COVID Jab Is Far More Dangerous Than Advertised. And that's for those over the age of 65.
By Billion Photos/Shutterstock
The Epoch Times - BY JOSEPH MERCOLA - APRIL 4, 2022
(One-year-old article)
October 26, 2021, Global Research published an interview with Dr. Peter McCullough, in which he reviews and explains the findings of a September 2021 study published in the journal Toxicology Reports.
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
- According to a September 2021 analysis, based on conservative, best-case scenarios, the COVID shots have killed five times more seniors (65+) than the infection
- In younger people and children, the risk associated with the COVID shot, compared to the risk of COVID-19, is bound to be even more pronounced
- Data show higher vaccination rates do not translate into lower COVID-19 case rates
- 50% of reported deaths after COVID-19 âvaccinationâ occur within 24 hours; 80% occur within the first week. According to one report, 86% of deaths have no other explanation aside from a vaccine adverse event. A Scandinavian study concluded about 40% of post-jab deaths among seniors in assisted living homes are directly due to the injection
The study in the journal Toxicology Reports, states: (1)
âA novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there is five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic.
The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.â
âA novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there is five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic.
The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.â
McCullough has impeccable academic credentials. Heâs an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and a full professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas. He also has a masterâs degree in public health and is known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the United States, in addition to being the editor of two medical journals.
Authors Defend Their Paper
Not surprisingly, the Toxicology Reports paper has received scathing critique from certain quarters. Still, the corresponding author Ronald Kostoff told Retraction Watch that the criticism has actually been âan extremely small fractionâ of the overall response, which by and large has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive. Kostoff went on to say: (2)
âGiven the blatant censorship of the mainstream media and social media, only one side of the COVID-19 âvaccineâ narrative is reaching the public. Any questioning of the narrative is met with the harshest response âŚ
I went into this with my eyes wide open, determined to identify the truth, irrespective of where it fell. I could not stand idly by while the least vulnerable to serious COVID-19 consequences were injected with substances of unknown mid and long-term safety.
We published a best-case scenario. The real-world situation is far worse than our best-case scenario, and could be the subject of a future paper.
What these results show is that we 1) instituted mass inoculations of an inadequately-tested toxic substance with 2) non-negligible attendant crippling and lethal results to 3) potentially prevent a relatively small number of true COVID-19 deaths. In other words, we used a howitzer where an accurate rifle would have sufficed!â
COVID Jab Campaign Has Had No Discernible Impact
Certainly, data very clearly show the mass âvaccinationâ campaign has not had a discernible impact on global death rates. On the contrary, in some cases, the death toll shot up after the COVID shots became widely available. You can browse through covid19.healthdata.org (3) to see this for yourself. Several examples are also included at the very beginning of the video.
This trend has also been confirmed in a September 2021 study(4) published in the European Journal of Epidemiology. It found COVID-19 case rates are completely unrelated to vaccination rates.
Using data available as of September 3, 2021, from Our World in Data for cross-country analysis, and the White House COVID-19 Team data for U.S. counties, the researchers investigated the relationship between new COVID-19 cases and the percentage of the population that had been fully vaccinated.
Sixty-eight countries were included. Inclusion criteria included second dose vaccine data, COVID-19 case data, and population data as of September 3, 2021. They then computed the COVID-19 cases per 1 million people for each country- and calculated the percentage of the population that was fully vaccinated.
According to the authors, there was âno discernable relationship between the percentage of the population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last seven days.â If anything, higher vaccination rates were associated with a slight increase in cases. According to the authors: (5)
â[T]he trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.â
The Kostoff Analysis
Getting back to the Toxicology Reports paper, (6) which is being referred to as âthe Kostoff analysis,â McCullough says the analysis is definitely making news in clinical medicine. The paper focuses on two factors: assumptions and determinism.
Determinism describes how likely something is. For example, if a person takes a COVID shot, itâs 100% certain they got the injection. Itâs not 50% or 75%. Itâs an absolute certainty. As a result, that person has a 100% chance of being exposed to whatever risk is associated with that shot.
On the other hand, if a person says no to the injection, itâs not a 100% chance theyâll get COVID-19, let alone die from it. You have a less than 1% chance of being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and getting sick. So, itâs 100% deterministic that taking the shot exposes you to the risks of the shot, and less than 1% deterministic that youâll get COVID if you donât take the shot.
The other part of the equation is the assumptions, which are based on calculations using available data, such as pre-COVID death statistics and death reports filed with the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reports System (VAERS).
Mortality Data
As noted by McCullough, two reports have detailed COVID jab death data, showing that 50% of deaths occur within 24 hours and 80% occur within the first week. In one of these reports, 86% of deaths were found to have no other explanation aside from a vaccine adverse event. McCullough also cites a Scandinavian study that concluded about 40% of post-jab deaths among seniors in assisted living homes are directly due to the injection. He also cites other eye-opening figures:
- The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports having more than 30,000 spontaneous reports of either hospitalizations and/or deaths among the fully vaccinated
- Data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services show 300,000 vaccinated CMS recipients have been hospitalized with breakthrough infections
- 60% of seniors over age 65 hospitalized for COVID-19 have been vaccinated
COVID Shots Are âFailing Wholesaleâ
âWhen we put all these data together, we have clear-cut science that the vaccines are failing wholesale,â McCullough says. The shots are particularly useless in seniors.
Again, based on a best-case conservative scenario, seniors are five times more likely to die from the shot than they are from a natural infection. This scenario includes the assumption that the PCR test is accurate and reported COVID deaths were in fact due to COVID-19, which we know is not the case- and the assumption that the shots actually prevent death, which we have no proof of.
All things considered, you are FAR better off taking your chances with the natural infection, as McCullough says. The Kostoff analysis also does not take into account the fact that there are safe and effective treatments.
It bases its assumptions on the notion that there arenât any. It also doesnât factor in the fact that the COVID shots are utterly ineffective against the Delta and other variants. If you take into account vaccine failure against variants and alternative treatments, it skews the analysis even further toward natural infection being the safest alternative.
FDA and CDC Should Not Run Vaccine Programs
While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the CDC claim not a single death following COVID inoculation was caused by the shot, they should not be the ones making that determination, as they are both sponsoring the vaccination campaign.
They have an inherent bias. When you conduct a trial, you would never allow the sponsor to tell you whether the product was the cause of death, because you know theyâre biased.
âWe have actually fulfilled all of the Bradford Hill criteria. Iâll tell you right now that the COVID-19 vaccine is, from an epidemiological perspective, causing these deaths or a large fraction.â ~ Dr. Peter McCullough
What we need is an external group, a critical event committee, to analyze the deaths being reported, as well as a data safety monitoring board. These should have been in place from the start, but were not.
Had they been, the program would most likely have been halted in February, as by then the number of reported deaths, 186, already exceeded the tolerable threshold of about 150 (based on the number of injections given). Now, weâre well over 17,000. (7) Thereâs no normal circumstance under which that would ever be allowed.
âThe CDC and FDA are running the [vaccination] program. They are NOT the people who typically run vaccine programs,â McCullough says. âThe drug companies run vaccine programs.
When Pfizer, Moderna, J&J ran their randomized trials, we didnât have any problems. They had good safety oversight. They had data safety monitoring boards. The did OK. I mean I have to give the drug companies [credit].
But the drug companies are now just the suppliers of the vaccine. Our government agencies are now just running the program. Thereâs no external advisory committee. Thereâs no data safety monitoring board. Thereâs no human ethics committee. NO one is watching out for this!
And so, the CDC and FDA pretty clearly have their marching orders: âExecute this program; the vaccine is safe and effective.â Theyâre giving no reports to Americans. No safety reports. We needed those once a month. They havenât told doctors which is the best vaccine, which is the safest vaccine.
They havenât told us what groups are to watch out for. How to mitigate risks. Maybe there are drug interactions. Maybe itâs people with prior blood clotting problems or diabetes. Theyâre not telling us anything!
They literally are blindsiding us, and with no transparency, and Americans now are scared to death. You can feel the tension in America. People are walking off the job. They donât want to lose their jobs, but they donât want to die of the vaccine! Itâs very clear. They say, âListen, I donât want to die. Thatâs the reason Iâm not taking the vaccine.â Itâs just that clear.â
Bradford Hill Criteria Are Met â COVID Jabs Cause Death
McCullough goes on to explain the Bradford Hill criterion for causation, which is one of the ways by which we can actually determine that, yes, the shots are indeed killing people. Weâre not dealing with coincidence.
âThe first question weâd ask is: âDoes the vaccine have a mechanism of action, a biological mechanism of action, that can actually kill a human being?â And the answer is yes! because the vaccines all use genetic mechanisms to trick the body into making the lethal spike protein of the virus.
It is very conceivable that some people take up too much messenger RNA; they produce a lethal spike protein in sensitive organs like the brain or the heart or elsewhere. The spike protein damages blood vessels, damages organs, causes blood clots. So, itâs well within the mechanism of action that the vaccine could be fatal.
Someone could have a fatal blood clot. They could have fatal myocarditis. The FDA has official warnings of myocarditis. They have warnings on blood clots. They have warnings on a fatal neurologic condition called Guillain-BarrĂŠ syndrome. So, the FDA warnings, the mechanism of action, clearly say itâs possible.
The second criteria is: âIs it a large effect?â And the answer is yes! This is not a subtle thing. Itâs not 151 versus 149 deaths. This is 15,000 deaths. So, itâs a very large effect size, a large effect.
The third [criteria] is: âIs it internally consistent?â Are you seeing other things that could potentially be fatal in VAERS? Yes! Weâre seeing heart attacks. Weâre seeing strokes. Weâre seeing myocarditis. Weâre seeing blood clots, and what have you. So, itâs internally consistent.
âIs it externally consistent?â Thatâs the next criteria. Well, if you look in the MHRA, the yellow card system in England, the exact same thing has been found. In the EudraVigilance system in [Europe] the exact same thingâs been found.
So, we have actually fulfilled all of the Bradford Hill criteria. Iâll tell you right now that COVID-19 vaccine is, from an epidemiological perspective, causing these deaths or a large fraction.â
Zero Tolerance for Elective Drugs Causing Death
There may be cases in which a high risk of death from a drug might be acceptable. If you have a terminal incurable disease, for example, you may be willing to experiment and take your chances. Under normal circumstances, however, lethal drugs are not tolerated.
After five suspected deaths, a drug will receive a black box warning. At 50 deaths, it will be removed from the market. Considering COVID-19 has a less than 1% risk of death across age groups, the tolerance for a deadly remedy is infinitesimal. At over 17,000 reported deaths, which in real numbers may exceed 212,000,(8) the COVID shots far surpass any reasonable risk to protect against symptomatic COVID-19. As noted by McCullough:
âThere is zero tolerance for electively taking a drug or a new vaccine and then dying! Thereâs zero tolerance for that. People donât weigh it out and say, âOh well, Iâll take my chances and die.â And I can tell you, the word got out about vaccines causing death in early April [2021], and by mid-April the vaccination rates in the United States plummeted âŚ
We hadnât gotten anywhere near our goals. Remember, President Biden set a goal [of 70% vaccination rate] by July 1. We never got there because Americans were frightened by their relatives, people in their churches and their schools dying after the vaccine.
They had heard about it, they saw it. There was an informal internet survey done several months ago, where 12% of Americans knew somebody who had died after the vaccine.
Iâm a doctor. Iâm an internist and cardiologist. I just came from the hospital ⌠I had a woman die of the COVID-19 vaccine ⌠She had shot No. 1. She had shot No. 2. After shot No. 2, she developed blood clots throughout her body. She required hospitalization. She required intravenous blood thinners. She was ravaged. She had neurologic damage.
After that hospitalization, she was in a walker. She came to my office. I checked for more blood clots. I found more blood clots. I put her back on blood thinners. I saw her about a month later. She seemed like she was a little better. Family was really concerned. The next month I got called by the Dallas Coroner office saying sheâs found dead at home.
Most of us donât have any problem with vaccines; 98% of Americans take all the vaccines ⌠I think most people who are still susceptible would take a COVID vaccine if they knew they werenât going to die of it or be injured. And because of these giant safety concerns, and the lack of transparency, weâre at an impasse.
Weâve got a very labor-constrained market. Weâve got people walking off the job. Weâve got planes that arenât going to fly, and itâs all because our agencies are not being transparent and honest with America about vaccine safety.â
Early Treatment Is Crucial, Vaxxed or Not
As noted by McCullough, the vast majority of patients require hospitalization for COVID-19 is because theyâve not received any treatment and the infection has been allowed free reign for days on end.
âTo this day, the patients who get hospitalized are largely those who receive no early care at home,â he says. âTheyâre either denied care or they donât know about it, and they end up dying.
The vast majority of people who die, die in the hospital; they donât die at home. And the reason why they end up in the hospital, itâs typically two weeks of lack of treatment. You canât let a fatal illness brew for two weeks at home with no treatment, and then start treatment very late in the hospital. Itâs not going to work.
Thereâs been a very good set of analyses, one in the Journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases ⌠that showed, day by day, one loses the opportunity of reducing the hospitalization when monoclonal antibodies are delayed ⌠No doctor should be considered a renegade when they order FDA [emergency use authorized] monoclonal antibody. The monoclonal antibodies are just as approved as the vaccines.
I just had a patient over the weekend, fully vaccinated, took the booster. A month after the booster she went on a trip to Dubai. She just came back, and she got COVID-19! ⌠I got her a monoclonal antibody infusion that day. [The following day] she started the sequence of multidrug therapy for COVID-19. I am telling you, she is going to get through this illness in a few days âŚ
Podcaster Joe Rogan just went through this. Governor Abbott was also a vaccine failure. He went through it. Former President Trump went through it. Americans should see the use of monoclonal antibodies in high risk patients, followed by drugs in an oral sequenced approach. This is standard of care!
It is supported by the Association of Physicians and Surgeons, the Truth for Health Foundation, the American Front Line Doctors, and the Front Line Critical Care Consortium. This is not renegade medicine. This is what patients should have. This is the correct thing! âŚ
If we canât get the monoclonal antibodies, we certainly use hydroxychloroquine, supported by over 250 studies, ivermectin, supported by over 60 studies, combined with azithromycin or doxycycline, inhaled budesonide ⌠full-dose aspirin ⌠nutraceuticals including zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin, NAC ⌠we do oral and nasal decontamination with povidone-iodine.
In acutely sick patients we do it every four hours, [and it] massively reduces the viral load ⌠Fortunately, we have enough doctors now and enough patient awareness, patients who ⌠understand that early treatment is viable, is necessary, and it should be executed.â
Originally published Nov 18, 2021, on Mercola.com
References
(1) Toxicology Reports September 2021; 8: 1665-1684
(2) Retraction Watch October 4, 2021
(4) European Journal of Epidemiology September 30, 2021
(5) European Journal of Epidemiology September 30, 2021
(6) Toxicology Reports September 2021; 8: 1665-1684
(7) OpenVAERS Data as of October 15, 2021
(8) SKirsch.io/vaccine-resources
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times
Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder of Mercola.com. An osteopathic physician, best-selling author, and recipient of multiple awards in the field of natural health, his primary vision is to change the modern health paradigm by providing people with a valuable resource to help them take control of their health.
Numerous Health Problems More Likely Due to COVID-19 Vaccines Than Coincidence: VAERS Data Analysis
By Petr Svab April 3, 2022, Updated: April 4, 2022
COPYRIGHTS
Copy & Paste the link above for Yandex translation to Norwegian.
WHO and WHAT is behind it all ? : >
The bottom line is for the people to regain their original, moral principles, which have intentionally been watered out over the past generations by our press, TV, and other media owned by the Illuminati/Bilderberger Group, corrupting our morals by making misbehavior acceptable to our society. Only in this way shall we conquer this oncoming wave of evil.
Commentary:
Administrator
HUMAN SYNTHESIS
All articles contained in Human-Synthesis are freely available and collected from the Internet. The interpretation of the contents is left to the readers and do not necessarily represent the views of the Administrator. Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). Human-Synthesis will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. Human-Synthesis grants permission to cross-post original Human-Synthesis articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified