National Academies are flat out wrong about the safety of the COVID vaccine

They claimed there were no safety signals for the mRNA vaccines except for myocarditis. The problem is that relying solely on published papers is a very bad idea. A huge mistake.

Executive summary

The US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) recently issued a safety report on the COVID vaccines with the following conclusions (for the Pfizer vaccine):

1. Causes: myocarditis (but not pericarditis).

2. Do not cause: infertility, Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell’s palsy, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), heart attack, and ischemic stroke.

3. Inconclusive: all other conditions tested including chronic headache, tinnitus, capillary leak syndrome and sudden death.

I wrote an email to the Vice Chair of the committee saying that the clinical reality doesn’t match their rhetoric and offered to have a discussion to resolve the conflict.

My email was ignored, exactly as 78% of my readers predicted.

The medical community is violating the first rule of holes: if you find yourself in one, stop digging.

These 100% verifiable anecdotes are statistically impossible if the vaccines are safe

You only need one example to reject the null hypothesis.

Yet I can easily come up with many.

For example, I just did a survey of 1,140 people who experienced one of the 28 side effects studied in the report. You can view the results here. Basically only 1 person thought their injury (I only allowed the 28 side effects in the NASEM survey) was NOT due to the vaccine!!

That fact alone is damning, but some people could just claim that everyone who follows me is a nut case that thinks that everything is caused by vaccines.

More objectively, in 23 of the 28 side effects, the event rates were not evenly spread out over time. That means something is going on.

In short, it seems pretty obvious that in at least 23 of the 28 side effects, the vaccine was more likely than not causing the effect.

The signal for died suddenly is stronger than for myocarditis

For example, for “sudden death”, here are the Fisher stats:

In plain English, your odds of “dying suddenly” were 4.4X higher in week 1 vs. week 2 and the number of cases were so large that the probability that this “anecdote” happened by random chance is 4.5e-9, which is nearly 1 chance in a billion.

In other words, it’s a statistical certainty that “died suddenly” is associated with COVID vaccination. It also means that it’s likely that at least 77% of the “sudden deaths” happening post vaccination were caused by the COVID vaccine.

Or if you think my survey is biased, simply explain why, of the nearly 500 people in Ed Dowd’s book who died suddenly after 2021, only 1 person was found to be unvaccinated. Ed simply picked those people without knowing their vaccination status. How could Ed get so “lucky” and just pick only vaccinated people who died suddenly? The chance of him doing that is less than 1 in a million.

So there’s really no doubt at all that that the vaccine is causing people to die suddenly, yet the medical community is completely incapable of finding a huge signal like this, even though the signal strength (in my survey) was higher than the myocarditis signal.

By contrast, the NASEM report said there wasn’t enough data to form a conclusion on sudden death.

The data is in plain sight showing the connection between the COVID vaccines and injuries

Perhaps they should read the 1,140 injury reports and read the 625 comments and see how they explain all of these as “coincidences.” How do they explain the odds ratio and p-values?

All I need is just a single compelling case for each injury type. Some people who reported injuries noted in their report that their doctors agreed it was caused by the COVID vaccine.

For example, recordID 240 documents a 65 year old male who got just 1 COVID shot and developed GBS in less than 24 hours from the shot: “Even the medical doctors agreed it was from the covid injection.”

I have the contact info for everyone who filled out the survey. The medical community is not interested in following up on any of these cases though. Willful blindness.

Other injury reports

Surveys can be biased, but the imbalances in the reports in week 1 vs. week 2 are too large to ignore for most of the symptoms.

If the increased reporting in the earlier weeks were just reporting bias, the ratio of reports would be nearly the same for each symptom. They are not. So that hand waving argument doesn’t apply.

Here are a few other data points that I easily obtained…

Former UCSF nurse Angela Wulbrecht is aware of nearly 80 GBS cases happening after the COVID vaccines rolled out. She told me that over 90% had symptoms within 24 hours of the shot. That’s statistically impossible if the shots are safe.

She also is aware of around 20 Bell's Palsy, nearly all 100% within 2 weeks of the shot.

Brady Smith has been a dentist in Vancouver WAVancouver WA for 15 years. He sees about 5,000 patients a year in his practice. Never saw any cases of Bell’s palsy (BP) in his career. After the shots rolled out, he had 2 patients with Bell’s palsy. Both patients developed the condition within hours of their Moderna COVID vaccine.

You think that was a coincidence?

But NASEM says the vaccines do NOT cause BP!

So Brady must have imagined those cases??!

This is what I mean when I say that the reality simply doesn’t match the rhetoric. Someone is lying to you.

Please check out the 625 comments on the survey and ask yourself whether you think these people are all lying (they have absolutely no incentive to lie).

The comments

The 625 survey comments are the best part. Can we get someone in the mainstream medical community who can explain away each one of the comments?

The statistics on each condition

Here’s a screenshot of the spreadsheet summarizing the survey results sorted by effect size of week 1 / week 2 counts. Large numbers in the ratios means there were more events earlier in time than later in time. If there is no causality, the ratios should be around 1.

if there is no causality, the number of events per unit time should be constant. This is not the case.

Summary

The NASEM report just doesn’t match up with what doctors and patients are experiencing. Collectively, these patient experiences are statistically impossible if the vaccine is safe. Math doesn’t lie. Someone is not telling you the truth.

When I reached out to the vice chair of the NASEM committee offering to discuss the discrepancies, I was ignored.

That’s how “science” works nowadays. It isn’t the search for truth. It is all about propaganda supporting the government narrative so they don’t lose their jobs and funding. No critical thinking.

“Scientists” trust the published papers and the data is ALWAYS unavailable in every paper I’ve asked with one exception: the Bangladesh mask study. There, we showed that the data they collected didn’t support their claims.

I know from the time-series analysis of the New Zealand data the vaccines are killing people. It’s definitive. Nobody wants to challenge me on that. I’m happy to be proven wrong but nobody can explain how the death rates rise after vaccination with the COVID vaccines when the death rate in the overall population drops (due to seasonality). It is not HVE. I can’t get a live discussion on this.

The COVID vaccines should be withdrawn. They are unsafe.

Furthermore, the patient record level data should be made public in each country so everyone can see for themselves. There is no excuse for hiding this critical public health data. The NASEM committee should be calling for this if they were really interested in finding the truth.