Categories
Biden Pandemic Censorship Corruption COVID Drugs Harris Cartel Medicine Reprints from others. Science Tony the Fauch

Bombshell Study Censored by The Lancet Released: Confirms ‘High Likelihood of Causal Link Between COVID-19 Vaccines and Death’

Bombshell Study Censored by The Lancet Released: Confirms ‘High Likelihood of Causal Link Between COVID-19 Vaccines and Death’

Have we learned nothing? Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

As previously reported by The Gateway Pundit, a COVID-19 vaccination study is back in the news.

On November 17, 2024, Science, Public Health Policy and The Law journal published a peer-reviewed study titled, “A Systematic Review Of Autopsy Findings In Deaths After Covid-19 Vaccination.

This study was publicly available, but publications such as The Lancet made repeated attempts to censor it. After far too long, it has finally been published.

Coincidentally, as the Trump administration and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. work on a transition plan, these types of stories have entered back into the zeitgeist.

Dr. Peter McCullough, a well-known COVID-19 vaccine combatant, has been active on X recently, speaking of the dangers of the vaccine and advocating for its removal.

Last week, The Gateway Pundit reported on another study -by two of the same authors – citing evidence that the current bird flu strain was leaked from laboratories performing gain of function research.

While there has long been evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine has been harmful because of the spike protein, this study made even broader claims.

“The findings of these researchers present an illustrative case of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche’s thesis that mass vaccination with nonsterilizing vaccines can result in the emergence of a new, more virulent viral strain.”

As the incoming Trump Administration looms over the swamp of Washington, the timing of such studies appears ominous for an unaccountable health bureaucracy.

The mounting evidence show a poorly constructed vaccine strategy for combating the pandemic. With this study having been previously censored by medical journals such as The Lancet, it begs the question as to why it has suddenly been accepted.

As one of the authors of the study, Nicolas Hulscher, observes, the CDC has remained silent.

 

The study’s findings are remarkable. The researchers studied autopsies from “…all published autopsy and organ-restricted autopsy reports relating to COVID-19 vaccination through May 18th, 2023.”

Out of 240 deaths 73.9% can be attributed to the Covid-19 vaccination. The study breaks down the different adverse effects on the immune system and demonstrates why the “Spike Protein” can create unintended consequences as a mechanism for ‘immunological response.’

Curiously, the story of the deaths and the adverse events associated with the COVID-19 vaccine have stayed out of the mainstream pharmaceutical company-funded outlets.

The study references the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) database.

As of today, according to VAERS, deaths and adverse events related to the Covid-19 Vaccine are sky high. These numbers far exceed not only the vaccines on the current schedule but all other vaccines combined in the history of the system.

Source: VAERS

It should be noted that these events can be reported by anyone and that VAERS should be a signal for safety. It does not, in any way, infer causation.

However, as more studies show threats to safety from the COVID-19 vaccine, the VAERS data can be a point of reference for future analysis.

The vaccines included in the study appear to cover the major platforms available in the marketplace. According to the study, Pfizer-BioNTech, Astrazeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Sinovac-CoronaVac, and Novavax are part of the analysis. This may or may not be relevant.

However, if further investigation continues to uncover similar problems with the vaccine across all platforms, the technology itself may begin to fall under further scrutiny.

As many previous analyses have indicated, the cardiovascular system has been found to be disproportionately affected by the vaccine. This analysis also indicates similar findings.

These studies are possible safety signals that should be flagged. At the very least, further analysis is needed.

See the graph of cases affected by organ system below:

Another observation regarded the three physicians who adjudicated the study. Out of the 240 deaths it was determined that 73.9% were caused by the vaccine.

The study also notes, “Among adjudicators, there was complete independent agreement (all three physicians) of COVID-19 vaccination contributing to death in 203 cases (62.5%).” 

In the context of numbers, this should be recognized as Americans were bombarded with statistics during the pandemic.

Many of those statistics have since been proven to be inaccurate as counting in real-time can be difficult. However, for three physicians independently assert that 203 cases were directly caused by the vaccine, our government should be paying attention. These are real world medical practitioners observing patient events.

In summary, the study shows the following:

“…325 autopsy cases and 1 organ-restricted autopsy case (heart). The mean age of death was 70.4 years and there were 139 females (42.6%). Most received a Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (41%), followed by Sinovac (37%), AstraZeneca (13%), Moderna (7%), Johnson & Johnson (1%), and Sinopharm (1%).”

Lastly, it’s important to point out a phrase oft excluded from mainstream attacks on studies such as this.

One key sentence in the conclusion of this study is the following: “Further urgent investigation is required for the purpose of clarifying our findings.” 

The frustration of whistleblowers such as Dr. Peter McCullough likely stem from the lack of inquiry by the regulatory bodies. Perhaps a new administration will be more likely to investigate such alarming signals further.

Categories
Biden Pandemic COVID Politics

JAMA Ignores Peer-Reviewed Evidence & Publishes Yet Another Misleading, Underpowered Ivermectin Study

                       FLCCC Doctors: “We treat patients, not p-values.”

JAMA has done it again.

“It” is the February 18, 2022 publication of a study on ivermectin with a conclusion that inexplicably departs from the study’s own data. Even worse, the Malaysian I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial and JAMA itself dismiss the totality of peer-reviewed, published evidence (and a number of summary meta-analyses) showing repeatedly shorter times to clinical recovery, fewer hospitalizations, and far less death when COVID patients are treated with ivermectin.

“This study was clearly designed to fail. The authors selected out patients with mild or moderate disease who were at low risk of having a major event. Consequently it was grossly underpowered for any meaningful patient-centered outcome,” said Dr. Paul Marik, FLCCC Chairman Chief Scientific Officer.

The authors of the study reported that “ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.”

This graph of the I-TECH study results clearly shows that even in this underpowered study, mortality benefits trend in FAVOR of ivermectin. Even though there were SEVEN fewer deaths with the use of ivermectin in this study— the authors STILL erroneously concluded that IVM was ineffective for COVID. The question to be answered here by JAMA is why they ever chose to publish this highly misleading study.

But Dr. Pierre Kory, FLCCC president and Chief Medical Officer, says that is flat out wrong and highly misleading.

“In the study’s control group, two and a half times more patients had to be placed on mechanical ventilation —and there were three times more deaths in the control group.  This shows that ivermectin causes a 75% risk reduction in death and further strengthens metadata of Ivermectin’s large mortality benefits in severe COVID.”

Dr. Keith Berkowitz, FLCCC co-founder, noted that the study’s strongest p-value (the measure of statistical significance) was for the 28-day hospital mortality. “Overall, this study was too limited and small to even be randomized. Still, the results trended in favor of ivermectin,” said Berkowitz.


An important note about the study:

It’s important to recognize here that the study participants had been experiencing symptoms for FIVE days by the time they were enrolled in the study. This is an important point to consider, given the primary outcome of the study was “the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease.” As those of you who have been following the FLCCC know, early treatment (within the first ONE OR TWO DAYS of symptom onset) is critical to slow virus replication and impeded progression to severe disease.

So the authors of the study reported that ivermectin was not helpful in preventing progression to severe disease—among study patients who had been started too late in their disease at the start. Nevertheless, the authors concluded that IVM was not helpful in the treatment of COVID.

But wait a second.

What happened to the patients when they did progress to severe disease? What did the study find out about its secondary outcomes, which included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events? Let’s take a look:

In which arm of the study would you prefer to be? The study showed that fewer people in the ivermectin arm of the trial required mechanical ventilation or ICU admission. Fewer died, of course, while more experienced diarrhea. It is likely that most would say that they would MUCH prefer to be in the ivermectin arm of the study.
“It is clear that a massive study would have been far better to determine greater statistical significance,” continued Dr. Marik. “But to be honest, this study is in line with the major medical journals which will only publish negative studies on ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. They simply will not publish any of the dozens of positive studies that have emerged. This constitutes enormous, deliberate publication bias, which is immensely injurious to scientific truth—and to patients throughout the world.”

Original here:

Categories
Life

Our President and First Lady test positive for COVID-19.

 

We here at Looking at today’s world send our thoughts and prayers.

Our President and First Lady test positive for COVID-19. President Trump announced early Friday that both he and the First Lady Melania Trump tested positive for COVID-19 early and will quarantine at the White House.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1311892190680014849?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311892190680014849%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fpresident-trump-confirms-he-first-lady-melania-trump-tested-positive-for-coronavirus

https://twitter.com/FLOTUS/status/1311900591174680581?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311900591174680581%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fpresident-trump-confirms-he-first-lady-melania-trump-tested-positive-for-coronavirus

The news of Trump’s positive test came hours after it was earlier confirmed that his close aide Hope Hicks had tested positive for the virus earlier on Thursday after exhibiting symptoms during Trump’s trip to Duluth, Minnesota, for a rally on Wednesday night.

Hicks had accompanied the president on that trip, and previously to the debate in Cleveland, Ohio, on Tuesday night. The president faced Democrat candidate former Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday night in that debate.

Trump’s announcement that he has contracted coronavirus after had earlier told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that he and the First Lady would go into quarantine after exposure to Hicks. He also tweeted that earlier in the evening: