Largest multicountry COVID study links vaccines to potential adverse effects
A new study on COVID-19 vaccines that looked at nearly 100 million vaccinated individuals affirmed the vaccines’ previously observed links to increased risks for certain adverse effects including myocarditis and Guillain-Barré syndrome.
We just need to forgive each other and give ourselves permission to forgive ourselves, too. Mistakes were made on all sides and we all just wanted what’s best for everyone. Those who can’t forgive others for decisions which were made on the basis of the best science available at the time are clinging to their bitterness and need to be watched lest their hatred erupt into terroristic violence.
- Entries
LOL
As us Southerners stated just after the War of Northern Aggression, “Never Forgive, Never Forget”.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Okay, sure.
‘Cuz there was nothing terroristic about threatening people with the loss of their jobs, careers, and impending starvation if they didn’t knuckle under and get The Jab.
Nosiree.
No terrorism there, you betcha.
Fuck those motherfuckers.
Hunt them all down and cut their heads off – slowly, with tree saws, while they scream – and stuff their severed dicks in their mouths afterwards, for good measure.
Then burn the corpses in a pile, and stack the skulls in monuments to the inevitable reward for tyranny and mass slaughter in the name of “science” and “necessity”, and obliterate all mention of them from subsequent history.
Brand a “T” on the forehead of everyone who cheered them on, to carry in public for the rest of their lives.
Then we can “forgive and forget”.
Pinky swear. No hard feelings after that.
It’s a good start…
That’s about the most worthless article I’ve read. No link to the actual study. They start by stating a covid infection will cause these outcomes at a higher rate than the shots do. Oh really? Was there a control group that didn’t take the shots but got Covid? Had to read read all the way to the bottom to find they got funding from pharmaceutical companies. Nothing like a conflict of interest.
addendum to Mike:
nothing says “Trust the Science” like preventing legal remedies for those with unquestionable injuries arising from the clot shot
Here’s a link to the article: https://www.cureus.com/articles/203052-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-lessons-learned-from-the-registrational-trials-and-global-vaccination-campaign#!/
I’d hit the pdf icon to the right at the top of the article and download it, as it is apparently due to be retracted soon – by the journal, not the authors:
“A journal is retracting a paper on the purported harms of vaccines against COVID-19 written in part by authors who have had similar work retracted before.
The article, “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign,” appeared late last month in Cureus, which used to be a stand-alone journal but is now owned by Springer Nature. (It has appeared frequently in these pages.)
Graham Parker, Director of Publishing and Customer Success at Cureus, told Retraction Watch:
I can confirm we will be retracting it by the end of the week, as we have provided the authors with a deadline to reply and indicate whether they agree or disagree with the retraction.
The senior author on the work was Peter McCullough, a cardiologist at the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge who lost his board certification after the American Board of Internal Medicine found he had “provided false or inaccurate medical information to the public.”
Indeed, McCullough had already lost one paper, in Current Problems in Cardiology, from Elsevier, when he and his colleagues submitted their latest opus to Cureus. And SSRN, which hosts preprints for The Lancet, another Elsevier journal, had removed work by him and colleagues claiming large numbers of deaths from COVID-19 vaccines.
A few days after the paper appeared, we asked John Adler Jr., the editor in chief of Cureus, if the track record of the authors concerned him. His response seemed to admit to the risk, but he also defended the journal’s vetting of the paper:
Yes I am aware that many of these authors are skeptical zealots when it comes to the dangers of vaccines. Our editorial response was extra vigilance during the peer review process with 8 different reviewers weighing in on publication or not, including a few with strong statistics knowledge. Therefore, a credible peer review process was followed and the chips fell where they may. That is all I can say. If you or other readers were to note fatal flaws in this article now that it is published, i.e. failure to accurately report financial COIs [conflicts of interest], totally erroneous statistical analysis, fake data etc. we will of course re-evaluate at any time.
Adler then took a jab at other journals:
The decision process Cureus made, contrasts sharply with Elsevier’s seeming editorial decision to just censor the article using ad hominem concerns.
In a Feb. 9, 2024 letter to the journal and the publisher, John P. Moore, a microbiologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, and Gregg Gonsalves, an epidemiologist at Yale School of Public Health, in New Haven, Conn., expressed their “serious concerns” about the article. Among their objections:
The authors utterly lack relevant professional qualifications that would enable them to assess the scientific publications they draw on and/or attempt to criticize. The authors self-describe their affiliations under the rubric of “Independent Research”, or list private foundations, or in one case report an academic discipline unrelated to biology. In short, the authors cannot draw on years of training in biological science, but appear to be self-taught via the “University of Google”.
They continue:
The point here is that the Cureus review merely regurgitates claims about mRNA vaccines that have circulated on the internet and been debunked over and over again, including by fact-checking organizations (e.g., Factcheck.org, and the USA Today and Politico factcheck teams).
They conclude:
By bringing this highly problematic review to your attention, we hope that you will conduct a thorough review of how it was accepted for publication in Cureus under the Springer Nature imprimatur. How appropriate was the peer review process? How did the editor act? Is the acceptance of this review symptomatic of a wider problem at the journal? Finally, if you share our views that this review is so flawed as to be dangerous to public health, you may well decide that it should be retracted.
Springer Nature had apparently been looking into the case already, and ended up agreeing with Moore, Gonsalves and other critics of the article.” https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/19/paper-claiming-extensive-harms-of-covid-19-vaccines-to-be-retracted/
Here’s a pdf which has the article in its entirety, just in case…
Saw the article in “The Hill” – and not only do they omit the name of the article, they also omit the journal, publication date, and names of the researchers and authors. That makes it impossible to find the article, which is probably the point of the exercise. I see this sort of thing often in legacy media, it makes it impossible to fact-check their work – especially if they’re lying about something and want to cover their tracks. I’d give them a “nice try but no cigar” for this particular attempt.
The Pharma Co (and the FDA etc) lied about all of this.
This SHOULD negate their immunity from lawsuits.
The emergency authorization is based upon an informed person making a voluntary decision that unknown and known risks are acceptable when weighed against the risk of the disease. When known risks are covered up then there is no informed consent and a violation of the emergency use deal.
x10000
Immunity is not valid when the pharma companies lied and obfuscated all the information.