The jab: “Causing large numbers of deaths.”

The statement

“It is beyond any shadow of a doubt, it’s unequivocal, the vaccines are causing large numbers of deaths.”

The script in full:

“I’m an epidemiologist and people have asked me, ‘Dr McCullough, Are the vaccines actually causing the deaths?’

The epidemiological construct that we have to go through is called the Bradford Hill Tenets of Causality. 

So the first question is, Is it a large epidemiological signal? And I tell you, it’s astronomical.  All the vaccines combined in the United States per year it’s no more than 150 deaths, not temporally related.  Here we have over 21,00 deaths so clearly it’s a massive signal.

Number Two:  Is there a dangerous mechanism of action? The answer is Yes we know the vaccines have a dangerous mechanism of action.  They install production of the spike protein. The spike protein is what makes the respiratory infection lethal, and it follows that in some people excessive production of the spike protein in a vulnerable person would be lethal after a vaccine.

The third criteria (sic):  Is it internally consistent?  Are there other conditions that are now acknowledged that they themselves could be fatal?  And the answer is Sure, with mycoarditis our FDA agrees, all the regulatory experts agree that the vaccines cause myocarditis. Can it be fatal?  Yes.  Have there been fatal cases published?  Yes, by Verma and Choi as an example.  Those are publications.   There are over 200 peer-reviewed publications of myocarditis.  How about other forms of death? Vaccine-induced thrombocytopenic purpura, thrombosis, blood clots, stroke, hypertension, myocardial infarction, a variety of other lethal syndromes. There is over a thousand peer-reviewed papers published on fatal and non fatal outcomes.  So that criteria (sic) is met.  So it is internally consistent.

Is it externally consistent? So is it consistent with the Yellow Card system, the Eudra system and the US VAERS system?

And finally, is it temporally related?  Yes, it is very tightly temporally related:

Here we have two separate analyses, one by Rose, one by McLachlan, independent analyses.  US VAERS data.  Fifty percent of these deaths occur within 48 hours, eighty percent within a week.

So I have just gone through the exercise.  It is beyond any shadow of a doubt that the vaccines are causing large numbers of deaths.  It’s unequivocal.  And I’m a card-carrying epidemiologist.  I’m telling you, the vaccines are causing large numbers of deaths.”

The source

Dr Peter McCullough, Bitchute, 1 April 2022)

( )

My take on it

Dr McCullough should need no introduction. If you have done any serious information search of your own about independent subject matter experts in the Covid space, you will know who he is.

The Bradford Hills Tenets of Causality may be new to you; but the idea of causality should not be. If something (which we may call A) happens, and then later something else (which we will call B) happens, we may be interested to know if B just happened to occur subsequent to A; or whether B was actually caused by A; or whether both A and B were caused by something else entirely (C).

Dr McCullough refers to multiple systems established for the reporting of adverse events following administration of vaccines (ie they are ‘associated’ with the administration of vaccines). The whole point of such systems is that because they occur in association with the administration of a vaccine, they are prima facie suggestive of causation, and invite investigation in order to confirm or dismiss causation as the case may be. The Bradford Hill Tenets of Causality are the appropriate investigative method.

In Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration publishes a Covid Vaccine Weekly Safety Report on adverse events (including deaths) associated with the jab. The TGA’s latest such Report (2 June 2022) indicates that there have been 878 deaths following (ie associated with) administration of the jab, of which the TGA maintains that just 11 were caused by the injection. As far as I am aware the TGA has yet to conduct and publish a causation analysis equivalent to what Dr McCullough and some others have conducted, and that might lend support to the TGA’s counter-intuitive conclusions. Neither have post-mortems been required by default, and the results published, despite the trial nature and novel composition of these controversial injections.

Covid: A pandemic of the vaccinated?

The statement

“Could it be that Australia’s Covid story has morphed into a pandemic of the vaccinated?

So I checked out the Commonwealth Department of Health’s coronavirus website, but it too, while providing all manner of details on Covid statistics by age, sex, states etc, was conspicuously silent on the relationship between Covid cases, hospitalisations and deaths on the one hand, and vaccination status (unvaccinated, single dose, double dose, boosters) on the other. …..

The NSW Respiratory Surveillance Report for the week ending 14 May offered the answers I was looking for. In this ‘epidemiological week 19’, there were 570 Covid cases admitted to hospital, 58 in ICU and 90 deaths (Figure 4). Of these, just 30, 34 and 17 per cent, respectively, were unvaccinated (or vaccination status unknown).

Conversely, fully 82 per cent of all Covid-related deaths in the state in this week were at least double vaccinated, including 64 per cent who had received boosters.

Figure 4

And still the conspiracy of silence continues among all state and federal governments about this disappointing failure of vaccine efficacy and lack of justification for vaccine mandates and passports.

There never was any ethical justification for vaccine coercion to begin with.

And clearly the regulators, health authorities and governments are stubbornly refusing to entertain, let alone scrutinise, the current data coming in for the pandemic, either by accelerated loss of efficacy or by weakening natural immunity with successive doses.

The source

Professor Ramesh Thakur, in Australian Spectator

( )

Ramesh Thakur, Emeritus Professor at the Australian National University and former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, is based in Australia.  

My take on it

Table 4 above includes a category for No dose/Unknown. It is a pity that this category was not further divided, because in an exercise to determine association, No dose and Unknown are very different categories. If they had been so divided, I would have been inclined to do the analysis on a reduced sample size after excluding the Unknown.

The best I can do is to exclude the bundled category, thereby reducing the sample size to 399.

The table then looks like this:

Would someone like to run a regression analysis on those numbers for me?

But is there any need?

Professor Thakur calls out ‘the conspiracy of silence (that) continues among all state and federal governments about this disappointing failure of vaccine efficacy and lack of justification for vaccine mandates and passports.’

‘A disappointing failure of vaccine efficacy’ ???

This wording implies that the virus remains the villain.

What I and others observe rather is a conspiracy of silence about the toxic nature of this injection.

Masking: No pro’s, just cons

The statement

“More Than a Dozen Credible Medical Studies Prove Face Masks Do Not Work Even In Hospitals!

The medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.

Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.”

The source

Arthur Firstenberg writing in Vision Launch Media (August 15, 2020)

( )

My take on it

First, the pro’s.

The main argument used to support masking as a public health measure is that they stop or significantly impede transmission of the virus from one person to another.The science does not support that argument.

I have also heard NSW Chief Medical Officer Kerry Chant say words to the effect that (notwithstanding the case against them) masks are still helpful as a reminder to the public to be on their guard. In all the circumstances that statement is ignorant, insensitive, and condescending. And against the public interest..

The cons?

Expired air is a waste product of bodily function. As Martin Geddes pointed out, to re-breathe our expired air makes as much sense as eating our own scat, or drinking our own urine or sweat.

Atmospheric air contains about 20.9% oxygen.  Expired air contains about 16%.  Atmospheric air contains about 0.04% (400ppm) carbon dioxide.  Expired air contains 4%, a hundred times more.

So the re-breathing of our expired air deprives our bodies of life-sustaining oxygen, and intoxicates them with CO2. Bad idea. Very bad idea. Some of my earlier posts indicate how bad.

And then there are the adverse impacts on social interaction, and particularly on childhood formation.

For a more detailed treatment , may I recommend The Case Against Masking by Dr Judy Mikovits.

Lock-down: “Stop this human sacrifice.”

The statement

“The leadership of NSW seems not to have considered any of these costs in deciding how to respond to the recent uptick in COVID cases. Where is the argument that the actions taken are expected to yield maximum total welfare? Why are we still focusing rabidly on COVID when the country hasn’t lost a person with that disease since last year and hundreds of people are suffering and dying daily of all manner of other things?

I deduce that total welfare is not the NSW government’s maximand. Consider that we are hearing disproportionately about counts of cases, rather than counts of people suffering symptoms or hospitalised. If we counted cases of all viruses that infect us, and treated them like the fearsome pestilence of the sort that COVID has been elevated to in the media, we would do nothing all day but hide under the bed. What matters is human suffering and death – not whether someone tests positive to a particular virus. …..

What is going on here is not the fight of our lives against a fearsome pestilence. It is politicians willingly sacrificing their people’s welfare, hoping the people see their actions as a sufficient offering. It’s the modern analogue of killing virgins in the hope of getting a good harvest.

We need to stop this madness.” 

The source

Professor Gigi Foster, UNSW Professor of Economics, in an op-ed piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, Monday 28 June 2021 ( )

My take on it

Professor Foster is asking the same questions – the right questions – that she raised at the outset. Where is the impact assessment that examines the case for such extraordinary policy initiatives? Where are the numbers? What metrics should we be using?

The absence of such impact assessment by government is a telling indictment.

Still the question is, Why?

One credible explanation is that a proper impact assessment would come out against these policies.

Does this mean that government is more committed to a particular course of action than it is to the public welfare? Ideological, rather than logical?

“There is a man who is wise in his own eyes. There is more hope for a fool than for him.” (Proverbs 26:12)

Has Professor Foster reached the only reasonable conclusion? “I deduce that total welfare is not the NSW government’s maximand.”