Policy Review: Covid Vaccines
The (still) failed experiment
In response to questions regularly received about PANDA’s stance on the products known as “Covid vaccines”, in late 2022 we published a document summarising our thoughts as they stood then.
This can be found here.
What we have learned in the past year has made us rethink nearly every single aspect of what was written in that document.
Yes, we still stand by the title referring to the vaccine rollout as a “failed experiment”.
But we would now go much further.
The protocols for the Phase III trials which formed the basis of the authorisation of these products specified clinically irrelevant endpoints and were (in the main) conducted in healthy, younger subjects who were at negligible risk of serious illness. Consequently they were incapable of measuring the purported benefits.
Moreover, there is rapidly accumulating evidence of conduct designed to skew the results which many would regard as fraudulent. In any case, critical analysis of the results is not consistent with any benefit when all-cause outcomes are considered.
The so-called “real-world” studies conducted after rollout are riddled with obvious confounders and use a variety of statistical tricks - completely ignored by previously reputable academic journals - which significantly bias the results.
Hence the claims made by public health officials, politicians and media regarding safety and efficacy were without basis or merit.
The purported benefits claimed are starkly contradicted by population-level data suggesting significant increases in overall mortality and morbidity in heavily vaccinated populations.
In terms of safety, each week brings new data and potential biological mechanisms of harm suggesting that these inadequately tested and complex therapeutics are substantially more dangerous than originally claimed. It is not our intention in this piece to give a summary of the current state of knowledge relating to safety, the story around which is in any case evolving so rapidly it is difficult to keep up with developments.
The above would be concerning enough even if there had been an actual justifiable need for the vaccines in any segment of the population. However, even that prior assumption - which we had (albeit tentatively) accepted in the case of the elderly or otherwise “vulnerable” - must now be challenged, because our further research has led to the following conclusions in respect of the purported “pandemic”.
There never was a lethal pandemic of any pathogen which was “risk additive” to the already existing causes of respiratory infections. This is the case whether or not there was something some might regard as “novel” circulating, whether “it” came from a lab or was zoonotic in origin, and whether “it” originated in China or elsewhere.
Whatever “it” was which caused the various tests developed and rolled out at insane speed and cost to turn “positive”, there is ample evidence that “it” had become widely spread across several continents months before the emergency was declared, without apparently causing any excess mortality or reports of clusters of unusual clinical presentations anywhere (other than the cases claimed for Wuhan).
The null hypothesis, therefore, is that it was the declaration of the emergency itself, and the cataclysmic changes to health and social care consequent to that, which caused any and all the harms which those responsible are attempting to attribute to a novel virus.
There is no convincing evidence that the spread of any pathogen - as opposed to the spread of waves of fear, panic and medical dystopia - is directly linked to waves of fatal illnesses.
Had the testing not been available, and had doctors continued to treat patients with respiratory infections on an individual basis according to their presenting symptoms (consistent with decades-old practice), we do not believe that anything unusual would have been noticed, as what was happening before the “emergency” (ie. nothing of note) would have continued thereafter.
In other words, had we done nothing, there would have been no 2020 pandemic mentioned in the history books, using any reasonable definition of the word “pandemic”.
It follows from the above that there was no need or justification for the rollout of any novel therapeutics, including the products termed “vaccines”.
Rather than asking the question “were the vaccines needed as a response to the pandemic?” we should instead be asking “was the pandemic needed for the vaccines?”.
We need your support as we deepen our inquiry into the technocratic power-grab and help it reach a broader audience by raising $6000. Donate now.
Kudos for standing up to what is clearly both a grotesque false narrative and a crime against humanity.
Whenever "safety" is mentioned, I ask "What type of safety data are you referring to?"
In clinical trials, safety data is comprised of lab results, procedural results, and adverse event reporting. In normal phase 2/3 studies, lab work is done prior to being given the drug and afterwards, at at many visits throughout the trial. There are also procedures like ECGs, vitals, physical exams, etc. For a simple asthma medication, we would do serial labs where we would do ECG, vitals, lots of labs, then dose the patient, then repeat all the procedures at 1 hr post dose, 4 hrs post, etc. We would do this at multiple visits. For some reason, vaccines do not follow this standard. But these mRNAs were "first in class" and should have undergone all the previously mentioned tests.
If you read the Pfizer protocol, their combined phase 2/3 only tested for immunogenicity. That was it. No other labs or ECGs or even vitals were done. How can they possibly claim "safety" when they did no tests?
The only "safety" data they used were adverse events reported during the trial and then proceeded to ignore AE reporting systems like VAERs.
It is unbelievable that no pre/post drug labs or procedures were done. They have no idea (or they do) what happens in the body after injection.
So, ask them: When you say safety data, what data are you referring to? What tests were done to show safety? Were there changes in ECGs pre and post dose? How about liver function? Cardiac enzymes? Inflammatory biomarkers? Heart rate? Blood pressure?
They know nothing.