep op de privacy van overledenen en nabestaanden, wat normaal geen probleem is daar men de de gegevens altijd anonimiseert…. Ofwel deze zaak stinkt een uur in de wind…..

Ongelofelijk dan ook dat Agens Kant, ex-politicus van de SP, de
topgraaier is van Lareb. Dat een directeur van zo’n instituut
niet uit de politiek moet komen en dat de onafhankelijkheid van zo’n
instituut aan twijfel onderhevig is door totale afhankelijkheid van de overheid (die zeker wat betreft het Coronavirus alle belang had en heeft bij ‘bepaalde uitkomsten van onderzoek’) bleek wel toen de eerste 80 doden
kort na vaccinatie vielen. Volgens Kant waren dat mensen op
leeftijd die aan één of meerdere onderliggende klachten leden…… 

Alsof de meeste 70 plussers niet aan onderliggende fysieke klachten
lijden….. Bovendien zou deze opmerking van Kant ertoe moeten hebben
geleid dat men een stop zou hebben gezet op het vaccineren van ouderen met onderliggende klachten, echter daar was geen sprake van…. 

Voorts heeft Lareb
laten zien niet te zijn berekend op haar taak, daar het zich volkomen
achter de claims van de regering en de farmaceuten plaatste door het
steunen van de leugen die de farmaceuten en de regering plus OMT in de
wereld hielpen dat gevaccineerden het virus niet door konden geven, wat
ook geldt voor de leugen dat gevaccineerden niet besmet konden worden
met het virus….. 

Het kan dan ook niet anders dan dat de eerste leugen, het
niet door kunnen geven van het virus in combinatie met de tweede leugen
het niet besmet kunnen raken van gevaccineerden, tot de dood van een fiks
aantal ouderen moet hebben geleid, zeker de ouderen die vanwege
algehele zwakte niet gevaccineerd werden, immers de gevaccineerde huishoudelijke
hulpen en (thuis) verzorgenden of verpleegkundigen in ziekenhuizen
hebben gegarandeerd het virus met grote regelmaat doorgegeven aan de
ouderen of anderszins zwakkeren……..

Niet vreemd dan ook dat men over Nederland zegt dat op de 3 doden door COVID er 2 zijn te betreuren door vaccinatie……:

Een staatje uit het Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) artikel waarvan ik de link ook onderaan dit bericht bij andere links zal weergeven: ‘The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy‘ Een wat mij betreft behoorlijk verontrustend rapport. (ICRS staat voor: Advancing Science & Education of the Prevention & Treatment of Cartilage Disease Worldwide >> Nederland staat bovenaan dit staatje >> waar een klein land al niet groot in kan zijn!!)

Lees het artikel over de situatie in de VS en trek je conclusies, die wat mij betreft alarmerend zijn, zeker als je bedenkt dat het in de VS voor de Coronacrisis zo was dat elk geneesmiddel en vaccin van de markt werd gehaald als er kort na toediening meer dan 50 doden waren te betreuren…… Eerder was al bekend dat er in de VS van november 2021 tot 18 april 2022 in totaal 19.000 mensen waren overleden, kort nadat ze waren gevaccineerd tegen COVID-19, ofwel toen men dit cijfer door onderzoek vond bleek dat men voor COVID-19 de veiligheidseisen op z’n zachtst gezegd ‘iets heeft opgerekt…..’ ‘Maar ja voor vette winsten van de farmaceutische maffia moet je wat mensenlevens overhebben ja toch….??!!!’ (ik kan dan ook niet anders concluderen dan dat een groot aantal westerse politici onbeschaamd hebben gelobbyd voor die maffia en dat nog steeds doen, gezien de oproepen zich te laten vaccineren…..)

Maar nogmaals: vorm je eigen mening!

(als
je het Engels niet machtig bent, zet dan de tekst in Google translate
dat
je rechts bovenaan deze pagina ziet staan,eerst
om in het Engels door in het menu van google translate op Engels te
klikken, waarna je weer kan klikken op die vertaalapp en je dan
bovenaan in het menu Nederlands ziet staan, klik daarop en de hele
tekst staat in het Nederlands, de vertaling is van een redelijk goede
kwaliteit.)

(On
the top right hand side of this page you can choose for a translation
in the language of your choice: choose ‘Engels’
[english] so you can recognise your own language [the Google
translation is first in dutch, a language most people don’t
understand, while on the other hand most people recognise there
language translated in english])

Het volgende artikel heb ik overgenomen van ZeroHedge:

CDC Finally Releases VAERS Safety Monitoring Analyses For COVID Vaccines

Monday, Jan 09, 2023 – 01:25 PM

Authored by Professor Josh Guetzkow via Jackanapes Junction (some emphasis ours),

SUMMARY

• CDC’s VAERS* safety signal analysis based on reports from Dec. 14, 2020 – July 29, 2022 for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines shows
  clear safety signals for death and a range of highly concerning
  thrombo-embolic, cardiac, neurological, hemorrhagic, hematological,
  immune-system and menstrual adverse events (AEs) among U.S. adults.

• There
  were 770 different types of adverse events that showed safety signals
  in ages 18+, of which over 500 (or 2/3) had a larger safety signal than
  myocarditis/pericarditis.

• The CDC analysis shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000).

• Twice as many mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reports were classified as serious compared to all other vaccines given to adults (11% vs. 5.5%). This meets the CDC definition of a safety signal.

• There are 96 safety signals for 12-17 year-olds,
  which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell’s Palsy, genital
  ulcerations, high blood pressure and heartrate, menstrual
  irregularities, cardiac valve incompetencies, pulmonary embolism,
  cardiac arrhythmias, thromboses, pericardial and pleural effusion,
  appendicitis and perforated appendix, immune thrombocytopenia, chest
  pain, increased troponin levels, being in intensive care, and having
  anticoagulant therapy.

• There are 66 safety signals for 5-11 year-olds,
  which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, ventricular dysfunction and
  cardiac valve incompetencies, pericardial and pleural effusion, chest
  pain, appendicitis & appendectomies, Kawasaki’s disease, menstrual
  irregularities, vitiligo, and vaccine breakthrough infection.

• The
  safety signals cannot be dismissed as due to “stimulated,” exaggerated,
  fraudulent or otherwise artificially inflated reporting, nor can they
  be dismissed due to the huge number of COVID vaccines administered. There
  are several reasons why, but the simplest one is this: the safety
  signal analysis does not depend on the number of reports, but whether or
  not some AEs are reported at a higher rate for these vaccines than for
  other non-COVID vaccines. Other reasons are discussed in the full post
  below.

• In August, 2022, the CDC told the Epoch
  Times that the results of their safety signal analysis “were generally
  consistent with EB [Empirical Bayesian] data mining [conducted by the
  FDA], revealing no additional unexpected safety signals.” So either the
  FDA’s data mining was consistent with the CDC’s method—meaning they
  “generally” found the same large number of highly alarming safety
  signals—or the signals they did find were expected. Or they were lying.
  We may never know because the FDA has refused to release their data mining results.

INTRODUCTION

Finally! Zachary
Stieber at the Epoch Times managed to get the CDC to release the
results of its VAERS safety signal monitoring for COVID-19 vaccines, and
they paint a very alarming picture (see his reporting and the data files here, or if that is behind a paywall then here).
The analyses cover VAERS reports for mRNA COVID vaccines from the
period from the vaccine rollout on December 14, 2020 through to the end
of July, 2022. The CDC admitted
to only having started its safety signal analysis on March 25, 2022
(coincidentally 3 days after a lawyer at Children’s Health Defense wrote
to them reminding them about our FOIA** request for it).

[UPDATE: T Coddington left a link in comments to a website where he made the data in the Excel files more accessible.]

Like
me, you might be wondering why the CDC waited over 15 months before
doing its first safety signal analysis of VAERS, despite having said in a
document posted to its website that it would begin in early
2021—especially since VAERS is touted as our early warning vaccine
safety system. You might also wonder how they could insist all the while
that the COVID-19 vaccines are being subjected to the most rigorous
safety monitoring the world has ever known. I’ll come back to that
later. First I’m going to give a little background information on the
analysis they did (which you can skip if you’re up to speed) and then
describe what they found.

BACKGROUND ON SAFETY SIGNAL ANALYSIS

Back
in June 2022, the CDC replied to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request for the safety signal monitoring of the Vaccine Adverse Events
Reporting System (VAERS)—the one it had said it was going to do weekly
beginning in early 2021. Their response was: we never did it. Then a
little later they said they had been doing it from early on. But by
August, 2022, they had finally gotten their story straight, saying that
they actually did do it, but only from March 25, 2022 through end of
July. You can get up to speed on that here.

The
analysis they were supposed to do uses what’s called proportional
reporting ratios (PRRs). This is a type of disproportionality analysis
commonly used in pharmacovigilance (meaning the monitoring of adverse
events after drugs/vaccines go to market). The basic idea of
disproportionality analysis is to take a new drug and compare it to one
or more existing drugs generally considered safe. We look for
disproportionality in the number of adverse events (AEs) reported for a
specific AE out of the total number of AEs reported (since we generally
don’t know how many people take a given drug). We then compare to
existing drugs considered safe to see if there is a higher proportion of
particular adverse events reported for the new drug compared to
existing ones. (In this case they are looking at vaccines, but they
still use PRR even though they generally have a much better sense of how
many vaccines were administered.)

There are many ways to do disproportionality analysis.
The PRR is one of the oldest. Empirical Bayesian data mining, which was
supposed to be done on VAERS by the FDA, is another. The PRR is
calculated by taking the number of reports for a given adverse event
divided by the total number of events reported for the new vaccine or
the total number of reports. It then divides that by the same ratio for
one or more existing drugs/vaccines considered safe. Here is a simple
formula:

So
for example, if half of all adverse events reported for COVID-19
vaccines and the comparator vaccine(s) are for myocarditis, then the PRR
is 0.5/0.5 = 1. If one quarter of all AEs for the comparator vaccine
are for myocarditis, then the PRR is 0.5/0.25 = 2.

Traditionally,
for a PRR to count as a safety signal, the PRR has to be 2 or greater,
have a Chi-square value of 4 or greater (meaning it is statistically
significant) and there has to be at least 3 events reported for a given
AE. (This also means that if there are tons of different AEs reported
for COVID vaccines that have never been reported for any other vaccine,
it will not count as a safety signal. I found over 6,000 of those in my safety signal analysis from 2021.

Of course a safety signal does not necessarily mean there is a problem or that the vaccine caused the adverse event. But it is supposed to set off alarm bells to prompt closer inspection, as in this CDC pamphlet:

Ah
yes, shared with the public — after first refusing to share the results
and months of foot-dragging following repeated FOIA requests! We will
see that the CDC has not done a more focused study on almost any of
adverse events with “new patterns” (AKA safety signals).

SO WHAT DID THE CDC ACTUALLY DO?

The
Epoch Times obtained 3 weeks of safety signal analyses from the CDC for
VAERS data updated on July 15, 22 and 29, 2022. Here I will focus on
the last one, since there is very little difference between them and it
is more complete. The safety signal analysis compares adverse events1
reported to VAERS for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Dec. 14, 2020 through
July 29, 2022 to reports for all non-COVID vaccines from Jan 1, 2009
through July 29, 2022.

PRRs are calculated separately
for 5-11 year-olds, 12-15 year-olds and 18+ separately. For each age
group, there are separate tables for AEs from all reports, AEs from
reports marked serious and AEs from reports not marked as serious.2 Recall that a serious report
is one that involves death, a life-threatening event, new or prolonged
hospitalization, disability or permanent damage, or a congenital
anomaly. I will focus on the reports for all AE’s.

They
also have a table that calculates PRRs by comparing reports for the
Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to reports for the Moderna vaccine and vice
versa, again for all reports, serious reports only and non-serious
reports. There were no remarkable findings in those tables, so I will
not discuss them. [Edit: I forgot what Norman Fenton noted in his analysis:
the overall proportion of reports with serious adverse events is 9.6%
for Modern compared to 12.6% for Pfizer.] This isn’t that surprising
since both vaccines are very similar and so should present relatively
similar adverse events when compared to each other, and any differences
are likely not large enough to be picked up by a PRR analysis. [Though
the difference in the overall rate of serious adverse events, which are
not specific to a particular type of event only how serious it is, was
significant.]

The CDC seems to have calculated PRRs for
every different type of adverse event reported for all the COVID
vaccines examined – though it’s possible they only analyzed a subset.
What seems clear is that, among the AEs they examined, the only ones
included in the tables satisfy at least one of two conditions: a PRR
value of at least 2 and a Chi-square value of at least 4 (Chi is the
Greek letter χ and is pronounced like ‘kai’). When both conditions were
met, they highlighted the adverse event in yellow, which appears to
indicate a safety signal. There were no COVID vaccine AEs listed with
fewer than 3 reported events, though for non-COVID vaccines there were
many AEs listed that had only 1 or 2 reported since 2009. The CDC tables
still include these and highlight them in yellow when the PRR is
greater than 2 and the Chi-square value is great than 4, indicating
these events are counted as safety signals.

WHAT SAFETY SIGNALS DID THE CDC FIND?

I’m going to divide this up by age groups and the Pfizer v. Moderna comparison. Let’s start with the 18+ group.

There
are 772 AEs that appear on the list. Of these, 770 are marked in yellow
and have PRR and Chi-square values that qualify them as safety signals.
Some of these are new COVID-19 related codes, and we would expect those
to trigger a signal since they didn’t exist in prior years to be
reported by other vaccines. So if we take those off, we are left with 758 different types of non-COVID adverse events that showed safety signals.

I
grouped these 758 safety signals into different categories. The figure
below shows the total number of AEs reported for each of the major
categories of safety signals:

Let’s dig into some of these categories to look at what types of AEs generated the most number of reports:3

You
can peruse the adverse events using the Excel tables provided by the
CDC, which were posted by The Epoch Times and Children’s Health Defense
at the links at the top of this post.

What about The Children?

If
there is anything that looks remotely like a bright spot in all of this
is that the list of safety signals for 12-17 and 5-11 year-olds is much
shorter than for 18+. There are 96 AEs that qualify as a safety signal
for the 12-17 group and 67 for the 5-11. When we take out the new
COVID-era AEs, there are 92 safety signals for 12-17 year-olds and 65 for 5-11 year-olds. Here are the most alarming ones:

I
don’t know why the list of AE’s is so much shorter for these age
groups. It could be that the list of AE’s for other vaccines for these
age groups is much shorter, so in a case where AEs have been reported
for the mRNA COVID vaccines but not for other vaccines, it will not be
counted as a safety signal by definition.

COMPARISONS TO MYOCARDITIS & PERICARDITIS

We
are told that the existence of a safety signal doesn’t necessarily mean
the AE is caused by the vaccine, and I accept that premise. But the
current practice seems to be to ignore safety signals, dismiss them as
noise without any evidence, and stall any investigation into them as
long as possible. The precautionary principle, however, dictates we
should presume that a safety signal indicates causality, until proven
otherwise. Since, it has been acknowledged that the mRNA COVID vaccines
can cause myocarditis and pericarditis (often referred to as
myo-pericarditis), we can take those AEs as a kind of benchmark, and
propose that, at minimum, any AE with a signal of equal or greater size should be considered potentially causal and investigated more thoroughly.4

After
dropping the new COVID-era AEs, there are 503 AEs with PRRs larger than
myocarditis (PRR=3.09) and 552 with PRRs larger than pericarditis
(PRR=2.82).5This means that 66.4% of the AEs had a bigger safety signal than myocarditis and 77.3% were larger than pericarditis. You can see what those were by use this Excel file
provided by the CDC and sorting the 18+ tab by the 12/14-07/29 PRR
column (Column E). Then just look at which AEs have PRRs larger than the
ones for pericarditis and myocarditis.

For 12-17
year-olds, there is 1 safety signal larger than myocarditis (it’s
‘troponin increased’) and 14 safety signals larger than pericarditis
(excluding myocarditis), which include: mitral valve incompetence,
bell’s palsy, heavy menstrual bleeding, genital ulceration, vaccine
breakthrough infection, and a range of indicators of cardiac
abnormalities.

For 5-11 year-olds, the comparison to
myo/pericarditis is less germane, as they seem to suffer less from this
side effect. But we can still make the comparison: there are 7 safety
signals larger than pericarditis, including bell’s palsy, left
ventricular dysfunction, mitral valve incompetence, and ‘drug
ineffective’ (presumably meaning they still got COVID). There are 16
safety signals larger than myocarditis (excluding pericarditis), which
in addition to those listed above also include: pericardial effusion,
diastolic blood pressure increase, tricuspid valve incompetence, and
vitiligo. Sinus tachycardia (high heart rate), appendicitis, and
menstrual disorder come in just below myocarditis.

Now if we
think of a safety signal as having both strength and clarity, then the
PRR can be thought of as an indicator of how strong the signal is, while
the Chi-square is a measure of how clear or unambiguous the signal is,
because it gives us a sense of how likely the signal is due to chance
alone: the larger the Chi-square value, the less likely the signal is
due to chance. A Chi-square of 4 means there is only a 5% chance the
observed signal is due to chance. A Chi-square of 8 means there is only a
0.5% chance of it being due to chance.6

For
the 18+ group, there are 57 AEs with a Chi-square larger than
myocarditis (Chi-square=303.8) and 68 with a Chi-square larger than
pericarditis (Chi-square=229.5). Again, you can see what these are by
going the Excel file linked above and sorting on Column D.

For the
12-17 group, there are 4 AEs with a larger Chi-square than myocarditis
(Chi-square=681.5) and 6 larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=175.4).

For
the 5-11 group, there are 22 AEs with a Chi-square larger than
myocarditis (Chi-square=30.42) and 34 AEs with a Chi-square larger than
pericarditis (Chi-square=18.86).

RESPONDING TO OBJECTIONS

Let’s
dispense with some of the criticisms used to dismiss VAERS data, which
will undoubtedly be raised if you try to bring the CDC’s analysis to
people’s attention.

1. Objection: Anybody can report to
   VAERS. The reports are unreliable. Anti-vaxxers made lots of fraudulent
   reports. Nobody was aware of VAERS in the past, but now they are. So
   many people were afraid of the vaccine so they blamed all their health
   problems on it. Health workers were required by law to report certain
   adverse events, like deaths and anaphylaxis. Etc. Etc.

   All
   of these objections ultimately rely on the notion that VAERS reports for
   COVID-19 vaccines have been artificially inflated over previous years
   for one reason or another. The thing of it is, though, that the CDC has a method for distinguishing between artificial inflation and real signal.
   The idea is simple: if adverse events are artificially inflated, they
   should be artificially inflated to the same degree. Meaning, the PRRs
   for all of these safety signals should be about the same. But even a
   casual glance at the PRRs in the Excel file show they vary widely, from
   as low at 2 to as high as 105 for vaccine breakthrough infection or 74
   for cerebral thrombosis. This method does not on the number of reports,
   but the rate of reporting for certain events out of all events reported.
   If anything, this method would tend to hide safety signals in a situation where a new vaccine generates a very large number of reports.

   The
   CDC has even done us the favor of calculating upper and lower
   confidence intervals, meaning that we can be at least 95% confident that
   two PRRs are truly different if their confidence intervals don’t
   overlap. So for example the lower confidence interval for pulmonary
   thrombosis is 19.7, which is higher than the upper confidence interval
   for 543 other signals. Artificially inflated reporting
   cannot explain why so many different adverse events have large PRRs that
   are statistically distinct from one another.

2. Objection:
   The safety signals are due to the huge number of COVID vaccines given
   out. Never before have we given out so many vaccine doses. By the end of
   July, the US had administered
   something like 600 million vaccine doses to people aged 18+. But the
   CDC analysis compares VAERS reports for these doses to all doses for all
   other vaccines for this age group since Jan. 1, 2009. But from
   2015-2020 there were over 100 million flu doses administered annually to
   this age group alone. In previous work, I estimated 538 million doses
   of flu given to people 18+ from July 2015-June 2020. The number of flu
   and other non-COVID vaccines for this age group administered from Jan
   1., 2009 through July 29, 2022 must be well over double this number,
   meaning VAERS reports for COVID vaccines are being compared to reports for at least double the number of doses for other vaccines.
   In addition to this, as already noted, the PRR methodology does not
   depend, strictly speaking, on the number of doses, but rather the rate
   of reporting of a specific AE out of all AEs for that vaccine.

3. Objection:
   the vaccines are mainly being given to older people who tend to have
   health problems, whereas other vaccines are given to younger people.
   This objection is dealt with, since the analyses are stratified by age
   groups. It might be still be somewhat valid for the 18+ group, except
   that in the safety signal analysis I did in the fall of 2021, I stratified by smaller age bands and still found safety signals.
   In any case, this objection is not enough to dismiss the safety signal
   analysis out of hand, but rather calls for better and more refined
   research.

4. Objection: The VAERS data is not
   verified and cannot be trusted. I’ll be the first person to agree that
   VAERS is not high quality data, but if it is completely untrustworthy, then how is it that the CDC uses these data to publish in the best medical journals such as JAMA*** and The Lancet?
   If the data were worthless, then these journals shouldn’t accept these
   papers. In that JAMA paper, they reported that 80% of the myocarditis
   reports met their definition of myocarditis and were included in the
   analysis. Many other reports simply needed more details for validation.
   Furthermore, the CDC has the ability and budget to follow-up on every
   report VAERS receives to get more details and even medical records to
   verify the report.

   So if myocarditis shows a clear signal
   in the CDC’s analysis, and 80% of those reports were apparently high
   quality enough to be included in a paper published in one of the world’s
   top medical journals, how is it possible that all the rest of the
   reports are junk? That all of the other safety signals are meaningless?
   Answer: it isn’t.

   And since we’re on the topic of safety
   signals that turned out to be real, it’s instructive to find
   appendicitis turn up as a safety signal in all 3 age groups, since a
   study published in NEJM
   based on medical records of over a million adult Israelis found an
   increased risk of appendicitis in the 42 days following Pfizer
   vaccination (but not following a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test). That
   study also found an increase in lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes)
   after vaccination, but not after positive COVID test. Lymphadenopathy
   was another safety signal.

5. And that brings us to
   our last objection to be dispensed with: all of these AEs were due to
   COVID. There was an epidemic and so people were falling ill due to COVID
   and having all of these problems that were then blamed on the vaccine.
   Well to begin with, as we just saw, at least two of them (appendicitis
   and lymphadenopathy) do not appear to have increased risk ratios
   following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and we know that the mRNA vaccines
   increase risk of myo/pericarditis independent of infections. So how can
   we assume the rest of these are and dismiss them with the wave of a
   hand? We can’t. At minimum, they need further investigation.
   Furthermore, in the safety signal analysis I did in 2021, I dropped all
   VAERS reports where any sign of a SARS-CoV-2 exposure or infection was
   indicated on the report, and I still found large, significant safety
   signals.

PUTTING IT ALL INTO PERSPECTIVE

The
Epoch Times article quotes my esteemed colleague and friend, Norman
Fenton, Professor of Risk Management and an world renowned expert in
Bayesian statistical analysis: “from a Bayesian perspective, the
probability that the true rate of the AE of the COVID-19 vaccines is not
higher than that of the non-COVID-19 vaccines is essentially zero…. The
onus is on the regulators to come up with some other causal explanation
for this difference if they wish to claim that the probability a COVID
vaccine AE results in death is not significantly higher than that of
other vaccines.” (See his post on the CDC analysis here.) The same is true for all the safety signals they found.

The
CDC’s VAERS SOP analysis document lists 18 Adverse Events of Special
Interest (AESI) says they are going to pay close attention to. In their 2021 JAMA paper
(and similar presentations to ACIP), the researchers responsible for
analyzing the millions of medical records in the CDC’s Vaccine Safety
Datalink (VSD) using the ‘Rapid Cycle Analysis’ only studied 23
outcomes. A Similar analysis in NEJM from Israeli researchers focused on only 25 outcomes. Compare this to over 700 safety signals
found by the CDC when they finally decided to look—and that’s not even
counting all the adverse events that have never been reported for other
vaccines so cannot ever show a safety signal by definition. How can the
CDC say that these safety signals are meaningless if almost none of them
have been studied any further? And yet we are assured that these
vaccines have undergone the most intensive safety monitoring effort in
history. It’s complete and utter hogwash!

*  *  *

Josh Guetzkow is a senior lecturer at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Subscribe to his Substack here.

1)
To be precise, the ‘adverse events’ are for ‘preferred terms’ (PTs)
which is a type/level of classification used in the Medical Dictionary
for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), which is the classification system
used by VAERS and in other pharmacovigilance systems and clinical
research for coding reported adverse events. Not all preferred terms are
a symptom or adverse event per se. Some refer to a specific diagnostic
test that was done or a treatment that was given.

2) It’s
not entirely clear how they divided these up, since there are clearly
AEs that should be considered serious that don’t show up in the serious
Excel table — though maybe they don’t come up simply because they are
looking within serious reports. I believe that they just filtered the
reports to include only serious reports or non-serious reports, then did
the safety signal analysis on all the AE’s coded in those reports. The
reason I think this is that I used the MedAlerts Wayback Machine,
selected just the serious COVID-19 vaccine reports, and the numbers of
total reports was very close to the one in the table provided by the CDC
(MedAlerts actually had a bit less). The files obtained by the Epoch
Times do not include much in the way of a description as to how the
analyses were done, so I had to infer some details, which might be
incorrect. I will try to note when I am drawing an inference about how
the analysis was done.

3) Generally speaking, these
figures show the top ten AEs in each category. In some cases I combined
AEs that indicated the same thing, such as combining ‘heart rate
irregular’ with ‘arrythmia.’ [UPDATE: Note that the charts of all
categories, cardiac and thrombo-embolic events were updated on Jan 7,
2023. The reason is that I had previously categorized acute myocardial
infarction as a cardiac issue and myocardial infarction as
thrombo-embolic. To be consistent, I have now combined myocardial
infarction and acute myocardial infarction into one AE category in the
thrombo-embolic events (which made the total AEs reported for that
category larger than for pulmonary ones) and then added a different
cardiac AE to the cardiovascular AE category, ventricular extrasystoles,
AKA premature ventricular contraction (PVC), which dependent on
frequency and the presence of other cardiomyopathies is associated with
sudden cardiac arrest.]

4) Note that using the
myo-pericarditis signal as a yardstick doesn’t mean that these are the
only signals that matter. To give one example, anaphylactic reactions
don’t even show up in the list of safety signals, even though that was
one of the very first risk of the vaccine that became apparent from day
one of the vaccine rollout.

One potential objection to
this benchmark is that it is too low of a bar, since myo-pericarditis
appears to disproportionately affect younger men and so a proper safety
signal should be stratified by age and gender then compared with
myocarditis similarly stratified. I agree, and it is the CDC’s job to do
that. But the fact is that any adverse reaction might
disproportionately affect some subgroup of people, in which case the
safety signal for that group would be similarly faint or diluted when we
look at everyone together. So objection overruled.

5) In
their Standard Operation Procedures document, the CDC said they would
combine these and related codes together to assess a safety signal, but
never mind – at least they finally got around to doing something.

6)
In this context, the Chi-square is largely driven by the sheer number
of adverse events: the more adverse events reported, including for the
comparator vaccine, the larger the Chi-square. For example, the PRR for
pericarditis and subdural haematoma is the same (2.82), but there were
1,701 incidents of pericarditis reported for mRNA COVID vaccines versus
221for the comparator vaccines, with Chi-square of 229.5. For subdural
haematoma, these numbers are 162 verus 21, for a Chi-square of 21.2.

=============================================== 

*   VAERS: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, een rapportage van de vaccins bijwerkinjgen analyse dat wordt beheerd door de CDC en de Food and Drug Administration (FDA). De CDC heeft de plicht hier het volk van de VS over voor te lichten, echter zoals het zo vaak gaat in de westerse neoliberale wereld zijn de lijntjes tussen deze overheidsorganisatie en de farmaceutische maffia ‘iets te kort’, ofwel corruptie is aan de orde van de dag……Zie voor de situatie in Nederland nogmaals mijn schrijven hierboven.

—————————————-

**  FOIA: Freedom of Information Act, te vergelijken met onze Wet openbaarheid van bestuur (Wob), deze is per 1 mei 2022 veranderd in: Wet open overheid >> Woo (ha! ha! ha!). Door dit begrip een andere naam te geven heeft men voor de gechiedenis een eind willen maken aan het enorme aantal Wob pogingen, wat de pan al was uitgerezen en dat is geschiedkundig gezien natuurlijk vervelend voor een blaaskaak als VVD aartsleugenaar en disfunctionerend premier Rutte en zijn 4 waardeloze kabinetten….. 

—————————————-

*** JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association.

—————————————-

Zie wat betreft bovenstaand bericht ook: ‘‘All Three Vaccines Are Breaking Through:’ Emails Show Discussion of Vaccine Failure Among Health Officials‘ Van The Epoch Times, een rechts nieuws en actualiteiten platform

‘The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy‘ (!!!!)

—————————————-

Zie voorts: ‘Advies aan Duitse regering: onderzoek naar COVID-vaccins zou gevaarlijk zijn voor de democratie….. ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

‘Viruses – an alternate look‘ ‘A multi-trillion dollar “misunderstanding”‘ Een video vcan Brasscheck TV

‘COVID: China heeft overduidelijk bewezen dat lockdowns niet werken: groepsimmuniteit was en blijft de remedie‘

‘COVID
ondanks alle bewijzen dat de maatregelen niet hebben geholpen blijft
men aandringen op permanente grondwetschendende maatregelen…..‘
Die schandelijke ondemocratische zogenaamd tijdelijke wet is op 3
januari 2023 aangenomen (de wet moet nog wel door de Eerste Kamer en die
hebben gelukkiug geen haast)……. Zie:

‘COVID in USA:
“Moorddadige Hypocrieten”, woede na amnestie pleidooi van en voor
bestuurders die schunnige COVID maatregelen doorvoerden‘

‘Kabinet
Rutte 4 tekent voor digitale EU identificatie terwijl de Tweede Kamer
oppositie in haar geheel tegenstemde en daarvoor een motie indiende…..‘

‘COVID-baan: $ 200.– per dag voor lijken ophalen van mensen die plotseling zijn overleden…..‘

‘COVID: bijwerkingen als dood door vaccinatie ‘zijn gevolg van door anti-vaxxers veroorzaakte stress…..’ ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

‘Vaccinated People Make Up Majority of COVID-19 Deaths: CDC Data‘ In de VS spreekt men niet voor
niets over een pandemie van doden door het COVID vaccin, wat overigens ook elders in het westen zo lijkt te zijn……..

‘COVID vaccinatie: cardiologen komen onafhankelijk tot dezelfde conclusie‘

‘COVID perikelen: FDA stelt nu dat hetzelf nooit het gebruik van ivermectine heeft verboden‘

‘Zijn COVID-vaccinaties gevaarlijk of valt het allemaal wel mee‘ (21 april 2022) Over het onderzoek van McCullough.

‘COVID-19: internist, cardioloog en epidemioloog wijst op gevaar van vaccins‘ (!!!!)

‘COVID-vaccins: officiële CDC data geven aan dat er in de VS meer dan 1,2 miljoen (ook ernstige) bijwerkingen zijn geteld‘

‘Prof. Capel: met mRNA gevaccineerden gaan moeilijke tijden tegemoet‘

‘COVID-19 vaccins en
de bijwerkingen ‘die zijn te verwaarlozen’: een les van Pierre Capel,
emeritus hoogleraar besmettingsleer en immunologie‘ (!!!!)

‘Rijk en regering
wantrouwen burgers: massale controles op personen, plus druk op grote
techbedrijven voor censuur op sociale media…….‘ Censuur
die met de COVID hysterie pas goed op gang kwam, al was ook het meer dan
belachelijke Russiagate verhaal al goed voor censuur op de sociale
media, je weet wel: als zou Rusland de VS presidentsverkiezingen
van 2016 hebben gemanipuleerd, een verhaal dat uit en te na is
doorgeprikt als onzinnig maar nog steeds wordt herhaald door de
reguliere westerse media en het grootste deel van de westerse politici, die zich
hiermee NB schuldig maken aan het verspreiden van fake news (nepnieuws)
en manipulatie, terwijl diezelfde media en politici lopen te schreeuwen
over fake news en manipulatie op de sociale media en daarvoor censuur
eisen, wat intussen al een aantal keren is toegepast…… Te gestoord en vals voor woorden!!

‘Fauci (farma lobbyist) gooit met bagger naar auteurs van de Great Barrington Declaration‘ en zie wat dat bericht betreft ook:

‘COVID-19: het bewijs voor Fauci’s oorlog tegen de wetenschap‘ Zie wat dat betreft ook: 

‘Great Barrington Declaration tegen overmatige en zelfs gevaarlijke Coronamaatregelen‘ 

‘COVID-19: Duitsland en de verplichte vaccinatie van verplegend personeel‘

‘44 Studies on Vaccine Efficacy That Raise Doubts on Vaccine Mandates‘

‘Klinisch onderzoek Pfizer: het vaccin doodde meer mensen dan de placebo‘ (!!!!)

‘Aantal COVID-doden in VS en GB zwaar gemanipuleerd‘ (!!!!)

‘COVID-maatregelen: een open brief aan Ernst Kuipers‘ (!!!!)

‘Aartsbisschop Carlo Maria Figanò: “Twee jaar lang zijn we nu getuige van een globale staatsgreep”‘
(door de Coronamaatregelen) Overigens onbegrijpelijk dat deze
aartsbisschop zich in de bijgevoegde video alleen tot katholieken
richt……

‘COVID-19: onderzoeken bevestigen dat natuurlijke verkregen immuniteit meer dan voldoende is‘ (!!!!) Op 15 februari 2022, werd bekendgemaakt dat natuurlijke
immuniteit veel langer standhoudt dan die middels een vaccin verkregen
en dat niet misselijk: volgens onderzoekers in Italië zelfs 18 maanden!! >> ‘Natural Immunity Lasts for at Least 18 Months: Study‘ En wat
heeft Nederland gedaan?Juist, die periode van natuurlijke immuniteit
teruggebracht naar een half jaar!! Gelukkig zijn we voorlopig af van die
belachelijke beslissing!!

‘Coronavirus heeft ervoor gezorgd dat de Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie haar definitie van collectieve immuniteit heeft veranderd‘ (schande!!)

‘COVID-19:
Gezondheidsraad houdt zich niet aan de regels van de Raad van Europa:
discriminatie van niet-gevaccineerden is verboden‘ (!!!!)

‘Besmette gevaccineerden houden ‘gewoon’ toegang tot openbare gelegenheden‘(!!!!)

‘Coronavirus:
Diederik Gommers (IC arts) zou het mooi vinden dat mensen worden
ingeënt met het AZ vaccin nadat ze tekenden voor het risico dat ze
lopen…..‘ Dan te bedenken dat zelfs de farmaceuten hun eigen vaccin niet vertrouwen, zie wat dat betreft:

‘Coronavaccinatie ook als je weet dat de fabrikant ernstige bijwerkingen niet uitsluit?‘ En zie:

‘Coronavaccinatie
in vergelijking met het kopen van een huis (waar farmaceuten elke
verantwoordelijkheid voor bijwerkingen afwijzen!!)‘  (en zie de links in dat bericht)

‘Coronavirus: paniek over de Deltavariant is onterecht en zwaar overdreven‘ (!!!!)
En zie de links in dat bericht naar artikelen over de PCR test en de
bezuinigingen op de gezondheidszorg >> die bezuinigingen zijn de
reden voor de
Coronamaatregelen, die werden immers genomen daar er te weinig
ziekenhuisbedden, IC bedden en verpleegkundigen waren. Zoals ook in het bericht hierboven al gemeld: het aantal
verpleegkundigen is als de bedden sterk teruggelopen door wanbeleid van
de afbraakkabinetten Rutte 1, 2 en 3….. Zo waren er bij aantreden van
Rutte 1 nog 2.200 IC bedden, dat was bij aanvang van de Coronacrisis
teruggebracht naar 1.100 bedden….. Dus als je sterk bent
benadeeld door de Coronamaatregelen, weet je wie hiervoor
verantwoordelijk zijn!! Zie wat betreft dat bericht ook: ‘Coronavirus: artsen willen via rechtszaak tegen de staat COVID-19 van A-lijst krijgen, daar het een griepvirus zou zijn (!!!!) ‘De video die oorspronkelijk in het artikel was te zien is
gecensureerd, tja je wilt natuurlijk niet dat de bevolking begrijpt
hoezeer men werd en wordt belazerd……

‘Met COVID-19 besmette zorgmedewerkers mogen ondanks symptomen gewoon doorwerken…….‘ (!!!!)

‘Coronavirus: Fort Detrick eindelijk als verdachte van oorsprong aangemerkt‘ (!!!!)

‘Vaccinatie tegen Spaanse Griep: miljoenen doden‘