Downplaying. That has been a handy weapon against anything that threatened the official Covid narrative. Downplaying sceptical voices, downplaying uncertainties, downplaying contradictory data.
I recently described a typical example of the latter from Denmark. Here is another one, from Israel, which gives us a dual opportunity: first, to look at the rate of significant adverse events after the booster dose, as reported in a Government-initiated survey. Second, to observe the language the anonymous authors used to describe the data. Released long ago but not published in a medical journal (yet?), the summary was written in Hebrew and contained 26 slides. I have tried to offer below a precise translation of the text.
The topic of the survey is called “reported phenomena”, which is not a complete phrase for “reported side-effects”, since, just like in English, an adjective is usually added to indicate the presumed link to a drug or a vaccine.
The authors are aware of under-reporting of side-effects, since they state “it appears that there is under-reporting”, though it is not clear how they infer that from reported data.
The aims of the survey are clearly stated (Figure 1). In brief, it was a random sample from the database of the Ministry of Health, excluding people without a listed phone number (understandable) and those who had had Covid (why?). Participants were vaccinated 21-30 days before a structured phone interview, conducted 2-3 months into the booster campaign.
Slightly over 2,000 people completed the interview, evenly split by sex. I am not sure why the sample size was not much larger, say, 20,000, closer to the vaccine trials. Lack of importance of the topic? Lack of resources in a country that served as a Pfizer laboratory? Downplaying unfavourable rates as imprecise (due to a small sample)?
Sampling ensured three equal-size age groups, which means that the age distribution of the sample did not necessarily match the age distribution of the vaccinated population. Although age-specific rates were sometimes presented, a weighted rate for the entire population was not.
Two to three months later, a follow up interview was conducted with 45 of 59 women who reported changes in menstruation after the booster. We’ll return to this part later.
Survey results are influenced not only by reporting accuracy but also by the response rate, which can be defined in more than one way. It was around 50% by one definition.
To estimate a range for the rate of selected side-effects, I will make two opposite assumptions about non-participants, which favour the vaccine. The first one is extreme.
- No side-effects would have been reported by non-participants, so any observed frequency should be divided by 2. You may also view this ‘correction’ as accounting for coincidental events.
- Unobserved rates in non-participants would have been identical, so any observed frequency is correct.
I am excluding the possibility that non-participants would have reported side effects at higher frequency than participants, again to favour the vaccine (a conservative approach).
A short preamble before showing data: vaccines are given to mostly healthy people who do not present themselves as care-seeking patients. Therefore, the standards for ‘safe’ are much more stringent than those for treatment of sick patients. In either case, Primum non nocere (first, do no harm) should be a governing principle.
Now, the data.
First, a vaccinee should have been lucky to escape side-effects – two-thirds reported at least one (Figure 2) – some of which have been classified by official voices as reactogenicity. Occasionally, that was a promotional public health message for Covid vaccines: the side-effects mean that the vaccine is working! For some reason, it has never been a promotional message for the flu vaccine.
In almost 30% of the sample (589 out of 2,049), or about 15% under the most conservative assumption, the side-effect was severe enough to have caused difficulty in daily activities. Read the last sentence again and imagine that the culprit was a new mRNA-based shot for flu rather than Covid. Going grocery shopping? Get your flu shot here for free and a good chance to spend a few days in bed, or off work!
More important, hospitalisation after vaccination should be extremely rare, perhaps in the single-digit range per million or so, or no more than one per 100,000. That used to be called a safe vaccine. The rate in this sample was six per 2,049 or 150-300 per 100,000 (my conservative range) – hundreds of times higher than for a safe vaccine.
How good is this small-sample estimate?
Since hospitalisation follows a serious adverse event, we may check concurrence with the latter. A solid analysis of the randomised trial of the Pfizer vaccine estimated 18 serious adverse events per 10,000 (180 per 100,000) above the placebo group. By and large, 150-300 hospitalisations per 100,000 is a comparable range.
To grasp the magnitude of these rates, consider 7,000-15,000 hospitalisations in Israel after the first booster; 60,000-120,000 in the U.K.; and 200,000-400,000 in the U.S.
That does not fit the standards for a safe vaccine, even before considering vaccine-related deaths. And there were deaths, unless one assumes that all reported fatalities in every monitoring system are false. In Israel, the (short-term) booster fatality rate was estimated at 8 to 17 per 100,000, perhaps 200 to 400 deaths.
How do the authors report the hospitalisation data (Figure 2 above)?
A few (0.5%, a total of 6) of those who reported any phenomenon after vaccination were hospitalised following that phenomenon.
It is unclear if the red font was used to emphasise reassurance or concern. I translated the first Hebrew word to “a few” (neutral) but it might be closer to “few” (reassurance).
Either way, the truth is simple: if the vaccine were safe, we should not have observed any related hospitalisation in a sample of 2,000. To observe six instead of none, by the play of chance, is a fictional proposition.
Adverse events were divided between local, at the injection site, and “general” (exact translation), some of which should be called ‘systemic’. About half of the respondents reported at least one general side-effect, the most common of which were weakness or fatigue (42%), headache (26%), muscle or joint pain (25%) and fever above 38.0°C (15%). Of note, 5% reported chest pain. These are significant percentages even if divided by two.
The authors reassuringly tell us that “a minority (4.5%, a total of 91) reported to have suffered at least one neurological phenomenon in proximity to the vaccination” (Figure 3). That it was not a majority is good news, but this minority corresponds to 2-5 vaccinees per 100, under my conservative assumptions. In almost half of the cases, the side-effect was still present on the date of the interview.
It is impossible to understand the mindset of public health officials who consider such frequencies acceptable for mass vaccination of healthy populations against a disease that is about as risky as the flu until around age 60, and in the healthy elderly. Perhaps coronaphobia has not spared them either.
Three slides present data on changes in menstruation. I still remember how this worrisome side effect — indicating altered hormonal status and systemic dissemination of mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticles — was downplayed at the beginning. Early anecdotes, mostly reported on social media, have sent a clear message: pregnant women should not be vaccinated. It was ignored.
Evidently, the risk in pregnancy was well understood by those who quickly launched post hoc reassurance research, which has no merit. Nothing can assure a logical-moral mind that interference with hormones during a normal pregnancy meets the criteria of safe and ethical conduct.
The frequency of changes in menstruation was computed from a sample of 615 women ages 18-53 (Figure 4). About 10% of the women (5-10% under my conservative range) reported some abnormality. Almost 90% of those who reported abnormality reported regular menstruation before vaccination, which means that in most cases it was not misattributed. In half of the women, the abnormality persisted at the time of the follow up interview. Perhaps they will have another follow up to tell us the frequency of prolonged or permanent abnormality after a third dose. Perhaps not.
There is a wider, troubling perspective of these data. We can be certain that the vaccine reached the ovaries and disturbed a delicate balance of female hormones because the clinical consequences were immediate. What about other organs? There is no reason to assume that mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticles spared all other organs, and if so, what might be the long-term consequences? That they can damage blood vessel walls is already known.
Last but not least, there was one reported case of myocarditis (Figure 4, footnote), which might have been one of those six hospitalisations. Not every case of myocarditis is diagnosed, so we cannot exclude one or more subclinical cases in the sample. If the vaccine were safe, we should not have observed any case of myocarditis in a sample of 2,000. Anyway, by now it is a widely accepted side-effect, downplayed by claims about Covid-related myocarditis.
Five conclusions were listed on the last slide. Let me end with a translation of the last one, often considered the take-home message:
In the majority of those who reported phenomena of any kind, the presentation after the third dose was not more severe in comparison with previous vaccinations.
I contemplated several responses to this reassuring message, but perhaps none is needed.
Dr. Eyal Shahar is Professor Emeritus of Public Health at the University of Arizona. This article first appeared on Medium.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Surely this is meaningless unless you define what you mean by hospitalisation and compare it to the number of hospital admissions you might expect if you were not vaccinated? In the UK there are about 16 million hospital attendances a year. That works out at just under 2,000 attendances per 100,000 people per month. The people in the study reported at a rate of between 100 and 300 per 100,000 people per month (they were interviewed about a month after being vaccinated). It is impossible to know if UK attendances and Israeli hospitalisations are comparable but it does show that you need to understand what the background rate of hospitalisation is
Nonsense. Why not read the article before commenting.
‘….hospitalisation follows a serious adverse event, we may check concurrence with the latter. A solid analysis of the randomised trial of the Pfizer vaccine estimated 18 serious adverse events per 10,000 (180 per 100,000) above the placebo group.
By and large, 150-300 hospitalisations per 100,000 is a comparable range.
To grasp the magnitude of these rates, consider 7,000-15,000 hospitalisations in Israel after the first booster; 60,000-120,000 in the U.K.; and 200,000-400,000 in the U.S.
That does not fit the standards for a safe vaccine’
It really doesn’t, does it?
‘An adverse event is any undesirable experience associated with the use of a medical product in a patient. The event is serious and should be reported to FDA when the patient outcome is:
Death Report if you suspect that the death was an outcome of the adverse event, and include the date if known.
Life-threatening Report if suspected that the patient was at substantial risk of dying at the time of the adverse event, or use or continued use of the device or other medical product might have resulted in the death of the patient.
Disability or Permanent Damage Report if the adverse event resulted in a substantial disruption of a person’s ability to conduct normal life functions, i.e., the adverse event resulted in a significant, persistent or permanent change, impairment, damage or disruption in the patient’s body function/structure, physical activities and/or quality of life.’
U.S. Food & Drug Association
I am sorry but I read the article quite thoroughly and I think you may have missed my point. The Pfizer trial estimated 180 per 100,000 serious adverse events above the placebo group. In the Israeli case there is no placebo group or any kind of control to compare the results with. We have no idea whether the reported figures were worse or better than if the population had not been vaccinated.
It is kind of basic to have a control for any study.
It’s not a study it’s a survey. The respondents think their hospitalisation was the result of an adverse event. I imagine using a structured interview would reduce the chance of a respondent making a mistake.
Adverse events don’t come with a label on them saying whether they were caused by the vaccine. The symptoms are things that could be caused by a wide variety of things. E.g. heart palpitations. Inevitably there are going to be a number of people who have heart palpitations in the month following vaccine which are nothing to do with the vaccine, they would have had them anyway. The only way to tell if the vaccine is the cause is to compare the incidence with a similar group that has not been vaccinated.
Okay, you reject any survey as evidence of ‘vaccine’ harms, I get that. I assume you reject reports to the Yellow card system, VAERS and the European database on the same basis. Doesn’t it bother you the Pfizer randomised controlled trial was ended prematurely when there were more deaths in the vaccine group than in the control group? Or an almost complete absence of the type of study you describe above? Or that Professor Fenton has shown the ONS study to be virtually worthless? That we have to rely on indirect or anecdotal evidence because the regulators, health authorities, pharmaceutical companies and politicians don’t want to look or publish results tells me all I need to know about the dangerous nature of these injections. That and information provided by experts like Dr Bhakdi, Dr Malone, and Dr McCullough.
I think it is hard enough to debate one study without bringing in the whole vaccine debate.
Precisely as I remarked, you appear to have missed the point of the entire article.
The control is the number of adverse events you would typically expect from already widely used vaccines.
The serious adverse events as a consequence of the covid vaccines is quite clearly well above the number to be expected from a properly trialled and certified safe vaccine.
But you don’t know if the apparent “adverse events” in the survey/study were really adverse events caused by the vaccine or just a coincidence because you don’t have a control. So you can’t compare them to cases like the Pzizer where they in the events in excess of the placebo.
Hospitalization after vaccination should be extremely rare. In the case of covid vaccines it is not. Basic stuff.
There is, obviously, a well established process for establishing cause of serious adverse events.
The preliminary step involves an attempt to validate the diagnosis prior to assessing causality.
As part of this process, it is suggested that all relevant information about the event is obtained: full clinical details, laboratory tests, and other investigations in chronological sequence, including any results obtained prior to the vaccination.
The ultimate outcome of the event and any sequelae also need be confirmed; was it fatal, is it ongoing, did the patient recover (partially or fully), and when were these outcomes observed?’
There is, obviously, a well established process for establishing cause of serious adverse events.
The preliminary step involves an attempt to validate the diagnosis prior to assessing causality.
As part of this process, it is suggested that all relevant information about the event is obtained: full clinical details, laboratory tests, and other investigations in chronological sequence, including any results obtained prior to the vaccination.
The ultimate outcome of the event and any sequelae also need be confirmed; was it fatal, is it ongoing, did the patient recover (partially or fully), and when were these outcomes observed?’
But what we had in this survey was a telephone interview. We don’t even know what the questions were.
Oh for heaven’s sake!
What we have here is hospitalizations as a consequence of a serious adverse event.
The relevant hospitals will then have established cause.
No we don’t. We have the results of a telephone interview and we don’t even know what the questions were. I thought you guys were supposed to be sceptics?
So your point is that people reporting having been hospitalised as a consequence of a serious adverse event, something easily checked, may not have been?
I am certainly sceptical of that.
I actually think it’s unlikely that the interviewers checked whether they really had been hospitalised. But subjects are very unlikely to report that wrongly. However they are extremely likely to decide it was a result of the vaccine just because of the timing when it may well have been a coincidence.
Note that the survey is asking about “phenomena in time proximity” not about causality.
The truth is we know very little about this survey. As I keep stressing we don’t even know what questions were asked.
‘As any fule kno’, the best expert on your own health, cause of, for example, hospitalisation is, generally, yourself.
Of course it is only a survey.
And, of course, all such surveys have to be read with a critical eye.
To be published in a journal, it will have to be peer reviewed.
But it is interesting, indicative and worth putting on here.
It cannot simply be dismissed out of hand.
Well, you might think it is “kind of basic to have a control for any study” but, if you read RFKennedy Jr’s “The Real Anthony Fauci”, extensively referenced and documented, you might be interested to learn that “studies” and “surveys” that do have a “control”, very often don’t inject them with a “neutral” placebo, but with an alternative vaccine, instead.
Obviously this neatly massages down the incidence of side effects both mild and severe.
Fauci has also got history on a number of “trials” with stated aims of running for (say) four years, but for allegedly “humane” reasons, has decided after a few months, to “de-blind” the trial and just pump his latest gloop into everyone’s arms, willy nilly.
In any case, anyone advocating that children and pregnant women should be jabbed with untested experimental gene therapies, should be locked up permanently.
“compare it to the number of hospital admissions you might expect if you were not vaccinated?”..
Are there still people that honesty think these “vaccines” prevented serious illness… Blimey
That’s not the point. Even if there was no such thing as Covid we would expect about 2000 hospital admissions per month for every 100,000 people.
That is not a point. It is a tedious recital of a freely available statistic.
The point is that there are, quite clearly, significant numbers of serious adverse events from the vaccinations; far more than for other widely administered vaccines.
A good analysis of the safety signals regarding this garbage vaxx that were scandalously ignored. Downplayed – they outright ignored the safety signals. I remember first reading about the myocarditis being signalled by the Israeli army in April 2021, I may have even read about it earlier. The CDC did not schedule an “emergency meeting” until mid-June 2021, which it promptly postponed for the at that time non-existent public holiday of Juneteenth. That’s not dowplaying, that’s gross negligence. Ditto for the menstrual problems, discussion of which was doing the rounds for months before they finally admitted it. Two young women in the same clinic in Austria ended up in ICU due to the vaxx and it was considered a fluke… right. A vaxxed nurse in Portugal dies right after New Year’s 2021, cause never stated, except that it was not, of course, the vaxx. Woman in Canada dies before even making it out of the pharmacy where she got her booster, but naturally it was anything but the vaxx.
Public health officials did not sign off on this global health destruction out of fear of corona. Fear of losing their jobs, fear of being called “anti-vaxxer” or “flat-earther” and above all, love of money and love of power is why they signed off on shoving an improperly tested, known-to-be-toxic chemical concoction into healthy people that they knew full well didn’t need. That and their insane desire to allow mrna tech to be used for many other drugs henceforth, with no trials needed. I will genuinely never understand how these people can live with themselves.
My local doctors surgery has “Never known such a high demand for heart monitors”…
I wonder why…
I read about the Israeli reports on myocarditis in late February 2021, shortly before I was “invited” to participate in the mass medical experiment. (I was in about Group 7.)
I emailed the information to my two sons (at that time ages 29 and 31) to warn them. The Government has known since late February 2021 – and probably a bit earlier – that myocarditis was a risk with the Pfizer jab. (Israel only used Pfizer.)
Avoidable by not taking the state injectable.
Brilliant work. Thank you.
I am sure I am not alone amongst those living with an individual badly injured by the vaccine to be profoundly grateful for all the hard work that you and others are doing to bring all of this to light.
A superb effort.
A terrible situaton when your government admits beforehand that it is a no holds barred laboratory for a new technology and that the population is pushed into taking it. This is beyond evil not just there but in most countries. The sheer deparvity of heart that would be required for you as a public representaive or official to go along with this shows us a deep malaise. I hope that at some point in the future we can see this for what it is. The death toll is beyond comprehension.
The jabs make no sense unless they’re designed to reduce life expectancy and fertility.
The bioweapons are most definitely designed to kill, disable/weaken immunity and negatively impact fertility. I’m certain of it anyway and it shall remain my stance until proven otherwise. And the thing is, for every new release they will tweak the formula and no further studies need to be done. They’re playing the long game and the culling of recipients is one long, on-going project. It’ll be the children’s vaxes before long but they’re also trying to get mRNA in our food supply. The ‘control group’ must be eradicated at all costs.
I cannot fault one word of this Mogs.
100%.
Cheers, hux. Have you been having time out? Not seen you much of late.
Monkey Boy knows what’s what. I always thought this was two different people doing these characters but it’s actually just one guy. Huge respect, Dr H. I’m a fan of you and your split personalities.
https://twitter.com/TheEyes2022/status/1658749027041648641
Been on the money for sure.. Must admit I thought it was 2 folks too.
The Mirror being the first msm to cover these excess deaths is, I think the start of The Big Reveal…
By Autumn the cat will be out of the bag, mass civil unrest will pursue, enabling the State to roll out the most draconian of legislation and impose Martial Law….. Its all going to plan…