Moderna has been rebuked by regulators after offering children £1,500 cash to test the Covid vaccine. The Telegraph has more.
The pharmaceutical company was ordered to pay £14,000 after it emerged that a representative had sent a WhatsApp message offering £1,500 to children to take part in Covid booster trials.
The U.K. Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) ruled that the offer amounted to “inappropriate financial inducement” and found the company had brought “discredit upon the pharmaceutical industry”.
The offer was made by a paediatrician from an unnamed NHS trust, inviting those aged between 12 and 18 years old to enrol in the NextCove trial, which was examining the efficacy of Moderna’s booster jab.
The inducement was made even though a research ethics committee had warned about the “large amount of money” that Moderna was offering participants, and voiced concern it was “much higher than would be considered a reasonable reimbursement”.
Moderna later amended the offer to just £185, but despite the change, at least one trial centre carried on offering the original sum.
Under The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations it is prohibited for incentives or financial inducements to be given to children or their parents.
In a statement, the PMCPA ruled: “The panel noted that the financial incentive offered within the unapproved WhatsApp message was never paid but considered that it might have encouraged participants to apply to take part.
“The panel considered that the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the particular circumstances of this trial, which involved the recruitment of children, meant that Moderna should have been especially cautious.
“On balance, the panel considered that this brought discredit upon and reduced confidence in the pharmaceutical industry.”
Moderna must provide a written undertaking that the practice will “cease forthwith” and pay for administrative costs.
However, critics said that the sanction was too small to be effective.
Esther McVey MP, formerly of the APPG on COVID-19 vaccine damage said: “A charge of £14,000 to a company that enjoyed a total revenue of $6.8 billion in 2023 is hardly likely to make them think twice before breaking the rules again.”
Worth reading in full.
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.
Phew. Lots of numbers, graphs, research, thanks for the work you’ve done here.
I’d be really interested to see you do a similar piece attempting to explain the huge increase (I forget the exact numbers but the increase was something like 20x above average) in professional sportspeople dropping like flies from December 2020 onwards (I believe the research I saw talked specifically about 2021 in total, even though it was obvious it was happening as the year was passing)?
I have no idea how many deaths have been caused by the Covid vaccines, but can anyone show me evidence from anywhere in the world that the Covid vaccines are safe?
I don’t personally know anyone who died because of the Covid vaccines but I personally know three people who have suffered permanent damage because of the Covid vaccines.
I read this when it first came out 2 days ago and highlighted by Steve Kirsch.
We will have to wait and see what Denis Rancourt’s rebuttal to Hoeg’s claims were.
However, if it was 17 million or 1.7 million or 170,000 deaths from the experimental jab they should be stopped NOW.
17 million dead post stabs seems low – out of the 7 billion stabbed this gives a death rate of 0.25%. I would gander that it is more likely 4-8 x that level.
How many were injured – a billion?
Hoeg – who wrote this article sounds like another pharma shill, couching her anti-anti-stabbers in graphs and numbers which mean little.
Surely she is not ‘anti vaxx’ but ‘cautious’ about the mRNA poisons…blah blah blah.
The analysis is simple. Dec 2020 they rolled out the jags. How many who were stabbed died who wouldn’t have died vs the unstabbed. The ratio is 95% vs 5%.
The data is available and easily digested (unlike this article).
I did not find this article difficult to digest – I found it less thorough than many.
Big Pharma were permitted to bring out vaccines in a tenth of the normal time and it was permitted by weak, and may I say, woke politicians who have largely indeminified these companies. The death rate per million is too high whatever it is and one of the issues that has been lost in debate is that the vaccine failed to either stop the virus or its spread.
The enemy that was as great as that was the ‘Lockdown’ policy which had a domino effect from N Italy and then China, across the world bar Sweden. That policy killed the most people and should be the one with as great an investigation as the vaccine.
Denis Rancourt has how replied to Hoeg’s criticism.
https://denisrancourt.substack.com/p/my-response-to-tracy-beth-hoegs-criticisms?publication_id=1767404&post_id=141020553&isFreemail=true&r=1ninci
“Furthermore, avoiding inappropriately scaring people – be it about Covid or the vaccines – is good public health.”
I’m not sure these two things are equivalent. The downside of scaring people inappropriately about “covid” was trillions of dollars wasted, billions of lives disrupted etc etc. The “downside” of “scaring people inappropriately” about “covid vaccines” is that they won’t take any more “covid vaccines” which have hardly been tested, are probably not safe and you don’t actually need them.
Indeed. But the real question is “Was it appropriate to scare people into taking a toxic, untested, experimental medical intervention that they did not need for a pandemic that did not exist?”
What is appropriate now is to generate enough concern in those who have taken this awful jab to do whatever they can to ameliorate the effects. There are all sorts of detox protocols being developed by authentic qualified doctors who are not compromised by big pharma. The World Council for Health is a good starting point.
Great work and good to see decent, civilised discussion, an increasing rarity these days. However, as they are still being pushed, even mandated in some countries, I have a horrible feeling that despite all the evidence and despite all the calls for the jabs to be withdrawn, the concept of jab-induced immune damage, illness and death is becoming worryingly normalised. Is it because we’ve had decades of psy-ops indoctrination & media propaganda giving Big Pharma so much slack on drug and vaccine harms (thalidomide, guardasil, fentanyl, rotavirus, swine flu, etc) that we’re becoming inured to it? It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest, given the massive increase in mRNA platform development for drugs right across the board despite its inherent and so far unresolved problems. If so, it does not bode well for humanity.
17 million excess deaths.
All I know I’ve never seen so many ambulances and hearses.
Lets not forget on Ted Talk in about 2010 Bill Gates said that he wanted to reduce the worlds population by 10-14% using …. guess what ….
Why are so many minor celebrities under 60 dying suddenly?
Microsoft Windows 11 updates?
I yield to no one in my contempt for Gates, but repeating this does our credibility no favours. What Gates meant was that if people in less developed countries had access to vaccines, then infant mortality would fall and they would not feel the need to have very large families (i.e. to guarantee someone would be there to look after them in their dotage).
Now we may not agree with his many assumptions here, but the idea that he accidentally let slip his demonic plan to reduce the world population by lethal injection is a little ridiculous.
I would tend to agree.
Below is a link to one of his blog posts, from 2016.
I do not know how anyone with at least one iota of normal life experience could read it and not realise that – in very many respects – he is a complete fool.
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Smells-of-Success
Sadly, he is a very rich fool. Problem, that.
I’m sure a lot of us have anecdotal stories about deaths and injuries.
Since the jabs were rolled out four people on my small Estate (with about 24 residents) have had strokes: three are dead, one is in a bad way and has now gone to a Care Home.
Two other neighbours have developed undiagnosed, debilitating neurological problems.
Husbands of two friends (both late middle age) have had heart attacks. One of them had another booster and shortly afterwards another heart attack; he is now semi-disabled.
Five acquaintances have developed cancers; three dead, one terminal, one is receiving treatment and may survive.
Then there’s a litany of friends and acquaintances who have recently had various medical problems requiring treatment: blood clots; an undiagnosed neurological disorder; a liver problem which required surgery; plus the usual “I’ve got Covid again; I feel awful; I don’t know what’s wrong with me, I never feel well.”
Something doesn’t add up here. The table above shows that New Zealand has never had any excess deaths. Every other source has shown NZ has been suffering a huge number of excess deaths. Ditto Australia, Israel etc etc.
Also every article I’ve seen shows an absolute coincidence between the introduction of vaccines and excess deaths in the following weeks. Suddenly that’s not the case?? It certainly was the case in early 2021 in the UK.
Finally Denis Rancourt provides a clear explanation as to why he choose the Southern Hemisphere countries that he did. (I believe it was to use their ‘summer data’ when flu should be low). If this author hasn’t found that out I expect she hasn’t looked very hard.
So even with a cursory glance, there seems to be significant issues with this narrative.
There is, of course, more to this matter than vaccine mortality.
The vaccines, covid and influenza, give rise to Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA).
The corticosteroid treatment of GCA can cause severe dementia.
‘The most important and common complications are cerebrovascular disorders including cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, transient ischemic attack, intracerebral hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, and demyelinating disorders including transverse myelitis, first manifestation of MS, and neuromyelitis optica. These effects are often acute and transient, but they can be severe and even fatal in a few cases.’
A review of neurological side effects of COVID-19 vaccination, Feb 2023
‘Studies have investigated the mechanism by which mRNA vaccines induce GCA; the onset of this condition is attributed to cross-reaction of produced antibodies with tissues. In addition, conventional GCA, SARS-CoV2 infection, and adverse reactions after vaccination against SARS-CoV2 promote excessive production of interleukin-6, which may be involved in the pathogenesis. Therefore, the use of an mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV2 may be linked to the development of GCA.’
Development of giant cell arteritis after vaccination against SARS-CoV2: A case report and literature review, June 2023
‘Our brief narrative review confirms that a steroid dementia syndrome exists. According to several experts’ opinion, steroid dementia syndrome is an overlooked diagnosis.’
Does a steroid dementia syndrome really exist? A brief narrative review of what the literature highlights about the relationship between glucocorticoids and cognition, 15 March 2023
‘“I was excited to know someone did this study that really validates what we’ve known for a long time — that steroids cause brain atrophy and a lot of neuropsychiatric symptoms or side effects,” he stated.’
Prescription steroids affect brain structure, study finds, Medical News Today 06 Sept 2022
The paper “COVID-19 Vaccine-Associated Mortality in the Southern Hemisphere”, by Denis G. Rancourt, Marine Baudin, Joseph Hickey, and Jérémie Mercier, can be found here:
https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id=133&name=2023_09_17_covid_19_vaccine_associated_mortality_in_the_southern_hemisphere
Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg questions why Rancourt’s team analysed only 17 countries and why these 17, and why did they look at the Southern Hemisphere and not the Northern?
Rancourt’s paper analyses mortality data from almost all the South American countries, as well as South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and some southern equatorial countries, i.e. a comprehensive and representative selection. Those countries were presumably chosen because they had reliable and publicly available statistics covering the period of analysis. Seventeen is, in my opinion, a large enough selection if resources are limited. Finally, Denis Rancourt has already published papers analysing northern hemisphere countries: USA, Canada and France.
I have copied Denis Rancourt’s abstract to the paper below, which describes how the 17 million number was calculated. Further details are naturally in the paper itself.
Seventeen equatorial and Southern-Hemisphere countries were studied (Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand, Uruguay), which comprise 9.10 % of worldwide population, 10.3 % of worldwide COVID-19 injections (vaccination rate of 1.91 injections per person, all ages), virtually every COVID-19 vaccine type and manufacturer, and span 4 continents.
In the 17 countries, there is no evidence in all-cause mortality (ACM) by time data of any beneficial effect of COVID-19 vaccines. There is no association in time between COVID-19 vaccination and any proportionate reduction in ACM. The opposite occurs.
All 17 countries have transitions to regimes of high ACM, which occur when the COVID‑19 vaccines are deployed and administered. Nine of the 17 countries have no detectable excess ACM in the period of approximately one year after a pandemic was declared on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization (WHO), until the vaccines are rolled out (Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Philippines, Singapore, Suriname, Thailand, Uruguay).
Unprecedented peaks in ACM occur in the summer (January-February) of 2022 in the Southern Hemisphere, and in equatorial-latitude countries, which are synchronous with or immediately preceded by rapid COVID-19-vaccine-booster-dose rollouts (3rd or 4th doses). This phenomenon is present in every case with sufficient mortality data (15 countries). Two of the countries studied have insufficient mortality data in January-February 2022 (Argentina and Suriname).
…
Synchronicity between the many peaks in ACM (in 17 countries, on 4 continents, in all elderly age groups, at different times) and associated rapid booster rollouts allows this firm conclusion regarding causality, and accurate quantification of COVID-19-vaccine toxicity.
The all-ages vaccine-dose fatality rate (vDFR), which is the ratio of inferred vaccine-induced deaths to vaccine doses delivered in a population, is quantified for the January-February 2022 ACM peak to fall in the range 0.02 % (New Zealand) to 0.20 % (Uruguay). In Chile and Peru, the vDFR increases exponentially with age (doubling approximately every 4 years of age), and is largest for the latest booster doses, reaching approximately 5 % in the 90+ years age groups (1 death per 20 injections of dose 4). Comparable results occur for the Northern Hemisphere, as found in previous articles (India, Israel, USA).
We quantify the overall all-ages vDFR for the 17 countries to be (0.126 ± 0.004) %, which would imply 17.0 ± 0.5 million COVID-19 vaccine deaths worldwide, from 13.50 billion injections up to 2 September 2023. This would correspond to a mass iatrogenic event that killed (0.213 ± 0.006) % of the world population (1 death per 470 living persons, in less than 3 years), and did not measurably prevent any deaths.
…
She didn’t manage to convince us that the Jabs are actually safe & effective did she ! 17 million maybe a worst case scenario but even if it’s miles out it’s still heinous ! Also if she’s proved right & it’s only say, half that number then it’s ok is it ! NOT …!!!
She did not say that at all.
She wants these products off the market.
There is a debate about how many deaths were caused by these vaccines. I like her thought process. It is not simple. Have been looking at Sweden’s data and in this highly vaccinated country we have not seen the levels of excess deaths. Now this does not prove anything, but I agree with the author that more work is needed.
Could the batches used be relevant to where deaths/injuries from the vaccine occurred?
Thank you for this excellent article.
i think we can only work this out by analysis of vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups. And we need large numbers. Using the VAX-Control group (https://vaxcontrolgroup.com/) may be good, but ideally public health data from multiple countries should be used.
i do challenge the healthy vaccine bias. You could argue that people who are more health conscious were more likely to do research before being vaccinated and reject vaccination?
I also think the emphasis on deaths and cardiac related issues may miss important other side-effects.
The fact of the matter is that these jabs ARE causing injury and death and as Andrew Bridgen pointed out in his recent speech on excess deaths other vaccines have been “pulled” with far far fewer deaths occurring.
Just stop the bloody things now!
The most important conclusion to be drawn from this article is that “Controversial claims and interpretations should lead to conversations and more data, not cancellations.”
Thank you to The Sceptic for publishing this article by somebody who clearly understands the complex statistics involved and who hopefully does not have any vested interest in one or other side of the debate.
What we have needed from the outset is open and honest debate not unqualified “fact checkers” and cancellation of legitimate research, analysis and observations in MSM, social media and medical and scientific journals. We have not needed pharmaceutical representatives, scientists, doctors and advisers dependent on funding from those with a clear vested interest, global organisations funded by those with an obvious agenda, charitable funds heavily invested in the pharmaceutical industry etc presenting a one sided narrative and cancelling and censoring debate.
We have never needed the completely unethical mandates. We have always needed policies to be determined on the basis of a thorough risk benefit analysis. Legally valid informed consent should never have been abandoned. Policies should always have been based on the precautionary principle and the dictum of primum non nocere. Doctors should not have been silenced and threatened with erasure from the medical profession.
Need I go on?
Bravo to the Daily Sceptic for publicising a genuine, sincere, article from sceptic-through-to-her-bones Dr Hoeg. Really enjoyed reading this intelligent critique of a great interview.
I don’t pretend to understand all of this …. but I am quite relaxed about someone challenging a scientific/evidence-based theory on the basis of another scientific/evidence-based theory.
What I refuse to accept are the blatant lies spouted by the Covid Propagandists which are not scientific or evidence-based ….. and which refuses to admit or address the issue that the experimental jabs have clearly had significant harms for a great many people.
Before even looking at the detail, one thing which is blatantly obvious is that this particular researcher has taken the published average deaths to determine expected mortality WHICH INCLUDES the inflated excess figures and does not consider either that one would expect mortality to decrease after an alleged pandemic of significance. You cannot state that there are marginal decreases when the figures you are using are inflated!
Having now had time to read Denis Rancourt’s original paper, I am afraid Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg’s critical article does not take Rancourt’s earlier papers nor his current conclusions into account.
Hoeg firstly displays only 9 of Rancourt’s 17 graphs (possibly due to lack of space) showing mortality against vaccine rollout, stating that “the peaks of all-cause excess mortality do not clearly correspond to the vaccine rollout nor is any association that does exist consistent in appearance and timing from country to country”.
As I wrote in my above post, Rancourt states in his paper that “Nine of the 17 countries have no detectable excess ACM in the period of approximately one year after a pandemic was declared on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization (WHO) …”. This alone is a clear indication there was no deadly virus circulating in those countries.
Concerning this pre-vaccination period (from WHO declaration of a pandemic to vaccine rollout), Rancourt writes, “We attribute this [mortality] variability in the pre-vaccination period to large country-to-country differences in aggressive medical and government measures, convoluted with underlying population structures of fragile individuals, similarly to the large state-to-state differences in the USA …”. As in UK and many other countries, governments emptied hospitals, cancelled operations, locked residents in care homes, etc., which is clearly not beneficial to prolonged health.
Then, “By comparison, the patterns and magnitudes of ACM by time are relatively consistent, from country to country, in the vaccination period (Figure 6): all 17 countries have significant excess ACM in the vaccination period, virtually all 17 countries have large peaks of excess ACM in early-2021 when the COVID-19 vaccines are first rolled out, followed by a peak in excess ACM in early-2022 (the nominally January-February 2022 peak) when boosters are rolled out.”
In summary, “We attribute this relative constancy from country to country of excess ACM by time of the vaccination period as being due to the large uniformity in timing of COVID-19 vaccine and booster rollouts across the 17 countries; whereas medical and government measures were generally more disparate in the pre-vaccination period.”
The possibly two main points of Rancourt’s 180-page paper are:
(1) Absence of excess mortality until the COVID-19 vaccines are rolled out and
(2) The COVID-19 vaccines did not save lives and appear to be lethal toxic agents.
The first point is repeated in all his papers, i.e. that mortality comparisons between neighbouring countries, states and provinces repeatedly show THERE WAS NO PANDEMIC.
His second point is, I think, expressed lightly!
Thank you for doing this. It is e trembly important to get the facts. Confirmation bias on both sides is a huge problem.
Terribly important
Dennis Rancourt has now replied to Hoeg’s criticism.
https://denisrancourt.substack.com/p/my-response-to-tracy-beth-hoegs-criticisms?publication_id=1767404&post_id=141020553&isFreemail=true&r=1ninci