A paper published just a week ago that strongly implied a far greater risk profile to the COVID-19 vaccine than was being disclosed as advertised by governments and vaccine manufacturers has been retracted after an outcry from members of the journals editorial board. The journal, Vaccines, is one of the major industry platforms. Members of the editorial board who were involved in the peer review were not among the outraged. Other members of the editorial board – with very likely strong financial relationships with the vaccine industry – where the offended. 2 of them “resigned in protest”.  The major claims against the paper focused on liberties taken with the vaccine reporting system and the validity of who was or who was not documenting the adverse events.

The authors, however, despite being forced into the retraction, aptly defended their study and conclusions.  They acknowledge that causality — between the adverse event and the administration of the vaccine — is problematic.  They said as much in the paper that this was “association”.  However, like the man said, “If it weren’t for double standards you would have no standards at all.”  In plainer language:  there has been far worse scientific impropriety claiming causality in fatalities as a consequence of the SARS-CoV2 virus. Only rarely – by some estimates ~ 7% – has there actually been any autopsy or focused medical opinion on causality in those claims. In other words, upwards of 90% or more of people who were considered fatalities as a result of SARS-CoV2 probably died “with” the virus rather than “from” the virus. That is also even more compounded by the fact that many of those “cases” used PCR technology with amplification rates far above the recommended 24. This yields a false positive result in almost 80% of “cases”. So, you can’t have it both ways. These authors state as much, but the retraction outrage was already a fait accompli. Apparently, a very prominent epidemiologist from Brown University, Andrew Bostom, has already spoken out against the retraction. “The vaccine-related deaths are as causally related as CV 19 deaths which allow for any positive test within 30-60 days of death from any cause to be tallied as a CV 19 death”.

Also, people at the University of London and Massey University in New Zealand collaboratively found that they could rule out vaccination reaction, as it were, in associated vaccine deaths in only 14% of those reported adverse reactions. “Contrary to claims that most of these reports are made by laypeople and are hence clinically unreliable, we identified health service employees as the reporter in at least 67%.”
So now we have “Retraction Wars”.  This is starting to sound like that New York Times editor who had the audacity to allow Sen. Tom Cotton to publish an editorial authorizing the use of Federal authorities and even military personnel in the support of overwhelmed urban police forces in June 2020.  How did that work out?

1 Comment on COVID 19 vaccine risks vs benefits (update)…

  1. I have NOT received the vaccine yet, but I HAVE purchased the Babylon Bee t-shirt: “I identify as vaccinated.” I think that’s a good first step.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *