With the arrival of spring and the outbreak of war in Ukraine, media coverage of COVID-19 and the possible side effects of the vaccines has increasingly fallen into oblivion. But while most news portals are distracted by the war, new international studies are appearing almost weekly which are raising legitimate doubts about the efficacy and safety of the experimental COVID-19 vaccines.
On May 5th, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided to drastically regulate access to the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine because of the risk of blood clot formation. Since then, the vaccine has only been available to adults who are either unable to receive another vaccine or who explicitly request the J&J vaccine.
FDA scientists recorded a total of 60 cases of blood clots, reported since the emergency approval of the J&J vaccine on February 27, 2021 through mid-March 2022. Nine of these cases were fatal. This translates to one reported incidence of blood clots for every 3.23 million injections of the J&J vaccine. As a result, the J&J vaccine is now required to be accompanied by an additional warning regarding “long-term and debilitating health consequences.” Moreover, the FDA is now advising the public to receive Pfizer’s or Moderna’s mRNA vaccines instead of the J&J vaccine, which is vector-based. Vector-based vaccines use a different virus (the so-called vector), one that isn’t supposed to cause illness, as a means of transporting genetic material coding for a desired antigen to the body’s cells. This is different from mRNA vaccines, which surround the messenger RNA with tiny lipids to transport molecules of antigen-encoding mRNA directly into the immune cells. The difference in how the trigger of the desired immune response is transported to the cells is part of the ongoing discussions taking place in the medical community with regards to different unwanted side effects of the vaccines.
However, a new Danish study led by Prof. Christine Stabell Benn of the University of Southern Denmark reveals a more nuanced picture of the situation. Tests conducted by Benn and her team found the vector-based vaccines from J&J and AstraZeneca proved to be relatively effective in reducing overall mortality, contrary to their reputation. Accordingly, efficacy against COVID-19 was higher than expected, while additional beneficial ”non-specific effects” against other health threats, such as cardiovascular illnesses, were noted.
The mRNA vaccines, on the other hand, did not provide any statistically meaningful evidence of a reduction in overall mortality. This is because the positive effects against COVID-19 were offset by an increase in other causes of death, such as cardiovascular ailments. This result, however, comes in marked contrast to the recommendations of most public health authorities in Europe, who have been pushing for the de-authorization of vector-based vaccines and the widespread use of the more expensive mRNA vaccines.
This study has, however, received little media attention. In an interview with UnHerd, Benn said:
I have been in this game for now almost thirty years, studying vaccines and finding these non-specific effects which have been very controversial. There are strong powers out there that don’t really want to hear about them. But to me this is good news: it means that we can optimize the use of vaccines to not only be strong protective effects against vaccine disease, but we can also optimize their use in terms of overall health.
Benn’s study has been undergoing a public peer-review process since April, in which renowned epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff participated. He echoed the study’s arguments and called for a re-evaluation of the various COVID vaccines based on overall mortality reduction. Kulldorff also argued that it would be inappropriate to mandate a vaccine whose clinical tests have yielded a de facto null result for mortality.
In addition to the public debate over these tests, however, a smear campaign by some scientists, such as Deepti Gurdasani and Jeremy Farrar (director of the Wellcome Trust, see below), has followed. They have accused Kulldorff of spreading “vaccine misinformation” and of having “right-wing connections.”
Another study by Stephanie Seneff and a team of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers examined the toxicity of mRNA vaccines by running, among other tests, a meta-analysis of other studies. Their findings indicate that mRNA vaccines are highly toxic. Specifically, the spike protein can enter the bloodstream via exosomes, causing inflammation throughout the body, while also impairing the production of Type I interferons, which are important for fighting pathogens and containing inflammation. The immune system’s ability to repair faulty DNA in cells is also impaired by the spike protein. Moreover, the vaccines were also found to have a carcinogenic effect, which can lead to an accumulation of diseases, such as cancer, blood disorders, central nervous system disorders, facial paralysis, and myocarditis.
Similarly, the study addresses the findings of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), absolving it of claims that the system is being abused by opponents of vaccination. The researchers confirmed the prevalence of “underreporting” vaccine injuries, estimating that this is subject to a factor of 20 to 50. Based on statistical comparisons with other vaccines that have been sufficiently clinically tested, the authors of the study conclude that there is, at minimum, a significantly increased correlation between mRNA vaccinations and the onset of serious diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and cancer.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have also recorded excess mortality of one million people since the pandemic began. These excess deaths are not tied to COVID-19. As early as February 2022, Robert Anderson, the CDC’s head of mortality statistics, stated, in an interview with The Washington Post, that the increase in deaths from heart disease, high blood pressure, dementia, and other factors has reached unprecedented heights. “We’ve never seen anything like it,” Anderson said.
Excess mortality was also confirmed by a group of researchers at the University of Warwick in October 2021. In their study, they reported “the scale of excess non-COVID deaths is large enough for it to be seen as its own pandemic.”
Independent journalist Jefferey Jaxen, on the other hand, examined data from the UK Office for National Statistics, finding that “all-cause mortality” of the vaccinated increased by as much as 300% over the course of 2021 in comparison to the unvaccinated, with significant increases in mortality recorded among those who had received either one or two doses of the COVID vaccine.
The fact that such studies garner little attention in the mainstream media is hardly surprising, even if we assume the best of intentions. However, even reports from the pharmaceutical companies themselves are being ignored. For example, BioNTech wrote the following regarding potential risks in its annual report for the fiscal year 2021 to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC):
We may not be able to demonstrate sufficient efficacy or safety of our COVID-19 vaccine and/or variant-specific formulations to obtain permanent regulatory approval in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, or other countries where it has been authorized for emergency use or granted conditional marketing approval.
Even if one classifies this risk assessment as purely precautionary, BioNTech ups the ante in the very next sentence:
Significant adverse events may occur during our clinical trials or even after receiving regulatory approval, which could delay or terminate clinical trials, delay or prevent regulatory approval or market acceptance of any of our product candidates.
“Significant adverse events” is the scientific phrase denoting vaccine side effects that are so clustered or significant that official approval under existing regulations becomes impossible. The indications of such a significant accumulation have indeed become increasingly prevalent. After Andreas Schöfbeck, the head of German health insurance company BBK ProVita, warned in February that the actual number of vaccine adverse events could be many times higher than known—resulting in his dismissal shortly afterwards, as reported by The European Conservative—the Berlin Charité, one of Europe’s largest university hospitals, published a study according to which eight out of 1,000 people are suffering from severe side effects following vaccination for COVID-19.
About 40,000 Germans voluntarily participated in this study. After one year, the head of the study, Harald Matthes, stated that side effects of the COVID vaccines are being massively underestimated by the control authority at the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI), Germany’s Federal Institute for Vaccines and Biomedicines. According to the data presented by Matthes, the underreporting of vaccine-related side effects could mean that adverse events following vaccination may be 40 times more prevalent than official numbers indicate.
“The figure is not surprising,” Matthes said. “It corresponds to what is known from other countries, such as Sweden, Israel, or Canada. Incidentally, even the manufacturers of the vaccines had already determined similar values in their studies.” Matthes attributed the underreporting to two factors. One reason is the additional expense of reporting—the same argument used by Schöfbeck—while the other reason is the politicization of vaccination, which leads to a reluctance on the part of many physicians to report side effects, as this may create the impression that there is a large number of side effects.
For Matthes, there is an urgent need for action:
In view of the approximately half a million cases with severe side effects after COVID vaccination in Germany, we doctors must take action. We have to come up with therapy offers, discuss it openly at congresses and in public, without being seen as vaccination opponents.
How have politicians responded to these findings? With silence. Vaccination propagandists, such as German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach, continue to push for mandatory vaccination. And the mainstream media is once again putting its efforts into defaming selected studies wherever possible. For example, Germany’s Stern, in a report about Matthes, claimed that he is “funded by a foundation that wants to promote anthroposophic medicine, which is traditionally critical of vaccination.” And if this statement was not enough to defame Matthes, Stern also informed its readers that a “Taz investigation in February drew a critical picture of Harald Matthes and his clinic.”
Now, questioning financial relationships that exist in the background is quite reasonable. However, when Alena Buyx, chair of the German Ethics Council, came under pressure in February because of financial support she received from the Wellcome Trust, which in turn maintains close ties to the pharmaceutical industry, Stern remained remarkably quiet.
All of this, of course, ignores the financial and political connections behind the various media outlets, who like to present themselves as independent sources but who in no way do justice to their role as ‘watchdogs’. Instead, the next ‘current thing’ takes center stage, at the exclusion of those who had and continue to express justified doubts about vaccination; doubts which are now to be swept under the rug, at least until the autumn, when the next round of scaremongering will likely begin. This is what will happen if the political class and the media are not held accountable for their respective roles in enabling what might turn out to be the “biggest scandal in medical history.”
In May 2022, an Italian court in Genoa awarded for the first time compensation to the family of a 32-year old teacher that demonstrably died as a result of the vaccination. The compensation amounted to only €77,476, causing Ansa Liguria to claim that this is how much a life is worth these days. There is still a long road to go to reinstate accountability, but it is a first step.
David Boos is an organist, documentary filmmaker, and writer for The European Conservative and other publications.