magazines and journals stack
The COVID-19 vaccine pile-on in leading scientific journals continues apace. Public Health in Practice, published by Elsevier (which also publishes the Lancet), has released a short article by me, summarising seven must-read medical journal articles on the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, and a few massively important observational studies. Below is a summary of the contents and how this came about.
  • First up, a summary of the Doshi-Lataster papers or JECP4 (article one, article two, article three, article four), which regular readers will know all about, and which was recently presented on for the U.S. Senate (videos here). These primarily deal with the dodgy counting windows found in the clinical trials and also in observational studies which serve to drastically exaggerate the effectiveness and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. They also touch on the hugely concerning issue of negative effectiveness (where the jab appears to increase the chance of Covid infection and death) and the little-known fact that the post-jab myocarditis rate is much more common than the rate at which young and healthy people get a significant benefit from the jabs - yes, just the one side-effect appears to make the risks outweigh the benefits, and by a lot. Couldn't imagine why this didn't make the mainstream news. Maybe it's because of the dense web of financial connections between those who own Big Pharma and the mainstream news outlets.
  • The next article mentioned in this 'magnificent seven' (would have been eight if not for the shocking retraction of Mead et al. by Cureus) is Thacker (article), appearing in the prestigious BMJ, which alluded to Pfizer trial fraud.
  • Next up is the excellent Fraiman et al. (article), which noted that the "excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalisation relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials".
  • Finally, the amazing Benn et al. (article), which noted no statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 deaths in the mRNA vaccine clinical trials, while there was an increase in total deaths. I didn't stutter, there was an increase in deaths in the jabbed.
  • I point out that these seven articles should have had us doubting the evidence for the jabs from the very beginning, and wonder if the situation would be far worse now with a little time elapsing and milder variants around. For example, we have had more time to learn about the risks and milder variants means less potential benefit.
  • Moving on to post-trial research, I mention Raethke et al. (article), which shows a serious side-effect rate much higher than 'rare', and very likely not worth the minimal to zero benefits of the jabs for the young and healthy.
  • Also mentioned is Faksova et al., a huge study on around 99 million people, which found a ton of serious jab side-effects, and could have found more if they looked beyond "42 days following vaccination" (article).
  • I end by declaring that "we must always be intellectually humble, recognising that absolute certainty will almost certainly remain out of reach", a sentiment echoed by Senator Johnson at the recent hearing, and by hinting that an article on reverse misinformation regarding COVID-19 may be in the works.
This handy summary was effectively a (positive) response to Paul et al., which stated that it is wrong to "to discredit scientists who hold opposing views" and even noted that "an abundant literature has since depicted a far more nuanced picture of the effectiveness and safety of those [COVID-19] vaccines over the medium-term".

Many thanks are due to the editorial team at Elsevier's Public Health in Practice which published these important articles, and to the original authors who I understand were supportive of my article. May many more articles be published in The Science™, that ask legitimate questions about the sacred cow that is the jab. Even as we have to fight ongoing Government censorship.