British Medical Journal: "COVID19 Shots Should Not Be Approved". Safety Testing Inadequate. Science Being Denied

Following the news that the US government has 'approved' use of the COVID19 shots, despite safety trials not being complete, despite large numbers of reported deaths and injuries from the shots, despite the Delta variant seemingly not being responsible for reduced effectiveness of the shots after a few months and despite scientific process being bypassed - the prestigious British Medical Journal has publicly stated that this is a mistake for many reasons...

There is little more troubling than serious disease, other than perhaps, the thought that serious disease is being caused by greedy corporations and politicians. In the case of the COVID19 shots, we see an abundance of evidence that this is occurring - if only we will look for it. From the whistleblower frontline Doctors to the public data, to my own simple but seemingly undebunked analyses, not only are the COVID shots likely to be harmful, they may work out more harmful than COVID19 itself.

On top of all of this, as the BMJ points out, Israel has published data showing that the shots (which were rolled out there 6 months before many parts of the world) are being found to not work for more than a short period.

In early July, they reported that efficacy against infection and symptomatic disease “fell to 64%.” By late July it had fallen to 39% where Delta is the dominant strain. This is very low. For context, the FDA’s expectation is of “at least 50%” efficacy for any approvable vaccine.

_{source: BMJ}

When we consider that there is decent data showing that numbers of deaths often increase after vaccine rollouts, the justification for 'licensing' them seems all the more insane.

Major Flaws In the Safety Data from Manufacturers

The other main points raised by the BMJ relate to the way the safety trials were carried out. They point out that not only were the trials far to short to show either efficacy or safety in a real way, it looks a lot like the manufacturers - with close ties to the US FDA - have pulled every slippery technique in the book in order to get the shots approved anyway.

The trials were effectively stopped at 4 months when the majority of those involved in the placebo group were given the shots anyway. So when the manufacturers state that they had 6 months of safety data, that wasn't actually true.

The final efficacy timepoint reported in Pfizer’s preprint is “from four months to the data cut-off.” The confidence interval here is wider than earlier time points because only half of trial participants (53%) made it to the four month mark, and mean follow-up is around 4.4 months (see footnote).

This all happened because starting last December, Pfizer allowed all trial participants to be formally unblinded, and placebo recipients to get vaccinated. By 13 March 2021 (data cut-off), 93% of trial participants (41,128 of 44,060; Fig 1) were unblinded, officially entering “open-label followup.” (Ditto for Moderna: by mid April, 98% of placebo recipients had been vaccinated.)

Despite the reference to “six month safety and efficacy” in the preprint’s title, the paper only reports on vaccine efficacy “up to six months,” but not from six months. This is not semantics, as it turns out only 7% of trial participants actually reached six months of blinded follow-up (“8% of BNT162b2 recipients and 6% of placebo recipients had ≥6 months follow-up post-dose 2.”) So despite this preprint appearing a year after the trial began, it provides no data on vaccine efficacy past six months, which is the period Israel says vaccine efficacy has dropped to 39%.

It is hard to imagine that the <10% of trial participants who remained blinded at six months (which presumably further dwindled after 13 March 2021) could constitute a reliable or valid sample to produce further findings. And the preprint does not report any demographic comparisons to justify future analyses.

_{source: BMJ}

There is also important data missing completely from the 'safety studies', such as how many people in the tests were admitted to hospital.

And on preventing death from covid-19, there are too few data to draw conclusions—a total of three covid-19 related deaths (one on vaccine, two on placebo). There were 29 total deaths during blinded follow-up (15 in the vaccine arm; 14 in placebo).

_{source: BMJ}

He stated that the studies apparently in some senses don't even actually show benefit in preventing death.

Slow Down, Do Science Properly

The final conclusion of the British Medical Journal is that the American government is effectively acting recklessly and bypassing correct safety protocols.

Prior to the preprint, my view, along with a group of around 30 clinicians, scientists, and patient advocates, was that there were simply too many open questions about all covid-19 vaccines to support approving any this year. The preprint has, unfortunately, addressed very few of those open questions, and has raised some new ones.

I reiterate our call: “slow down and get the science right—there is no legitimate reason to hurry to grant a license to a coronavirus vaccine.”

FDA should be demanding that the companies complete the two year follow-up, as originally planned (even without a placebo group, much can still be learned about safety). They should demand adequate, controlled studies using patient outcomes in the now substantial population of people who have recovered from covid. And regulators should bolster public trust by helping ensure that everyone can access the underlying data.

_{source: BMJ}

But hey.. according to the panic stricken, 'science trusting' army of 'thinkers' on Twitter - such thinking is anti-science and 'dumb'.

My personal suggestion to the world and people in the USA in particular is to set aside a few weeks to dedicate to studying the well established science of mind control because that is what is being used on you here - for reasons that are probably not in your interests.

Wishing you well,
Ura Soul

Read My User Guide for Hive Here