UNPRECEDENTED, DEVASTATING: COVID V*X

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or Twitter.

We get the gist - now

 

Are you terrified for your precious children whom the j*b has made 'terminally ill'? For your children's children? Did you lose your job, your career, your livelihood? Have you been shunned like a pariah, a leper, for refusing to put a mask - a lie - on your face? 

What was it all for? In a gripping video and masterly monograph Australian Phillip Altman, Bachelor of Pharmacy, Bachelor and Master of Science, Doctor of Philosophy, tells us all we ever need to know about COVID 19, the most horrendous scam in history.  

In the video, addressing the Australian Medical Professionals' Society in Melbourne, he only just manages to keep his cool. In the monograph he produces enough citations, footnotes and peer-reviewed studies to shut any woke, medical snob up. 

Yes this is a big read but for the dyslexic the big facts are bolded, the biggest in RED. You can skip through it that way and be able to stand  your ground against the worst of the woke. And we hate to admit it but what he says about Oz in regard to COVID applies to New Zealand too, pretty much. 

All right, all right: for readers who don't really read at all, here's the video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf61F6cInzc

Follow the COVID money: NZ's PM Ardern emerges from BlackRock, New York

Foreword 

I am pleased and proud to endorse the attached letter and monograph, meticulously compiled by Dr Phillip Altman and his colleagues. They address some important aspects of COVID19 management and policy, especially in Australia, with a focus on the nature, deployment and effects of “vaccines”. It is abundantly clear that there has been repression and suppression in scientific circles and the media of any views or suggestions that run counter to the government/mainstream narrative. 

Especially in the totalitarian regimes of Victoria and New Zealand.  

However, many studies now indicate that the Covid19 vaccines, especially the mRNA vaccines, are less than 'safe and effective', and the ramifications are truly confronting. Armed with these facts, the scientific and medical communities can now begin proper discussions of potential solutions that improve the benefit/risk ratios for the public and do not harm careers and livelihoods of professionals seeking the best outcomes for their patients. 

Wendy Hoy AO FAA FRACP 

Professor of Medicine Director, Centre for Chronic Disease University of Queensland Brisbane, Australia

 

THE TIME OF COVID

The nature of the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ has been largely misrepresented by mainstream media, big pharmaceutical companies, and governments, and is consequently poorly understood by the population at large. Most people consider vaccines to be relatively safe and well researched and readily accept their widespread use. 1.2. However, these COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are not really vaccines – they are serious genebased therapies which employ a gene-based technology which has never before been deployed in a fully approved therapeutic product. In this sense they should properly be considered to be experimental, and much safety and efficacy information has been gained since the introduction of these products more than a year ago.

COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ as a therapeutic fall under the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies’ definition of “gene therapy products”, in that it involves “introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease”1 . Despite this, the FDA did not evaluate this therapy in relation to the established gene therapy guidelines. Gene therapies have never been widely used in a general population.

Provisional Approval is a relatively new drug regulatory pathway introduced into the Therapeutic Goods Act in 2018. Under this expedited review system, therapeutic agents (including vaccines) can be made available for use when there is a perceived urgent need to use a drug even though the amount of ordinary safety and efficacy data normally required to approve that drug is not available. The manufacturer is required by the TGA to submit additional safety and efficacy data over a defined period to answer specific important outstanding safety and efficacy issues not completed or concluded before the product is Provisionally Approved. Products released under “Provisional Approval” cannot be considered fully evaluated. 

Under these circumstances and because there is pending or outstanding safety and efficacy data to be generated and evaluated, it is premature to declare such drugs “safe and effective”, and the use of these agents needs to be constantly under review in light of emerging safety data to reassess the risk versus any perceived benefit.

The new generation COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ have not been fully ‘approved’ by the Australian drug regulator – all these products have been “Provisionally Approved” due to deficiencies in the normal scope and depth of safety and efficacy data normally required for full approval. This is of particular importance in relation to vaccine mandates in so far as the regulatory status of these products establish without any doubt that important safety and efficacy concerns remain in relation to the use of these products. In such circumstances, forcing individuals on a massive scale to receive such serious medications with potentially unknown and serious adverse consequences, including death, using coercive vaccination mandates, is without precedence in medicine. 2.5. CThe unprecedented category represents those vaccines directed towards a disease that has never before been successfully treated and include vaccines against HIV and malaria. According to authors Seneff and Nigh3 unprecedented vaccines are expected to take more than 12 years to develop due to the technical difficulties, and they are expected to have a very low chance (about 5%) of proving safety and efficacy in even early Phase II clinical trials involving small numbers of individuals, and a very much lower chance (about 2%) of moving to larger Phase III clinical trials and demonstrating safety and efficacy before being considered for marketing. 

The gene-based COVID19 ‘vaccines’ were developed in less than a year and are supported by abbreviated safety and efficacy clinical data. These gene-based ‘vaccines’ are in the ‘unprecedented’ category. 2.7. Historically, a large number of conventional vaccines have been withdrawn due to safety concerns. 

How the Gene-Based COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Work 3.1. 

These ‘vaccines’ use a genetic technology which has not been employed for any fully approved drug and in this sense the use of these products should properly be considered experimental. This technology, due to its inherent safety risks, has previously only been investigated in relatively early clinical research for possible use in certain cancers and rare genetic disorders. These products deliver either RNA in a lipo-nanoparticle (which has never been used previously) or DNA genetic material contained in a viral vector to produce the spike protein, similar to that found on the surface of the coronavirus, in order to provoke an immune response. It is the spike protein which is now known to be the main toxic component of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. It is also the spike protein produced by these ‘vaccines’ which is understood to cause the unprecedented number of serious adverse events and death being reported following vaccination in various international adverse drug reporting systems. 

All COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ employ new generation nanoparticle technology: either nonviral or viral based nanoparticles4 . The extremely small size of nanomaterials also means that they are much more readily taken up by the human body than larger sized particles. Nanomaterials are able to cross biological membranes and access cells, tissues and organs that larger sized particles normally cannot5 . Such wide and efficient distribution following administration has significant implications in relation to organ and tissue toxicity as compared to conventional vaccines which largely remain at the site of injection. 

Specifically, nanoparticles may cross the blood-brain barrier (the membrane protecting the spinal cord and brain) and they may be associated with long term inflammation in various tissues and organs, and they may be associated with cardiovascular adverse effects.

6. Threat Posed by SARS-CoV-2 4.1. 

The threat posed by SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in producing the COVID-19 infection to segments of the community has been exaggerated due to the nature of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test used to detect “cases”. The PCR test as used in Australia and elsewhere was set (cycle threshold value: “Ct”) to be exquisitely sensitive and could produce a positive result even if no live virus was present or even if a fragment of a single viral particle was present. A survey of the utility of PCR tests reported that positive PCR tests set to a Ct of 35 only correlated with a positive culture in 3% of cases.

7.  In Australia and elsewhere, the PCR Ct was normally set at even higher values conferring less reliability. The PCR test was never intended to be diagnostic for COVID-19 due to this attribute. Individuals testing positive for COVID-19 frequently have very low viral loads and are asymptomatic (show no symptoms) and are incapable of transmission of the virus due to their low viral loads. Children, in particular, are at virtually nil threat of serious COVID-19 infection (see below).

Some estimates suggest that up to 97% of "COVID positive cases” detected by PCR detected no virus on culture and therefore were of questionable value. 8. Indeed, so grave are the many limitations and lack of reliability attributable to PCR tests, that external peer review revealed 10 major scientific flaws that resulted in strong calls for the retractionof  the Corman-Drosten paper, published by Eurosurveillance.

In recognition of the limitations of the PCR testing, these tests are no longer considered generally appropriate by the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) in determining the number of COVID-19 cases and their emergency use authorisation has been withdrawn reflecting this fact.

COVID-19 government statistics represent another complicating factor. There is no discrimination between those individuals in hospital or intensive care “dying with” COVID-19 as opposed to ‘dying from’ COVID-19. Patients in hospital for serious nonCOVID-19 related illness are routinely tested for COVID-19 and often return a positive test. These patients are routinely recorded as “COVID cases” and this can be misleading. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics up to 15 February 2022 “There are 2,639 death registrations that have been received by the ABS where an individual is certified as having died from or with COVID-19 between the start of the pandemic and 31 January 2022”. The median age for those who died from COVID-19 was 83.7 years (81.2 years for males, 86.0 years for females) among individuals reasonably assumed to have multiple serious co-morbidities. 

COVID-19 is an infection principally causing more serious illness in older individuals. Australian government Department of Health website: Coronavirus (COVID-19) case numbers and statistics (updated 7 May 2022) states there have been a total of 6,165,105 “cases” of COVID-1914 . This translates to a death rate of COVID-19 of 0.0428% (for those ‘dying with’ COVID-19). COVID-19 was only the 38th leading cause of death in Australia reported in 2020 statistics. 

With the delta then Omicron waves since late 2021, deaths with COVID-19 have risen, but data where it is available, as in NSW, indicate that proportions of hospitalisations and deaths are as high or higher among vaccinated than among unvaccinated people (see 13.11 below).  

The NSW Respiratory Surveillance Report ending 23 July 2022 states: ‘146 COVID19 deaths were reported this week, a 3% increase from 142 reported last week. All 146 deaths were eligible for a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine…..’, indicating that there were no deaths reported for unvaccinated individuals.

15 4.7. To place these numbers in perspective, the number of deaths due to influenza reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics increased steadily from 68 in 2011 to 274 in 2016, and rose sharply to 1,183 in 201716 . When grouped, influenza and pneumonia contributed to 4,369 deaths in 2017 and were the ninth leading cause of death for the year. During 2018, influenza and pneumonia were the twelfth. 

4.8. No statistic is available regarding the number of Australians ‘dying from’ COVID-19. The total number of Australians ‘dying from’ COVID-19 would be some fraction of the total deaths reported. Officially reported ‘COVID-19 deaths’ do not discriminate between those dying “with” COVID-19 and those dying “due to” COVID-19. Some government websites make this clear17 . leading cause of death (n = 3,102 deaths). .

4.9. The impact of COVID-19 varies depending on the age group. There is no Australian statistic available to demonstrate that any otherwise healthy child died ‘due to’ or ‘from’ COVID-19.

4.10. The lack of information on the actual cause of death in children in these rare instances makes any assessment of the risk of death due to COVID-19 in this age group tenuous. The risk of death due to COVID-19 may range from exceedingly rare to virtually and statistically nil.

4.11. There is emerging evidence that the COVID-19 gene-based ‘vaccines’ are showing rapid and significant diminished efficacy against the Omicron variant, particularly in children aged 5-11

4.12. Some useful information regarding COVID-19 ascribed deaths in the UK was obtained by a Freedom of Information Request (FOI/2021/3368), showing the number of deaths where COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate, from 1 February 2020 to 31 December 2021, by sex and age group in England and Wales. This data (presented below as a downloaded Excel table) is important because it is a record where COVID-19 is the only listed possible cause of death, and it covers a period where the most virulent strain of SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in the global population.

4.13. This data supports the view of a virtually or statistically near nil risk of death due to COVID-19 in very young children, adolescents, and adults through to middle-aged.

4.14. Another study in children and young people (<18 years of age) in the UK covering 12,023,568 individuals, from March 2020 to February 2021, examined the records of 3,105 who died including 61 who were positive for SARS-CoV-2.

4.15. This study is instructive, in that it describes in detail an evaluation process which should normally be conducted in evaluating whether or not an individual’s death can be ascribed to COVID-19, in light of pre-existing co-morbidities. Many reports of “COVID deaths” do not attempt to discriminate or ascribe causality to this level, and therefore are of limited usefulness. This study was done at a time when the more virulent strain of SARS-CoV-2 was dominant, and it could be assumed to significantly overstate the risk of death due to the current Omicron variant which has been dominant during 2022 worldwide.

4.16. Despite the potential for this study to overestimate the risk of death in 2022, the authors conclude: “…the risk of serious outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 for individuals under 18 years of age remains extremely low” - and even considering child deaths where COVID-19 was not the sole cause, the authors conclude – “we estimated the infection fatality rate to be five per 100,000 indicating that more than 99.995% of children and young people recover from SARS-CoV-2 infection.” 

5. Initial Perceptions of the COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ 

5.1. Initially, despite limited clinical and epidemiological data, a number of community and health professional perceptions were widely held in relation to these new vaccines including:

 • the vaccines prevent infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 developing (COVID-19 being the disease caused by the virus)

• the vaccines prevent transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from infected to non-infected individuals • the vaccines would provide durable immunity

• the vaccines are 95% effective 

• the vaccines are safe and effective 

5.2. In light of more than a year of widespread COVID-19 vaccination usage all these initial perceptions have been shown to be without foundation.

It is undisputed that COVID 19 is commonplace in fully vaccinated individuals and now multiple boosters are being recommended at relatively frequent intervals. The current COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ have lost effectiveness against the emerging variants – to many, they have failed. However, the incidence of serious adverse events from these gene-based ‘vaccines’ continue to be reported and continue to rise in unprecedented number and severity.

5.3. A good example of the popular misconceptions concerning the gene-based COVID19 ‘vaccines’ is the claim of 95% efficacy which was repeated and unchallenged in the mainstream media and by health authorities in Australia and elsewhere. 

5.4. Approval of the gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ were based on single clinical trials from each company. These single trials were the sole basis for both the safety and efficacy claims. For example, in the case of the Pfizer gene-based ‘vaccine’ it was widely stated and generally accepted at the time that the clinical efficacy of the vaccine was determined in a large clinical trial of about 44,000 subjects and the efficacy was 95%. 

5.5. Without an understanding of the design, conduct and reporting of clinical trials, the ordinary person might interpret this statement in a number of different ways. For example, this “95%” efficacy might be interpreted to mean that vaccination provides a 95% chance of being protected from being infected following exposure from a person infected with SARS-CoV-2; or it might be interpreted to mean that vaccination reduces the risk of the average healthy person falling seriously ill and needing hospitalisation following SARS-CoV-2 infection; or it might be interpreted as showing the risk of death due to severe COVID-19 illness is reduced by 95%. 5.6. Indeed, none of these interpretations are correct. 

5.7. The claimed 95% efficacy was based upon only 170 subjects who contracted COVID19 during the trial which had a median follow up of two months post-second dose. The claimed clinical efficacy was not based upon 44,000 subjects. Of the 44,000 subjects enrolled and divided roughly equally between receiving active prophylactic vaccination or placebo, only 170 subjects tested positive for COVID-19 AND developed even mild COVID-19 symptoms (similar to the common cold) which was the criterion set for “clinical efficacy”; with eight testing positive in the vaccinated group AND displaying a COVID-19 symptom as mild as a sore throat, fever or cough, while 162 tested positive in the placebo group AND displayed a COVID-19 symptom as mild as a sore throat, fever or cough. This is where the 95% COVID “vaccine” efficacy claim originated and, based on this pivotal data, it should not be inferred that the Pfizer COVID-19 “vaccine was shown to be 95% effective in preventing serious COVID-19 disease, symptoms, hospitalisation or death”.

5.8. The Pfizer trial (mentioned above) reported 99.07% of unvaccinated individuals did not develop symptoms of COVID-19 while 99.95% the vaccinated group did not report COVID-19 symptoms thus producing an absolute risk reduction of symptoms of 0.88%. This statistic is a realistic measure of protection from COVID-19 (which may only present as mild symptoms) in an uninfected population over the trial surveillance period. 

5.9. A subsequent Pfizer COMIRNATY gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ trial which was pivotal in the approval of this ‘vaccine’ for children 5-11 relied on the clinical symptoms of only 19 children (3 developed symptoms in the Comirnaty vaccine group and 16 in the placebo group) upon which to base its claimed a relative clinical efficacy of 90.7%. Once again, the claimed clinical efficacy only referred to the chance of preventing the mild symptoms, similar to the common cold, in children who tested positive for COVID-19. The absolute vaccine clinical efficacy to prevent even mild symptoms among the 4500 trial participants can then be calculated to be under 1%.

5.10. A similar approach was adopted by other manufacturers such as Moderna claiming similar “efficacy” which has not been understood by either the media or the lay public. 

6. Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Children 6.1.

All therapeutic agents, including vaccines, present a safety risk. Therefore, the risk/benefit analysis of any medication needs to be weighed up. 

6.2. Drug regulatory agencies now recognise that most children with COVID-19 have either no symptoms (asymptomatic) or have only mild symptoms. 

6.3. I have searched without success for evidence and statistics for the incidence of severe COVID-19 and death due principally to COVID-19 in children aged 5-11 in New Zealand and Australia.

6.4. Some information appears in the Australian TGA AusPAR (Public Assessment Report) Pfizer mRNA Vaccine COMIRNATY dated December 2021, which was used to approve the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for children 5-11 years of age. On page 11 of this Australian report, Table 1 (below) includes COVID-19 “cases” in Australia by age.group and highest level of illness severity – 1 January 2021 to 10 October 2021 the numbers of children in age group 0-4 and 5-11 are presented. It reports that over more than a nine month period in 2021 (at a time that the more virulent stains of SARS-CoV2 were prevalent) that one person under 18 years of age died either “with” or “due to” COVID-19.

6.5. A search of the Risk Management Plan report released by Pfizer in February 2022 reviewed all available US COVID-19 cases and deaths to 14 August 2021. The incident of death in children who tested positive to COVID-19 in ages 0-4 and 5-11 years was listed as “<0.1%” for each group. This statistic, once again, does not distinguish between those children dying “with” COVID-19 or “due to” COVID-19. 6.6. The above data sets are consistent with studies showing the mortality rate in children from seasonal influenza.27 These figures correlate with further findings showing 46.7% of children 0 to 18 years 28 being asymptomatic upon infection. 

PART B: Emerging Picture of the Safety and Efficacy of the COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’

7. Failure to Demonstrate a Favourable Risk/Benefit Case for Vaccinating Children with COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ 7.1. Table 1 above, shows that no children died and 4 aged 5-11 were admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICU), however, as indicated previously in this report, it is important to distinguish between those children admitted to ICU “from COVID-19” or “with COVID19”. It is possible that at least some of these children were admitted for serious comorbidities (as often is the case), but coincidentally tested positive for COVID-19. Until this reasonable possibility is ruled out, this information should not be relied upon as evidence that children suffer, to any meaningful extent, serious disease caused by COVID-19.

7.2. In reality, the risk of COVID-19 death in an otherwise healthy 5-11 year-old is virtually or statistically nil. Investigations of extremely rare cases have been poorly characterised, and it is unclear to what extent any reported death is directly attributable to COVID-19 as opposed to pre-existing medical conditions. A Johns Hopkins study published in July 2021 monitoring 48,000 children diagnosed with COVID-19 found a mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing medical condition.

7.3. As COVID-19 is now known to rarely produce serious disease in children, this should have significant impact upon the risk-benefit analysis of using the gene-based ‘vaccines’ which have known serious short-term serious adverse effects, including death, and potentially serious unknown longer term adverse effects in this age group. 

8. Serious Adverse Effects of the COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ 

8.1. Very limited relatively short-term safety data is available from the individuals inemergency authorisations or provisional approvals of the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’. As such, there is a heavy reliance upon post-marketing adverse drug reaction report (ADR) systems to identify the type and incidence of adverse effects which are caused by the ‘vaccines’. There are a number of such systems. Australia has the Drug Adverse Event Reporting system (DAEN), and the US has the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) which reports both US and international adverse events. 

8.2. The problem with these systems is that they involve voluntary reporting and most doctors are reluctant to report adverse drug reactions to vaccines due to fear of being accused by health regulators (Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency, AHPRA) of being considered to be “anti-vax”. Many doctors both here and overseas and other health professionals fear losing their licence to practice if they even apply for vaccine exemptions, and many investigations are currently underway by AHPRA at the present time. Also, the criteria for assessing a causal relationship between a vaccine and an adverse event can be set so high that only a small percentage of serious adverse events or deaths are officially reported as being caused by a vaccine. These are some of the reasons why reporting systems suffer from notorious underreporting.

This can result in an underreporting factor of between 10-30 or more, i.e.: one must multiply the official incidence of adverse events by 10-30, to obtain a real-world estimate of the true incidence of the adverse event. For US VAERS reporting in respect of the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’, the underreporting factor (URF) is estimated to be between 40x-49x . 8.3. 

In Australia, it is difficult to obtain statistics regarding details of the number of deaths caused by the gene-based ‘vaccines’. A Freedom of Information request (FOI-3586) was made to the TGA for data on the deaths reported as possibly related to the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ and the 196-page report is available online but is almost completely redacted. In the US the VAERS adverse drug reporting system has recorded 27,758 deaths associated with gene-based “vaccine” administration through to 29 April 2022. The TGA COVID-19 vaccine weekly safety report released 23 June 202234 indicates a total of 889 deaths in association with COVID-19 gene-based ‘vaccines’ of which only 13 have been identified by the TGA as definitely causing death. However, there are no public details available as to the criteria used by the TGA in arriving at this number of 13 deaths. This reported incidence of death does not account for any underreporting factor.

8.4. Further confounding a proper of assessment of reported deaths is the complete lack of guidance or directions from the TGA or State or Territory health departments, with respect to any requirement to conduct autopsies on persons dying at any time post COVID-19 vaccination. This is an unfortunate state of affairs when it is known to the TGA as a consequence of its Pharmacovigilance duties, that by employing new histopathological methods developed in Germany, that identify the mRNA generated spike proteins at the scene of fatal pathological inflammatory reactions, deaths that could be easily attributed to a 'normal' heart attack, or a 'normal' stroke, are now instead being found to have been caused by COVID-19 vaccines. Critically, in the German studies, of the 15 deceased examined, deaths due to the vaccines were found to be 'likely' and 'very likely' in 80% of cases. 

8.5. Prior to COVID-19 vaccinations, over the last 10 years there has been an average of about 155 deaths per year reported in relation to all conventional vaccines to the US VAERS. This includes all standard childhood vaccines on vaccine schedules, annual flu vaccines, travel vaccines, hepatitis, human papilloma virus vaccines, tetanus vaccines, meningococcal vaccines and herpes vaccines. 

8.6. The website OpenVAERS extracts VAERS data each week specifically in relation to adverse event reports for the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’. An inspection shows the contrast in reported mortality for the gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ compared to all other vaccines combined since 1990.

8.7. Statistics on the number of flu vaccines administered over many years is provided by the US CDC37 , and range from about 110 million per year to more than 190 million per year since 2008. Similarly, there have been more people who have received measles/mumps/Rubella vaccinations (301,000,000) than COVID-19 vaccinations (255,000,000) since VAERS commenced reporting in 199. 

8.8. The relatively high number of adverse reports received by the VAERS (hosted by the US CDC) relative to other commonly used vaccines, is also seen in both of the other two major adverse drug reporting systems: VigiAccess (hosted by WHO) and EudraVigilance (hosted by the European Medicines Agency).

8.9. Dr. Jessica Rose, specialist data analyst, has focused her attention on the US VAERS data and published on the general ADR data as well as specifically in relation to myocarditis. 

8.10. As of 22 April 2022, in the United States alone there had been recorded 5,309 cases of myocarditis, 782,665 adverse events, 151,796 severe adverse events, and 14,613 deaths in VAERS following COVID-19 vaccination. Every adverse drug reaction report needs to be individually assessed to rate the probability of causing any particular adverse reaction – not all reports are assessed as “causal”. On the other hand, the underreporting factor can range from 5 to perhaps as high as 31 times or more. 

8.11. The confounding assessment factors of underreporting of adverse effects on one hand, and the possible lack of evidence of causation on the other hand in relation to deaths caused by vaccines, can be resolved to a large degree by an examination of the statistics of death temporally associated with vaccine administration. 

8.12. Dr. Jessica Rose has analysed the percentage of individuals experiencing a8.13. Of particular interest is the Rose analysis of VAERS % reported deaths following vaccination with the gene-based vaccines versus the number of days following injection. This analysis included a graphical representation of the temporal relationship between the number of deaths reported in association with COVID-19 vaccine administration and the time of death measured in days following injection. In relation to the widely accepted Bradford Hill criteria for the assessment of adverse drug reactions, a close temporal relationship between drug administration and the adverse event represents some of the strongest evidence upon which to assign a cause-effect relationship. 

(The following graphical representation depicts the percent of reported deaths versus the number of days following injection of a COVID-19 “vaccine” (data ending December 2021) showing a clustering of deaths within about 2 days of administration (orange line) compared to an expected background incidence of a hypothetical event which is not related temporally to vaccine administration (yellow line). 

Further evidence to support the cause-effect relationship between death and COVID-19 “vaccine” administration may be seen by comparing the similar characteristic temporal relationship between anaphylaxis and reported deaths. In this respect, anaphylaxis is used as a positive control to assist the interpretation of the data. 

Another important temporal relationship extracted from the VAERS data is shown below between the incidence of myocarditis and COVID-19 “vaccine” administration.

 

8.14. The abovementioned analyses are short-term analyses, i.e. observations within days, weeks or months of vaccination. No long-term safety data is available for the COVID19 gene-based vaccines. The long-term safety of the gene-based vaccines is completely unknown and there are potentially serious concerns which will only be resolved many years into the future. These concerns are based on the identification of pathogenic attributes of the spike protein and include profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and natural cancer surveillance protective mechanisms, a potentially causal link to neurodegenerative disease, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis. 

8.15. It has been suggested that the increase in deaths temporally associated with the introduction of the gene-based ‘vaccines’ is not due to these new ‘vaccines’ but rather due to increased numbers of injections overall. However, this explanation does not appear valid as the COVID-19 vaccines represent a small proportion of all vaccines given in the US since 1990. For example, just considering flu vaccines, it has been reported that since the 08/09 flu season a total of 1,720,400,000 flu vaccines were administered while only 557,637,223 doses of the COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the USA. Many other types of vaccines are routinely used.

8.16. A detailed summary and analysis of the adverse drug reactions reported in association with the COVID-19 gene-based “vaccines” is presented as an addendum to this Report44 Focus on Myocarditis and Pericarditis 

8.17. Of all the serious more short-term adverse events receiving attention in relation to the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines, myocarditis has probably received the most attention due to the seriousness of the condition (can cause permanent heart damage and be fatal) and its potential to affect longevity especially in the younger age groups with a predominance among younger males. 

8.18. In analysing the possible incidence of myocarditis associated with the gene-based vaccines, it is useful to compare the historical rates of myocarditis prior to the introduction of these vaccines with the rate associated with the vaccine rollouts (Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen) during 2021.

8.19. It appears that there is a risk of myocarditis from both COVID-19 infection (especially in the elderly population) and from gene-based COVID-19 vaccines – both considered to be related to the toxic spike protein. The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) has attempted to discriminate between the two causal factors in order to arrive at a risk of myocarditis caused by the vaccines. If there is a risk of people contracting myocarditis from SARS-CoV-2 then this would appear to be negligible, as no health authority has produced a report or meaningful evidence that SARS-CoV-2 significantly elevates the risk of myocarditis. 

8.20. The risk of myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmias associated with several gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ or SARS-CoV-2 infection itself was studied in a large case series study of people aged 16 or older in England between 1 December 2020 and 24 August 2021. 

8.21. In this large study the temporal relationship between the gene-based vaccines and myocarditis was seen in the subgroup analysis by age showing an increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines in those younger than 40 years of age. Subgroup analysis was only performed for myocarditis. In addition, the authors state: ‘Our findings are relevant to the public, clinicians and policy makers. First, there was an increase in the risk of myocarditis within a week of receiving the first dose of bothadenovirus and mRNA vaccines, and a higher increased risk after the second dose of both mRNA vaccines.’ ‘Myocarditis is underdiagnosed in practice, with clinical bias being directed towards myocardial ischemia or infarction.’ 

8.22. In a nationwide study in France involving 32 million people aged 12-50 years of age and receiving 46 million doses of mRNA vaccines, 1,612 cases of myocarditis and 1,613 cases of pericarditis occurred in France between 12 May 2021 and 31 October 2021.  The risk of myocarditis and pericarditis for both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was found to be increased both after the first and second doses. The risk of this association was statistically significant and particularly evident for the Moderna COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ where the risk of myocarditis/pericarditis was increased 30 times suggesting a dose-response relationship, given Moderna has 100 micrograms of mRNA and COMIRNATY has 30 micrograms of mRNA per dose. The risk was increased in younger age groups. The incidence of both myocarditis and pericarditis reported in this study was consistent with the incidence reported in other countries. 

8.23. Another study from Israel investigated the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in post COVID-19 unvaccinated patients. This is an important study because some have argued that the myocarditis and pericarditis incidence observed in populations may be due to COVID-19 and not due to COVID-19 ‘vaccines’. This retrospective cohort study of 196,992 adults following COVID-19 infection and 590,976 control adults who tested negative for COVID-19 concluded: ‘Post COVID-19 infection was not associated with either myocarditis or pericarditis. We did not observe an increased incidence of either pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection.’ 

8.24. Aside from being under-diagnosed in practice, it is generally known that many doctors avoid reporting myocarditis and other serious possible adverse events in relation to the gene-based vaccines for fear of being seen as critical of the national health COVID19 vaccination policies, and possible health regulator intimidation and retribution.  This, combined with the inherent underreporting of adverse events in general, suggest the true incidence of adverse effects such as myocarditis may be much higher than officially reported. This needs to be considered in the calculation of the risk-benefit analysis. 

8.25. This is most recently outlined in an Australian Government report on Guidance on  This, combined with the inherent underreporting of adverse events in general, suggest the true incidence of adverse effects such as myocarditis may be much higher than officially reported.Myocarditis and Pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines dated 29 April 2022 – rates of myocarditis per million doses by age cohort and sex (see Table 1 below reproduced image from the report). 

8.26. As of 10 July 2022, since inoculating 5-11 year-olds in Australia began on 10 January 2022, five (5) children were previously reported to have died following receiving a COVID-19 ‘vaccine’, as recorded by the TGA’s DAEN website Australian Government Therapeutic Goods Administration, Database of Adverse Event Notifications, 50 specifically:

 • Case no. 719838 11 Mar 7-year-old male – cardiac arrest, generalised tonic-clonic seizure. 

• Case no. 724023 25 Mar 9-year-old female – cardiac arrest. 

• Case no. 724925 28 Mar 6-year-old male – adverse event following immunisation (which has since been removed). 

• Case no. 733723 6 May 10-year-old male – adverse event following immunisation (which has since been reclassified). 

• Case no. 734187 10 May 5-year-old male – abdominal pain, cardiac arrest. 

8.27. Myocarditis and pericarditis are serious medical conditions which may have life-long consequences and may be life threatening and may affect 5-11 year-old children. As of 28-7-2022, despite possibly significant underreporting, there have been 37 suspected cases of chest pain (indicative of myocarditis and pericarditis) have been (sic) reported to the DAEN system in this age group. 

8.28. The paediatric COVID-19 gene-based ‘vaccines’ have only been available for a limited time as compared to the vaccines for the older age groups. But the safety record of the ‘vaccines’ used in the older age groups is an indicator of the adverse events one might expect in the younger age groups. 8.29. In this regard, the following information should be taken into consideration: 

a. The VAERS database reports that as of 22 April 2022, in the US alone there were 5,309 cases of myocarditis, 782,665 adverse events, 151,796 severe adverse events, and 14,613 deaths recorded following COVID-19 vaccination in the US. b. After introduction of the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines in the US, VAERS quickly accumulated an unusually large number of adverse events. Between November 3 and December 19, 2021, VAERS received an overwhelming 4,249 adverse reaction reports for children aged five through eleven years who received the Pfizer COVID-19 COMIRNATY ‘vaccine’.

8.30. Further, in the documents related to a recent FOIA request, in the Pfizer informed consent document it was revealed that the company recognised the risk of myocarditis to be as high as 1 in 1,000. Myocarditis is overwhelmingly found in younger people. 

Other Safety Factors and Issues to Consider

8.31. Another factor which needs to be considered is the delay in assessing and reporting adverse drug events due to the unprecedented number of such events being reported. Pfizer itself has acknowledged this issue in its cumulative analysis of postauthorisation adverse event report 5.3.6 of pf-07302048 (bnt162b2), dated 30 April 2021 (Pfizer’s Adverse Events Report) (released in or about November 2021 pursuant to court ordered disclosure expedited under the Freedom of Information Act):“Pfizer has also taken multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports. This includes significant technology enhancements, and process and workflow solutions, as well as increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues. To date, Pfizer has onboarded approximately 600 additional fulltime employees (FTEs). More are joining each month with an expected total of more than 1,800 additional resources by the end of June 2021.” 

8.32. During phase III clinical trials for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine products, safety was assessed based on a maximum observation period of 6 months. This is not adequate to assess long-term safety outcomes. A typical timeline of up to 10 years would be considered appropriate for long-term follow up. There are many examples where biological products have been recalled (let alone gene-based products) such as the rotavirus vaccines in 2010, the H1N1 influenza vaccine in 2009 and a meningococcal vaccine in 2005-2008. 8.33. Data from pivotal clinical trials used to support the gene-based ‘vaccines’ of Moderna, Pfizer and Janssen were re-analysed by Classen to determine ‘all cause severe morbidity” defined as “severe infections with COVID-19 and all other severe adverse events between the treatment arms and control arms respectively’. This type of analysis avoids any bias within the adverse drug reporting system where a cause/effect assessment might be arbitrarily discounted due to the overly strict criteria required to establish such a relationship. This analysis found a statistically significant increase in all cause severe morbidity in the vaccinated group compared to the placebo group. When all types of severe events were considered, the vaccinated group suffered more severe adverse events; this suggests the gene-based vaccines are doing more harm than good. 

8.34. In a published paper by a world-expert analyst of the VAERS database for all age groups, Dr. Jessica Rose found that, based on the ratio of expected severe adverse events to observed adverse events in VAERS for a number of conditions, the ‘underreporting factor (URF)’ for COVID vaccine-associated deaths was 31. Using this URF for all VAERS-classified severe adverse events, as of October 2021, COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ were associated with 205,809 deaths, 818,462 hospitalizations, 1,830,891 emergency room visits, 230,113 life-threatening events, 212,691 disabled and 7,998 birth defects." 

8.35. Further relevant background information is provided by life insurance industry data for adults. These data suggest historic increases in death claims coinciding with genebased ‘vaccine’ rollouts. A publicly available quarterly report by the Group Life Insurance Industry, covering roughly 90% of the employer-based policies in the US, reported that younger age groups were suddenly dying at historically unprecedented rates beginning in Q3 of 2021.

 8.36. Other evidence of the damage caused by the gene-based ‘vaccines’ comes from the number of ambulance calls in response to cardiac arrests and acute coronary syndromes (heart attacks) for young people in the 16–39 age group during the COVID19 vaccination rollout in Israel (January–May, 2021) compared with the same period of time in prior years 2019 and 2020.

There is also an alarming and massive rise in deaths among healthy, young professional athletes from around the world since the COVID-19 vaccination campaign was initiated. As of 4 June 2022, approximately 1,090 athletes suffered a cardiac arrest, with 715 of them dying as a result. The majority of arrests occurred in competition or training. The frequency of these events in comparison to historical data is of great concern. In a 2009 review of professional athletes’ deaths, published in a prominent European Cardiology journal, they found that from 1966 to 2004, there was an average of only 29 sudden athlete deaths per year worldwide. Compare this number to just the month of January 2022 alone where 127 collapses and 87 deaths among professional athletes were reported. Overall, these athlete deaths reflect an approximately 22-fold increase in the year after the introduction of COVID vaccines, to date unexplained by other identifiable causes. 

8.38. Australian Bureau of Statistics data also reflect a similar surge in Excess Deaths commensurate with the rollout of the ‘vaccines’, where Excess (non-COVID) Deaths for 2022 already are 17.5% above baseline, as the following graph vividly depicts.

8.39. New South Wales COVID-19 data for hospital admissions, ICU admissions and deaths in the 14 days up to 23 July 202264 is shown below. The data shows 693 people with known vaccination status were admitted to hospital; of these, one person was reported as unvaccinated. In interpreting this data it is noted that this is at a time when it is estimated that about 95% of individuals over 16 years of age are reported to be vaccinated. Also, unvaccinated individuals entering hospital for any reason may be more likely to be tested for COVID-19 as compared to those individuals who declare they are vaccinated. Taking these factors into account, the data suggests that Covid19 vaccinated individuals are placing relatively higher demands on hospital resources as compared to the unvaccinated, a trend that has been occurring in 2022.

Fertility, Birth Rates, miscarriages, stillbirths and neonatal deaths 

8.40. One category of death not normally accounted for in Excess Deaths figures are stillbirths. After the deployment of COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ in Germany and Scotland, statistically significant increases in stillbirths, perinatal, and neonatal deaths are now apparent from late 2021 leading into 2022.

 8.41. Correspondingly, extraordinarily high drops in birth rates are now apparent in Germany and Taiwan, with an over 10% decline in the former, and an over 25% decline in the latter. Similar declines in birth rates are now also being seen across US states, Sweden , Canada , and highly COVID-19 vaccinated Hungary. 

8.42. These declines appear to correlate with data released by Pfizer to regulators on or shortly after 28 February 202172 , where Pfizer reported on outcomes in 270 pregnant women who received the Pfizer ‘vaccine’. No outcome or follow-up by Pfizer was provided for 238 of the pregnancies thus undermining any claims of safety in pregnancy. Of the remaining pregnancies 28 out of 29 babies died, a death rate of 97% in those pregnancies Pfizer did follow-up. 

Though this Pfizer pregnancy data is grossly lacking, it nonetheless begs critical questions which regulators have to date not asked. Regulators should begin asking questions or considering the continued use of these ‘vaccines’, particularly now when further studies are confirming relatively high impacts on women’s menstrual cycles. 

Furthermore, data procured from Pfizer under Court order show that the Lipid Nanoparticles (LNPs) used as the delivery vehicle for the synthetic mRNA, extensively bio-distributes throughout the human body and accumulates in various organs including the kidney, spleen, adrenal glands, testes and ovaries although ‘vaccine’ recipients were initially informed the ‘vaccines’ would remain in the deltoid muscle at the site of injection. Although the effects of the delivered synthetic mRNA upon the various organs studied is currently unknown many studies show toxic effects of LNPs.

8.43. Collectively, the available peer-reviewed literature points to a number of serious safety concerns regarding COVID-19 ‘vaccines’. Already by December 2021, in excess of 1,000 peer-reviewed articles and studies focussing upon post-vaccination deaths and injuries had been published. 

8.44. The long-term potential for the Spike Protein (produced by the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’) to induce a range of autoimmune diseases has been commented upon by several authors. Because there is no long-term safety data available at the moment, the chance of induced autoimmune disease cannot be determined. 

9. Potential Toxicity of the Spike Protein Produced by Gene-Based ‘Vaccines’

9.1. The Spike Protein contained on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus facilitates the binding of the viral particle to human cells, allowing infection of those cells, and has inherent toxicity in its own right. However, the Spike Proteins produced by the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are not identical to the Spike Protein on the natural SARS-CoV2 virus in that some uracil nucleotide bases (there are 4 different nucleotide bases in RNA: uridine, cytosine, guanine and adenine) are replaced with pseudouridine (a methylated derivative). This seemingly small change imparts profound pharmacological characteristics to the mRNA molecule produced by the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ including the ability to evade natural degradation as happens to natural mRNA. Further, the synthetic mRNA Spike Proteins interfere with the body’s natural immune system (including Toll Like Receptors) which explains why these mRNA particles can provoke latent viral eruptions of Herpes Zoster and Epstein-Barr viruses as reported in adverse drug reaction reporting systems. 

9.2. Reactivation of the dormant virus Herpes Zoster, which is responsible for shingles, has been reported in relation to COVID-19 vaccination but at the moment no cause-and-effect relationship has been acknowledged. In order to investigate a possible cause-effect relationship, a systematic review of the literature was undertaken. A total of 54 cases reported in the literature were found and reviewed. Thirty-six patients out of 45 (80%) developed herpes zoster following the priming dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, 96% of patients developed it within a temporal timeframe defined by WHO as indicative of a causal relationship. The authors even suggested possible use of prophylactic herpes zoster anti-viral medication prior to vaccination to herpes prone individuals.

9.3. Multiple modes of Spike Protein toxicity have been reported including those related to blood clotting and mitochondrial damage. 

9.4. It has been a widespread belief that the Spike Protein produced by the gene-based ‘vaccines’ is the same as the Spike Protein on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, therefore, the effects of both will be similar. Furthermore, it has been assumed that exposing an individual to just the Spike Protein of the ‘vaccines’ is safer than exposure to the natural virus. However, these reasonings are now being questioned. It is now understood that the mRNA produced by the gene-based ‘vaccines’ contains pseudouridine instead of uridine as a nucleotide base and remains in circulation for much longer.

10. mRNA Does Not Remain at the Injection Site and Is Not Rapidly Destroyed

10.1. The normal biochemical protective mechanisms ensure that mRNA molecules are normally rapidly destroyed outside cells. Initially, it was thought that mRNA produced from COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ would be rapidly destroyed. However, evidence now shows that the mRNA from these ‘vaccines’ may linger for 15 days or more post-vaccination. The persistence of this mRNA has implications for continued production of Spike Protein and associated possible toxicity associated with the Spike Protein. Another study suggests mRNA produced following COVID-19 vaccination may remain in lymph nodes for up to 60 days. 

10.2. These nucleotide manipulations of the ‘vaccine’ mRNAs to reduce its rate of degradation and therefore to enhance its capacity to drive Spike Protein production per molecule of mRNA, may produce concentrations much higher than those observed with natural infection in some individuals. Gene-based ‘vaccines’ appear to drive production of incredibly high numbers of Spike Protein mRNA molecules (13 trillion to 40 trillion) almost instantaneously as compared to natural infection. This may account for the serious adverse effects and deaths reported following administration of genebased COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ in adverse drug reporting systems, and further research is needed with regard to this important observation. 

10.3. The immediate injection of literally trillions of Spike Protein producing mRNA molecules, as distinct from the slower accumulation of Spike Protein by natural infection, could be responsible for the numbers of deaths reported within 48 hours of COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ injection, although this is yet to be proven. This is why COVID-19‘vaccine’ related deaths need to be thoroughly investigated, with autopsies that include determination of tissue levels of Spike Protein. 

10.4. These authors also reflect upon the lack of transparency regarding lot-to-lot gene sequencing for vaccine quality control which might explain why some batches/lots of gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are associated with much high incidences of severe adverse effects. 10.5. A biopsy study provided direct evidence linking Spike Protein concentrations produced following vaccination in heart tissue to the development of myocarditis. 

11. Long-Term Potential Genetic Damage and Cancer Potential of COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ 

11.1. In considering the safety of any new therapeutic, potential for both genotoxicity (damage to genes) and mutagenicity (potential to cause cancer) are among the highest priorities. This should especially apply to genetic therapeutics such as the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’, and more so when administration of these products to healthy individuals of all ages worldwide was envisioned. 

11.2. Evidence shows the spike protein produced by the Pfizer mRNA vaccine can enter into the nucleus of cells and disrupt fundamental cellular processes involved in DNA repair. This adds to concerns and raises serious potential safety issues regarding a diminished ability of the body to prevent the rise of cancers. Neither of these observed genetic type molecular effects are expected in relation to conventional vaccines. 

11.3. The gene-based COVID-19 ’vaccine’ manufacturers presented their products as ‘vaccines’ to drug regulators even though, by their very nature, they were a new class of gene-based therapies. This had significant impact on reducing the usual safety testing requirements which were normally applied to gene-based therapies. It should be noted that in order to assist and accommodate the introduction of these experimental drugs, the CDC and other organisations began applying recently reduced safety data requirements applicable to conventional vaccines to these gene-based ‘vaccines’ and the definition of ‘vaccine’ was amended to accommodate these new gene-based therapies. The World Health Organisation (WHO) Technical Report Series, no. 927m 2005 Annex 1, WHO Guidelines on nonclinical evaluation of vaccine88 page 50 section 4.2.3 states: ‘Genotoxicity studies are normally not needed for the final vaccine formulation’. But these guidelines were drafted well before the invention of the gene-based COVID ‘vaccines’. 11.4. Drug regulators around the world have accepted official product information statements which acknowledge the omission of this important pre-clinical (in-vitro and/or animal) genotoxicity and mutagenicity safety data. 11.5. Provisional Approval for the new gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ began early 2021. However, since then important laboratory genetic data has been published which raises the theoretical possibility that the mRNA contained in these gene-based ‘vaccines’ may be reverse transcribed (that is, incorporated) into one’s DNA around the body (including a wide variety of tissues and organs including eggs in the ovary) which is contrary to the assumptions of the drug regulators such as the TGA. This research, according to established protocols, was done on an in-vitro human liver cell line. The potential safety implications for current and future generations are of great relevance and significance and drug regulators should be demanding immediate further investigations. These findings raise the possibility that these gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ might induce cancers and that these effects may be inherited into future generations. Until this and other questions are addressed it is not prudent nor reasonable to claim these products are “safe”.

11.6. Following an extensive critical review of the immunological and metabolic consequences associated with the mRNA based COVID-19 ‘vaccines’, some expert molecular biologists have concluded these ‘vaccines’ should be withdrawn due to their potentially devastating and wide ranging short-term and long-term adverse effects. 

11.7. Furthermore, in relation to risk-benefit, it has been reported that “based on publicly available official UK and US data, all age groups under 50 years old are at greater risk of death after receiving a COVID-19 inoculation than an unvaccinated person is at risk of a COVID-19 death. In such circumstances, it is extremely difficult to justify mandatory vaccination. 

11.8. It is also unknown if the Danish drug regulator’s recent decision to cease its genebased vaccination program is related to concerns regarding genotoxicity. The Danish drug regulatory agency has long been considered to rank among the most competent regulatory agencies in the world and is highly regarded. 

11.9. The issue of potential mutagenicity and genotoxicity is of high importance and received attention at Australian Senate Estimates on 1 June 2021 (Community Affairs Legislation Committee. 

11.10. In that hearing, Prof. Skerritt (head of the Australian TGA) (sic)by Senator Malcolm Roberts on the potential for the mRNA to enter the nucleus of cells and cause potentially serious genetic adverse events which could affect future generations: 

“Senator ROBERTS: How long before we know the intergenerational effects? 

Dr Skerritt: There is no evidence at all from animal or human studies that the RNA vaccines, if you're talking about them, incorporate into the genetic material of human beings. They wouldn't have received regulatory approval, and that includes by much bigger regulators such as the FDA, if these bits of mRNA incorporated into the human genetic material. In fact, medicines that incorporate into human genetic material and are inherited are currently not permitted in most major countries, including Australia.” 

11.11. The statement by Prof. Skerritt was made prior to the publications referred to above. These events provide compelling evidence to reject the indiscriminate general use of these gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ and to prevent mandatory vaccination on safety grounds.

12. COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Do Not Prevent Infection or Transmission 

12.1. The COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ neither prevent infection nor do they prevent transmission of the infection. SARS-CoV-2 infection is via airborne infection of viral particles entering via the mucosa (surface lining) of the nose. COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ do not induce mucosal immunity: instead they induce blood-borne immunity, which is not effective in countering organisms entering and multiplying in the mucosal tract. This is why, despite population vaccination rates approaching 90%, COVID-19 cases remain stubbornly high in many countries. 

12.2. ‘Dr Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) said the viral load of Delta variant in the nasal passages of vaccinated people was “almost identical” to that in noses of unvaccinated people. It is an accepted principle that the viral load or amount of virus present is directly proportional to both the development of symptoms of infection and the ability to transmit the infection to others. 

12.3. Dr Rochelle Walensky, director of the Center for Disease Control (CDC) said publicly that the COVID-19 vaccines “can’t prevent transmission” [of SARS-CoV-2]95 . This is basically because the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent infection in an individual i.e. the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are not “sterilizing”. 

12.4. In addition, three articles in The Lancet report that the current COVID-19 gene-based vaccines do not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 96 . 

12.5. Contrary to initial popular belief and in light of recent evidence, mandatory COVID-19 vaccination will neither significantly or effectively prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection or prevention of transmission of infection to others. According to Gunter Kampf, fully vaccinated individuals can carry similar viral loads to unvaccinated individuals and spread the virus just as easily. 

12.6. Gunter Kampf stated: “There is increasing evidence that vaccinated individuals continue to have a relevant role in transmission. In Massachusetts, USA, a total of 469 new COVID19 cases were detected during various events in July, 2021, and 346 (74%) of these cases were in people who were fully or partly vaccinated, 274 (79%) of whom were symptomatic. Cycle threshold values were similarly low between people who were vaccinated, or whose vaccination status was unknown (median 21.5), indicating a high viral load even among people who were fully vaccinated.” 

12.7. The author concludes: “It is therefore wrong and dangerous to speak of a pandemic of the unvaccinated”. 

12.8. A Wisconsin, USA, study in June/July 2021 (when the Delta variant was prominent) found no difference for SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals in viral load measurements by PCR test cycle threshold (Ct) data between 310 fully vaccinated and 389 unvaccinated individuals: Testing found high viral load in 68% of the fully vaccinated (median 22.8) and people who were unvaccinated, not fully and 63% of the unvaccinated. This data suggests that vaccinated are just as likely to be spreaders of SARS-CoV-2 98 . 

12.9. The risk of infection leading to COVID-19 varies depending on age and clinical status (including the presence of natural immunity) and must be weighed against the accumulating evidence of serious adverse effects including death, as well as the waning efficacy of the vaccines in protecting against infection. 

13. Diminished ‘Vaccine’ Efficacy and Potential Negative ‘Vaccine’ Efficacy 

13.1. In the first part of 2022 a number of public health sources in the US, Australia, Denmark, Israel and the UK have suggested the protective efficacy of the COVID ‘vaccines’ is waning or possibly even resulting in “negative efficacy”, i.e. those vaccinated are at a higher risk of infection. This was in the context of the later subvariants of Omicron as reported in an observational study of 22,072,550 SARSCoV-2 cases99 . 

13.2. The authors state: “The vaccine effectiveness (VE) for the third dose was in negative since December 20, 2021, with a significantly increased proportion of SARS-CoV2 cases hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated; and a decreased proportion of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths among the unvaccinated.”13.3. In is acknowledged that epidemiological data interpretation is both challenging and complicated because there are confounding variables to consider such as age, gender, vaccination status and co-morbidities. There is also the added complexity of consideration of the definition of “fully vaccinated” as this varies depending on vaccine schedules. There remains the lack of distinction between someone hospitalised or dying “with” COVID versus someone hospitalised or dying “due to” COVID and often those dying within 14 days of vaccination are considered as “unvaccinated”. Overall, however, this large study suggests a negative vaccine efficacy, which is of great concern. 

13.4. The main reason for this negative vaccine efficacy has been mainly ascribed to the fact that the Omicron strain of viruses which we are experiencing now are considerably different to the original Wuhan strain and subsequent Delta strain. Those individuals vaccinated with the gene-based ‘vaccines’ based on the Wuhan strain of virus are paradoxically more susceptible to Omicron infection.

13.5. Stanford University researchers100 found that “prior vaccination with Wuhan-Hu-1-like antigens followed by infection with Alpha or Delta variants gives rise to plasma antibody responses with apparent Wuhan-Hu-1-specific imprinting manifesting as relatively decreased responses to the variant virus epitopes compared with unvaccinated patients infected with those variant viruses.” Basically, these researchers are saying that vaccination with the current COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ will lead to a diminished ability to protect from infection by the newer variants. 

13.6. Pivotal epidemiological data which is useful in determining vaccine effectiveness versus time is published by “Our World in Data”, a non-profit organisation based in the United Kingdom.101 This organisation uses data sourced from Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE). 

13.7. The data below plots the rate (cases per million) of confirmed COVID-19 cases by selected country versus time (and is updated regularly).

COVID-19 cases by selected country versus time 

13.8. This same data can be used to represent the 7-day rolling average of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Australia. 

7-day rolling average of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Australia 

13.9. COVID-19 vaccination commenced in Australia early in 2021. While the both absolute number and percent of the population COVID vaccinated increased rapidly for countries during 2021 and into 2022, the data shows both the rate and absolute number of confirmed COVID-19 cases markedly increased towards the end of 2021. This worldwide data demonstrates a failure of the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ to prevent infection and transmission of the disease. 

13.10. This data strongly suggests that commencing in 2022 the COVID-19 vaccines have substantially lost the ability to prevent infection and transmission of the virus, despite high rates of vaccine uptake in the population. This provides evidence of the futility of vaccine mandates. 

13.11. All epidemiological and health statistical data requires careful interpretation as definitions may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and health protocols can impact the interpretation of the data. However, without evidence to the contrary, the above data appears to provide a compelling evidence of a negative vaccine efficacy. In other words, COVID-19 vaccinated individuals are more likely to be infected with the current strain of the COVID-19 virus and be admitted to hospital than compared to nonvaccinated individuals. Similar observations have been made in other countries.

13.12. As mentioned earlier, a major contributing factor to this phenomenon may be due to the fact that since early 2022, the dominant variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is Omicron102 (see graph below) whereas the current COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are constructed to produce antibodies towards the original Wuhan strain.

Share of SARS-CoV-2 sequences that is the Omicron variant by country 

14. The COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Do Not Provide a Similar and Acceptable Risk/Benefit Across All Age Groups irrespective of individual Clinical Status including Natural Immunity 

14.1. Mandatory vaccination by its very nature assumes that a therapeutic agent produces a similar risk and a similar benefit for all individuals. However, this is never the case. Therapeutics should always be prescribed with a consideration of the particular clinical status of the individual, which is why prescribing information always contains specific warnings and contraindications of use in relation to age, health status etc. Drugs are never prescribed on a “one size fits all” basis. Prescribing a drug and ignoring the particular clinical circumstances of an individual is not good medical practice. 

14.2. Natural immunity plays an important role in COVID-19. There is no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 gene-based ‘vaccination’ offers superior protection from COVID-19 as compared to natural immunity. Indeed, many believe the reverse is true. 

14.3. In acknowledgement of the important role of natural immunity, even Bill Gates, perhaps the most prominent vaccine proponent, speaking at the Munich Security Conference reported 23 February 2022103 , admitted that “the virus itself, particularly the variant called Omicron, is a type of vaccine”. 

14.4. The important role of natural immunity from both a personal and societal point of view needs to be recognised. This societal natural immunity was commonly referred to as ‘herd immunity’ and was initially widely considered important to limit the impact of the virus. 

14.5. Conventional wisdom suggests that natural immunity following COVID-19 infection provides a high level of durable protection from re-infection in many ways superior to “vaccination” because natural immune response is a multifaceted immune response directed against a number of components including the envelope, the membrane, the nucleocapsid and the spike within the virus – unlike the immune response produced by gene-based ‘vaccines’ which direct the production of specific antibodies only towards the virus Spike Protein. 

14.6. It has been likely that hundreds of millions of people have recovered from COVID-19. Numerous scientists have found that natural immunity offers a decreased risk of reinfection and extremely low rates of hospitalisation in relation to repeat infection. 

14.7. A study in Qatar found that ‘natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months’. 

14.8. The UK study by Hall et al, with funding from the UK Government, reported a similar level of protection due to natural immunity4.9. A study in Austria found that the frequency of re-infect14.8. The UK study by Hall et al, with funding from the UK Government, reported a similar level of protection due to natural immunity. 

14.9. A study in Austria found that the frequency of re-infection from COVID-19 caused hospitalisation in only five out of 14,840 (0.03%) people and death in one out of 14,840 (0.01%). 

14.10. In many ways, natural immunity protection will be superior to the protection afforded by gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccines’. In such circumstances, voluntary or mandatory vaccination with gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ do not offer any additional protection. There is no scientific theoretical basis or reliable evidence to suggest that a person with natural immunity might benefit from administration of a Provisionally Approved gene-based COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ while the ‘vaccine’ itself has significant adverse effects and no long-term safety data to support its use. 

14.11. A retrospective observational study of 124,500 individuals, conducted during the Delta wave of SARS-CoV-2 compared two groups: people who had not been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and received a 2-dose regimen of the Pfizer COVID-19 “vaccine” and previously infected individuals who had not been vaccinated. Individuals who had been vaccinated had a 13-fold greater chance of breakthrough infection compared to re-infection in the non-vaccinated group.

14.12. The conclusion of the authors was: ‘Naturally acquired immunity confers stronger protection against infection and symptomatic disease caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2-2 [Pfizer COVID-19 ‘vaccine’] dose vaccine-induced immunity’. 

14.13. While the current SARS-CoV-2 variant is Omicron, in the absence of data to the contrary, these data provide a compelling case to support the importance of natural immunity in protecting against SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

14.14. The Swedish drug regulator is regarded as one of the most respected regulatory agencies and they have recently reversed its recommendation on the administration of COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ to adolescent children as they do not see any clear benefit in COVID-19 vaccination. According to a Reuters news release in Stockholm on 27 January 2022, Sweden decided against recommending COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ for children aged 5-11, the Swedish Health Agency said that the benefits did not outweigh the risks: ‘With the knowledge we have today, with a low risk for serious disease for kids, we don't see any clear benefit with vaccinating them’. 

14.15. It is reported that children in the population are at a substantially lower risk of developing COVID-19. 

14.16. In addition, it has been suggested that a high proportion of children in the population have acquired natural immunity which offers better protection from infection as compared to vaccination. As above, a large study during the Delta wave found vaccinated individuals had a 13-fold greater chance of breakthrough infection than unvaccinated individuals had of being re-infected.

Conclusion 

The introduction and worldwide use of COVID-19 gene-based ‘vaccines’ has been associated, in the short term, with far more deaths, illnesses, injuries, and disabilities than any other therapeutic agent in the history of medicine. Due to the total lack of any long-term safety data, the potential future iatrogenic effects (including neurological, immunological and carcinogenic effects) may be even more devastating. 

Despite initial claims, the COVID-19 gene-based ‘vaccines’ have now been shown to possess disappointing clinical efficacy - they neither prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection nor do they prevent transmission of the virus; any immunological protection wanes rapidly and, coincident with the emergence of the Omicron variant, evidence of negative vaccine efficacy is being reported in many countries including Australia. 

In light of widely reported emerging and compelling evidence, there appears to be little scientific or clinical justification to support vaccine mandates as a health policy. The latest hospital admission statistics do not support the claim that unvaccinated individuals are more at risk of serious COVID-19 disease, hospitalisation or death. Excess non-COVID-19 related deaths coincident with the introduction of the genebased ‘vaccines’ are now being reported by many countries, and suggest a surge in heart attack and stroke among both the young, adolescents and middle age individuals (especially males). 

Advocating the worldwide use of a new class of serious COVID-19 gene-based ‘vaccines’ never before deployed, and advocated for use in healthy individuals of all ages regardless of clinical status (eg. natural immunity, pregnancy etc), with relatively little short-term safety data and no long-term safety data, is neither prudent or necessary and defies the Precautionary Principle. 

The knowledge that the synthetic mRNA in both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines can enter the nucleus of human liver cells in culture, raises the serious questions about genotoxicity and carcinogenicity, and adverse impact on future generations. Disturbing safety signals regarding fertility and miscarriages are emerging. Given the statistically or virtually nil risk of serious COVID-19 in general affecting children aged 6 months to 11 or 12 years of age and the clear and significant risk of serious adverse effects including myocarditis, pericarditis and death in this age group – there seems to be little benefit to be gained by vaccinating these children. 

Considerable scientific, clinical and statistical epidemiological data and understanding has been acquired since the introduction (on a provisional basis only) of the investigational COVID-19 gene-based “vaccines”. Many of the initial ambitious claims and assumed perceptions regarding the safety and efficacy of these serious therapeutics have now been invalidated and it is now time to review and reconsider the utility of these products in light of the known unprecedented level of serious adverse reactions and death attributed to their use. The urgency for this review cannot be overestimated given the current and potential future impact on the health and wellbeing of all Australians. 

Phillip M. Altman

https://8630368.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/8630368/AMPS/Altman%20Report%20Final%20Version%2011-8-22%20(1).pdf?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8HS0cEyUJuQHjoxCYMYvaYAqn1CWxMNk_F4VyGSiymi6QxgE6AEh9SJNXh6yR0hIVEAxxC

"See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise. Redeeming the time, because the days are evil" - Ephesians 5:15

"O tempora!  O mores!" - Cicero

The Seventh Plague of Egypt
John Martin