Kritisch, waarschuwend rapport vaccins

In januari 2024 verscheen dit kritische, waarschuwende rapport: COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign.

Deze review is door een groep van biologen, artsen, statistici en epidemiologen tot stand gekomen; u kunt dit peer-reviewed artikel hier downloaden.

De auteurs van het artikel kunt u hier bereiken: Corresponding author: M. Nathaniel Mead, mead33@me.com.

De Amerikaanse interniste Annette Bosworth, die gespecialiseerd is in (voedingsgerelateerde) metabole ziekten, licht in deze video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3N-uFfvU5s het rapport toe. Zij is weliswaar geen auteur van deze studie, maar wil ons waarschuwen voor de gevaren van de vaccins. Ook uit zij dat haar vertrouwen is geschonden en zij bij nader inzien grote spijt heeft dat zij zelf de vaccins heeft genomen.

Een aantal opmerkelijke passages en conclusies uit het rapport volgen hieronder:

“The estimated harms of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines greatly outweigh the rewards: for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”

“Due to the Gene Therapy Product’s reclassification as vaccines, none of their components have been thoroughly evaluated for safety. The main concern, in a nutshell, is that the COVID-19 mRNA products may transform body cells into viral protein factories that have no off-switch (i.e., no built-in mechanism to stop or regulate such proliferation), with the spike protein (S-protein) being generated for prolonged periods, causing chronic, systemic inflammation and immune dysfunction.”

“Despite the many striking revelations discussed in this review, most developed countries continue to advocate the ongoing adoption of COVID-19 mRNA boosters for the entire eligible population. US federal agencies still emphasize the safety of the vaccines in reducing severe illness and deaths caused by the coronavirus, despite the absence of any randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials to support such claims. This reflects a bewildering disconnect between evidence-based scientific thinking and public health policy.”

“The usual safety testing protocols and toxicology requirements were bypassed by the FDA and vaccine manufacturers, and the premature termination of both trials obviated any unbiased assessment of potential serious adverse events (SAEs) due to an insufficient timeframe for proper trial evaluation. It was only after the EUA that the serious biological consequences of rushing the trials became evident, with numerous cardiovascular, neurological, reproductive, hematological, malignant, and autoimmune SAEs identified and published in the peer-reviewed medical literature. Moreover, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines produced via Process 1 and evaluated in the trials were not the same products eventually distributed worldwide; all of the COVID-19 mRNA products released to the public were produced via Process 2 and have been shown to have varying degrees of DNA contamination. The failure of regulatory authorities to heretofore disclose process-related impurities (e.g., SV40) has further increased concerns regarding safety and quality control oversight of mRNA vaccine manufacturing processes.”

“Since early 2021, excess deaths, cardiac events, strokes, and other serious adverse events have often been wrongly ascribed to COVID-19 rather than to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations. Misattribution of SAEs to COVID-19 often may be due to the amplification of adverse effects when mRNA injections are followed by SARS-CoV-2 subvariant infection. Injuries from the mRNA products overlap with both post-acute COVID-19 syndrom (PACS) and severe acute COVID-19 illness, often obscuring the vaccines’ etiologic contributions. Multiple booster injections appear to cause immune dysfunction, thereby paradoxically contributing to heightened susceptibility to COVID-19 infections with successive doses. For the vast majority of adults under the age of 50, the perceived benefits of the mRNA boosters are profoundly outweighed by their potential disabling and life-threatening harms. Potential harms to older adults appear to be excessive as well. Given the well-documented SAEs and unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse and enforce a global moratorium on these modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.”

Update 1 maart 2024:

Dit rapport is in januari 2024 gepubliceerd in het vaktijdschrift Cureus, na uitgebreid te zijn peer-reviewed en kritisch overleg met de deskundige editors van Cureus. Dit artikel is mede tot stand gekomen met medewerking van statistici en epidemiologen die onder meer de reguliere VAERS-data minutieus hebben geanalyseerd. Desondanks heeft uitgever Springer besloten het artikel terug te trekken. De Amerikaanse arts dr. Annette Bosworth (“dr. Boz”) vreesde/voorspelde dat dit artikel ingetrokken zou worden. In deze nieuwe video van haar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3F38nsP5Rw licht zij toe dat het artikel echter wel degelijk aan de wetenschappelijke normen van een peer-reviewed paper voldoet en het voor haar onacceptabel is dat het nu ‘retracted’ is.

Vanaf circa minuut 11:20 in haar video toont en bespreekt dr. Bosworth de brief/e-mail die de auteurs van het artikel van uitgever Springer hebben ontvangen, waarin Springer stelt dat het hoe dan ook teruggetrokken zal worden, en eventuele correcties niet geaccepteerd zullen worden. De Nederlander Tim Kersjes heeft namens Springer de retraction uitgevoerd; door Kersjes en zijn superieuren bij Springer zijn de editors en peer-reviewers van Cureus terzijde geschoven. Volgens dr. Boz heeft deze kwestie de eigenschappen van een politiek spel.