The only world government that is anywhere close to answering that question for any vaccine is the UK. I'll explain why I believe this. I think you'll agree with me.
I'm interested in comments on the template in step 3. Do you agree that this is what the analysis template should look like?
Police Remove Doctor by Force From Hospital After He Endorsed Ivermectin - #COVID
No one needs vaccines. NO ONE. It's one big money-making scam by the pharmaceutical industry and the medical industry
What you have to be very careful of is slippery terminology like “rare”. We also have to be wary of even this unmeasurable term being superseded so that now the health influencers sometimes just talk of the benefit outweighing the risk: but net benefit (which also cannot be measured) is not a sensible criterion for the en masse prevention of a disease you haven’t got (as opposed to a risky treatment for a deadly disease you have). It may be interesting to note that the GSK Men B vaccine (Bexsero) has a lot of measurable bad side effects including 1 in 1000 cases of Kawasaki disease per shot and the child version of the AZ Covid shot was to be trialed against Bexsero. The trial seems to have been abandoned shortly after I pointed out that Bexsero may have already led to as many as 7,000 additional cases of Kawasaki in the UK.
Newborn babies in the UK are diagnosed with myocarditis (no mention if the mother's were vaccinated but I think we all know the answer to that one):
15 UK newborns diagnosed with myocarditis from June 2022 to March 2023
I hope this get picked up --
Data from Millions of people and Billions of Injections show that most of the variations in the All-Cause-Mortality-Rate are do to variations in the mRNA-Injection Rate. Plain and Simple.
Correct-RFKjr has said for years that no vaccine has ever been tested against a true, double blond placebo. They use a dangerous flu vaccine and compare, for example, side effects of flu vaccinated populations vs polio vaccinated populations. Why? Because against a true, double blind placebo, all vaccines are far more dangerous (than being unvaccinated). This is also the reason they never look at all cause mortality after vaccination- it rises. A Danish study out of Africa found a huge surge in all cause mortality after a vaccination campaign. Yet they keep doing it.
Just one of 60 victims named in a new lawsuit against AstraZeneca (interesting how everyone avoids to sue Pfizer...). The hundreds of thousands of others with the same side-effects didn't get justice because neither their doctor nor the coroner were willing to do the proper investigation to find the Frankenshot was the cause. R
emember all those thomography images with clots appearing all over the body? Well, this guy had a verified three in different locations:
Neil Miller, 50
The 50-year-old father of two, from Leicester, suffered from cold-like symptoms, including headaches, in weeks following the initial dose.
Neil, who wrote IT manuals, took himself to bed on April 6 as his condition worsened.
The next day, he was rushed to A&E, complaining of what he felt like was a heart attack. There, medics found he had a blood clot near his heart and, after a couple of nights in hospital, sent him home, armed with medication.
Two days later, on April 13, he collapsed and was rushed back to hospital, where doctors found that there was also blood clots in his legs.
This was when medics realised AstraZeneca's vaccine could be to blame.
By April 19, Neil was struggling to speak, read and walk as blood clots had gone to his brain.
He was discharged from hospital on April 26.
But just a few days later, Neil collapsed again. His family called 999 and started CPR.
When paramedics arrived, they spent 45 minutes trying to resuscitate him.
But Neil was declared dead at the scene.
Despite Neil being diagnosed with vaccine-induced thrombosis, one of the major complications of AstraZeneca's jab, prior to his death, his autopsy ruled that he died of NATURAL CAUSES...
His wife, Kam Miller, 57, FOUGHT FOR A YEAR to change the cause of death on the certificate, which now explicitly states the jab was to blame.
Pfizer had some vital safety data that answer your question early 2020. They with FDA chose to hide and change data in order to get to market. At. Brutal. Costs. the data prove.
If $20 Large - XXXXXL!! can't buy some some honest numbers after 2+ years, what are you expecting? At minimum I would reevaluate my values priorities and expenditures just sayin'
Speaking of "is it safe", a friend of mine is urging me to get the Shingrix vaccine, saying "you...do...NOT...want to get shingles". I've lost a lot of faith in the medical establishment over the last couple of years and am very hesitant. What are your thoughts on this vaccine?
Exposed: The cruel flaws of British Government-funded financial support scheme for people injured by AstraZeneca's Covid vaccine (and don't even bother trying to claim the one-off payment of £120k if you're "only" 59% disabled)
We're still waiting for that $500,000 challenge. What happened to it? Did he bolt?
The £1billion battle for Covid jab justice: How 90 British families left bereaved or disabled after getting AstraZeneca's vaccine
UK's MHRA's definition of safe and effective:
Feel free to pass this on to whatever contacts you have in MSM, journalists, lawyers working on the court cases, medical people fighting mandates and so on.
But if they ask where it came from to fact check then pass on my contacts and I will supply them the original for their due diligence.
MHRA answered me this morning . Strange for them to send out e-mails on a Sunday, normally it’s a Friday afternoon, answering these 2 questions:
Can you please supply: - the metric or standard that is used by the MHRA to quantify the term “safe” with regards/reference to a “covid vaccine” authorised for use by the MHRA?
- the metric or standard that is used by the MHRA to quantify the term “effective” with regards/reference to a “covid vaccine” authorised for use by the MHRA?
What an answer - they have no definitive standard to measure either safety nor effectiveness of any medicine or vaccine.
So how do they know something is “safe” or “effective”?
It is because they, or the manufacturer, say it is!!!
Here is their actual answer:
There is no ‘metric or standard’ used by the MHRA to quantify ‘safe’ in terms of a COVID-19 vaccine, or any other medicinal product. . No medicine is completely risk-free. For a medicine to be considered acceptably safe, its expected benefits should be greater than any associated risks of harmful reactions (my highlighting). This can be determined based on the data submitted with an application for a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product such as a COVID-19 vaccine. But the balance of benefits and risks for any product can change at any time during its marketed life, for example if a serious new side effect is established.
For this reason the MHRA continually monitors the safety of all medicinal products authorised in the UK, including the COVID-19 vaccines. The process is termed pharmacovigilance and this involves:
monitoring the use of medicines in everyday practice to identify previously unrecognised adverse effects or changes in the patterns of adverse effects
assessing the risks and benefits of medicines in order to determine what action, if any, is necessary to improve their safe use
providing information to healthcare professionals and patients to optimise safe and effective use of medicines
monitoring the impact of any action taken
You can read more about the MHRA’s safety assessments for COVID-19 vaccines here Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines adverse reactions - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
As stated above, all medicinal products are authorised based on an assessment of the benefit/risk - that is the benefit to the patient being greater than the known risks associated with taking that product. To understand the assessment of the benefit/risk for each of the Covid-19 vaccines authorised, please refer to the Public Assessment Reports (PARs) for each of the vaccines that we have provided links to in our previous responses to you.
Vaccine efficacy is usually measured in randomised controlled clinical trials. It is calculated by comparing the proportion of trial subjects that developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the vaccine arm with the proportion that developed symptomatic COVID-19 in the placebo arm. The calculation is made after a certain number of COVID-19 cases have occurred in the trial as a whole. This number is decided at the start of the trial. This means that a time period is not chosen.
More details on the measurement of vaccine efficacy are provided in the PARs that you have already received.
We hope this information is helpful.
But the PARs they mention do NOT prove the vaccines are safe nor effective when you read them.
I have read them many times and cannot find out what in them proves safety and/or effectiveness.
Here they are, read them for yourselves:
If the vaccines are safe, why does the HHS keep extending liability protections (now extended till 12/31/2024) by amending the “Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID-19” - even though the public health emergency is officially over...?
- adds “seasonal influenza” to the disease category
- adds liability protection for seasonal influenza vaccines; and
- states that “Covid-19 presents a credible risk of future public health emergency”
This will be published in the Federal Register on 5/12/23
So what it comes down to is, any data that proves you wrong is automatically dismissed as fake.
Also, the mRNA vaccines you're decrying so much have less than 1 death per BILLION doses, yet you still insist they're unsafe.