The lead author of a pre-print study in the Lancet examining all-cause mortality in the Covid vaccine trials has said that her work shows a “potential danger signal” for heart-related deaths connected to the mRNA vaccines that “warrants further scrutinisation”.
Speaking to UnHerd‘s Freddie Sayers, Professor Christine Stabell-Benn from the University of Southern Denmark added that there is “major pushback” to her efforts to investigate the effects of vaccines on all-cause mortality and many regulators and companies simply don’t want to know.
While stressing that the numbers in her study are often too small to provide statistical significance and ground firm conclusions, Prof. Stabell-Benn observes that “there is an overweight of cardiovascular deaths in the Pfizer group” which is “a potential danger signal that warrants further scrutinisation”.
Addressing the wider context of safety signals from the mRNA vaccines, she adds (from 22’50”):
I think there are danger signals in relation to cardiovascular deaths and diseases. We know that now with certainty for the mRNA vaccines with respect to myocarditis and pericarditis. But also anecdotally, I would say there are reports of cardiovascular deaths which I think deserve further scrutinisation. This is just a piece in the puzzle, but it adds to the evidence that suggests this is something which should be investigated further for the mRNA vaccines.
Prof. Stabell-Benn calls for back-to-back comparisons of the two new vaccine types, mRNA and adenovirus-vector, to compare their effects on all-cause mortality.
Addressing the politics of her research, she admits there is “not a lot of interest” from regulators and companies. “There is major pushback to be honest.” She adds:
It is also a bit of a Pandora’s box, I think, for health authorities, because if they start acknowledging these effects there is also the huge problem of potential negative non-specific effects that have actually been brought to the attention of the WHO already 20 years ago, but they haven’t really responded with the investigations. So you can see the potential backlash for the WHO, for vaccination programmes, if it actually comes out that some vaccines have carried these negative non-specific effects.
So I’ve been in this business for many years and I know that there are powers out there who aren’t interested in really digging into these findings. And again, it also has implications for the way we test vaccines, so you can see it is complicated stuff also for companies, for regulators, if we need to design vaccine phase 3 trials which do not only study the specific disease but also study all-cause mortality and morbidity.
Would she recommend Covid vaccination, Freddie asks. Based on what we know currently, “I wouldn’t recommend vaccination of anybody [under] 50 years of age” with the mRNA vaccines, she says.
Is she vaccinated? That’s “private”, she laughs.
Asked if she would recommend either vaccine to her (hypothetical) adult children in their 20s, her answer is an immediate and emphatic “no”.
That comes from decades of studying non-specific effects of vaccines and realising that the protective immunity against the vaccine disease can come at a high price. With the unknowns in relation to the new vaccine types, I would be on the safe side of things and say that as long as your risk of severe Covid is low then I wouldn’t run the risk of taking a new vaccine which hasn’t been tested for its overall health effects. And regrettably, we still lack that data. We tried to do the best we can with the very limited data in this study that we have now submitted, but it’s not good enough.
In the interview, Prof. Stabell-Benn also draws attention to the statistically significant benefits her study finds for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality from the adenovirus-vector vaccines (in contrast to the mRNA vaccines). I have discussed this aspect of the study in a previous post, drawing attention to the fact that with the more recent and complete data from one of the large adenovirus vaccine trials, the apparent mortality improvement is now much smaller and no longer statistically significant. Also, the trial mortality data suffer (as Prof. Stabell-Benn herself acknowledges) from small numbers susceptible to freak random occurrences (in one study there are four accident deaths in the vaccine arm versus zero in the control arm) and very short follow-up times.
During the interview, Freddie suggests that the U.K. may have done better than much of Europe in terms of overall mortality because it used the AstraZeneca adenovirus-vector vaccine widely, unlike Europe which largely dismissed it. However, contrary to this claim, the U.K. was actually one of the worst in Western Europe for overall mortality for 2020 and 2021, as shown below.
The U.K. also did not escape the Europe-wide wave of non-Covid deaths in the second half of 2021.
There is no evidence here I can see for the idea that the adenovirus-vector vaccines are peculiarly beneficial for all-cause mortality.
In my original post on this study I noted that the alarming increase in cardiovascular deaths Prof. Stabell-Benn is now calling a “potential danger signal” went “oddly unremarked upon in the paper”. Instead, the focus was entirely on the apparent mortality improvement from the adenovirus-vector vaccines. I suggested this was “due to the authors being wary of criticising the vaccines in order to be published” and lamented this likely state of affairs. I pointed out that, while these findings were not statistically significant, the effect size was large and “in the context of wider concerns about adverse effects of mRNA vaccines on the cardiovascular system, warrant some comment, if only to flag them up and say larger studies are needed to see if statistical significance obtains”.
I’m very pleased to hear Prof. Stabell-Benn now doing exactly this publicly – and dismayed to discover that my guess was presumably correct, and the politics did not allow her to include these important observations in the paper itself.
This is, of course, not good enough. The “powers” Prof. Stabell-Benn refers to are far too protective of their vaccines, manipulating the press and wider society to go along with their propaganda, usually by appealing to the idea of maintaining confidence in the vaccines in order to promote take-up. In the U.K., we even had the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury enlisted in telling people they have a duty to be vaccinated.
Of all medicines, vaccines are peculiarly susceptible to this kind of manipulation and propaganda, as while most medicine is just taken by the sick to try to make them well, vaccines are often believed to work best if as many people as possible take them to try to eliminate the disease completely or reduce it to minimal levels. This is unfortunate, because as drugs uniquely taken by the healthy and well, it is even more important that they are very safe, and propaganda to bolster ‘confidence’ is antithetical to a culture that investigates fully and properly the impact of vaccines and is open and transparent about the results.
In this light, the significance of the concept of ‘herd immunity’ for vaccination and its role in suppressing free and open scientific enquiry and media reporting needs to be scrutinised. It may be that for many vaccines, herd immunity is an unhelpful concept that wrongly puts the focus on universal take-up and maintaining confidence – instead of on focused take-up by the higher risk – and so covers vaccines in a shroud of propaganda that conceals crucial information and smothers honest investigation.
Prof. Stabell-Benn is right that there are danger signals for these vaccines, and not just for the mRNA ones. It’s time to strip away the protective blanket of ‘confidence’ propaganda they have been covered with since the rollout began and look at them in the cold light of day to see what we have created.
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.
Escaped or deployed?
This interview from Jan 2021 covers much of the ground.
https://rumble.com/vd6jjp-david-martin-full-interview-planet-lockdown.html
Very interesting, thanks.
I fear for this guy’s safety – I hope he has good 24/7 protection.
“But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error”
And Mill’s insight applies equally to all opinions, including those considered taboo in his time on religion and sex, as well as those that have replaced them in our culture as taboos, on “racism” and “homophobia”.
We tolerate dissent for profoundly intelligent and self-interested reasons. As many have found in the past few years,and especially during the course of the coronapanic, when we allow intolerance of dissent, eventually it’s likely the attitudes and structures and laws we build will be used against something we ourselves value.
Excellent post.
Thanks. The point people find hard to grasp is that the opinions they need to protect are the very ones they find most objectionable.
But one is not required to respect those opinions. One is merely required to tolerate their free expression.
I tried to make this point to my kids the other day. They’ve been conditioned obviously, and also brought up not to say gratuitously nasty things about people, so they were perplexed when I suggested that social media forums should not censor anything. I think they had never really thought about it before, but seemed to go away having sort of grasped it.
It is actually an argument humans seem to find genuinely counter-intuitive and therefore hard to retain, and especially in a culture which is as strongly against tolerance and freedom of speech as ours has become (particularly the younger sections).
They will insist until they are blue in the face that “it’s just speech having consequences” and “there’s no such thing as cancel culture”, but I see Andrew Lawrence is getting hounded out of work as we write now, for having made an off colour racist joke that arguably defies the dominant ideology.
https://twitter.com/BritishComedy/status/1414590484010389506
I wouldn’t personally have chosen to say what he said on this occasion, but he has talked a lot of sense about a lot of things, on lockdowns as well as the culture wars, so I am sorry to see him probably losing the ability to perform live. I expect he’ll still be watched by many, on YouTube, always assuming they don’t delete his account.
It was a joke. He’s a comedian. Hopefully he’ll find ways of getting his humour to its audience.
I like him a lot. I do often wonder how much of his own views go into a lot of the characters. I suspect quite a lot, but perhaps the joke is on me. He seems quite angry. Who can blame him?
“Who can blame him?“
Indeed!
Remember how, in our youth, the lefties used to love angry, offensive, taboo-flouting comedians? That, of course, was when they saw themselves as the out group attacking the establishment. Now they are the establishment they’ve changed their attitudes completely.
Here’s a bag full of wonga.
Now go away
2021
Is ”British science” more associated with the religion/cult/group think/funded ”the science” or the hustle and bustle of scientific questioning/argument/theory busting (or simply known as science)?
‘British science’ is where the Intelligence services were in the 1950’s and 1960’s – riddled with communist sympathisers.
Oh Gawd!! not another ‘communist’ conspiracy theory wanker!
Ah well – never underestimate the prevalence of stupidity – the basic first law (It applies to nominal ‘sceptics’ as to any other group. But it is a fucking tedious diversion from the real issues.
It’s simply the 77th Brigade squaddies at work. Imagination is not their strong point. Come to think of it, they have no strong points.
If I’m 77th, why have you praised other comments I’ve written elsewhere on here? Does that make you gullible?
So let me get it straight:
Anyone criticising or drawing attention to communists or the far left is “77th”, “diverting attention from the real issues”.
But RickH going on about “far right” is just fine and dandy.
And presumably this is based on the fact that you share his hatred of people on the right of politics and his sympathy with those on the left.
Is it beyond the realms of fantasy to infer that a number of people from academia and medical backgrounds share left wing, or even extreme left wing, sympathies? And by that estimation, one might assume that they would try and rush to the defence of the largest and most powerful communist state in the world?
We know members of SAGE with pretty hard left views (Mitchie and Reicher). We know Independent SAGE is littered with left leaning characters like Scally and Mosaillos. We also know many opinion polls and surveys point to an overwhelming bias in our education system in support for the Labour Party or socialism etc.
But never mind, it’s just an opinion. I’ll keep them to myself in future, I wouldn’t want bore you because it certainly is ‘fucking tedious’ reading comments from keyboard warriors and internet tough guys on forums like these, that insult anyone that dares challenge their worldview.
Thick skin is recommended, for posting in any online forum.
I find the best way to address hostile comments is to make a choice whether to ignore them or to engage which them. Which way to go depends in a lot of factors.
When dealing with comments such as that one from RickH, which was basically childish personal abuse based on political hatred, it’s useful to step back and analyse the comment, its likely impact on readers and its likely motivation.
If you look at the exchange (your comment and his), it’s pretty obvious you came out of it much better than he did. Which is unsurprising, since you made a substantive and plausible point, to which he responded with empty playground abuse.
So you could easily just have walked away and left it hanging there, but imo your response on this occasion was equally good – to engage with the implied substance behind his abuse. The only bit I didn’t like was the suggestion in your final paragraph that you would keep your opinions to yourself in future. I hope you won’t. To silence oneself in response to abuse like RickH’s would be to give in to bullying, and that’s rarely a good thing.
Thank you, that’s very kind.
“eminent British scientists?”
With some notable exceptions that is a very oxymoronic turn of phrase these days.
If the virus was developed in a US lab over the last couple of decades then it makes sense to divert attention back to the Wuhan lab now that Dr Martin’s patent investigations are public (Fuellmich was talking to Martin over 3 months ago as were others no doubt – the Wuhan lab leak theory was re-surfaced a few weeks ago)
The hope maybe that the Wuhan lab leak theory will never be proven but may take the spotlight off the US involvement in this disaster – unlikely though
I think David Martin called the lab leak theory a “red herring?”
precisely – the ‘red herring’ is to take attention off the US patents evidence
delete
It’s being pushed now, because the zoonotic theory has been badly holed in the water. Lab leak though, is a dangerous second best for the Covid instigators and is only of use if they can keep the blame firmly pinned on China and Fauci.
In reality the engineered coronavirus doesn’t really seem to be that much of a bother and the “pandemic” is little more than a cocktail of lies mixed with a helping of seasonal flu and deliberate bad medical practice.
My only problem with Martin is that he tends rather too much to the view that the fake pandemic is mostly about money, though he does tell us that the vaccines are dangerous, but then again we knew that already. If it’s just about money, why not make the vaccines safe, which would have stopped much aggravation and possible recrimination ?
This isn’t really about money, if only it was. It’s much more about the massive depopulation, which some global elites have been dreaming and planning for many decades.
If it was about safety you’d antibody test BEFORE the jabs.
That omission tells me all I need to know.
many players – many motivations/agendas
Martin is mainly focused on the value of intellectual property rights, as represnted through patents. So he has produced the ‘money’ trail through the patent applications. However verbally he agrees with the view that the product, the vaccines, can be used for many purposes. The genetic code has ‘designer holes’ which allows various sub-elements to be added as desired. Its quite possible the current ‘vaccines’ are different depending on the batches, and not by accident.
The involvement of DARPA since 2008 in the project is significant. Especially if you read the UK/German ministry of defence paper on Human Augumentation. ( Human_Augmentation_SIP_access2-2.pdf ). It doesn’t make for pleasant reading.
You are right. This is about more than just profit for the Pharma giants. It is about implementing a surveillance state, closing down free speech and the rule of law, and reducing the population to little more than slaves.
I think what Dr DM said is a lot more nuanced than that, as he drew attention to the 2016 PNAS document on research being carried out in Wuhan at the time:
PNAS March 15, 2016 113 (11) 3048-3053; first published March 14, 2016;
Dr DM subsequently stated it was no surprise to him that the supposed emergence of SARS-CoV-2 was from Wuhan. He has also questioned the preparedness of the world to counter the emerging virus given it was known about since 2016.
In fairness I think the problem is far more complex than the above ATL article is presenting it as.
ATL are so far behind the the curve on it that it’s almost laughable.
.
“Smallpox leaked from a research lab at Birmingham Medical School in 1978″
this is an interesting story. They researched it to death and never found out how. Maybe they should have just made the locals wear cotton masks and ignored it
No, no: it was from a pet rabbit!
I was particularly surprised by this question: the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2 occurs almost 1,000 miles away from the research centre. Yet the first viral outbreak was recorded in Wuhan. How did it get there if it wasn’t via a lab leak?
Could it have been a person who travelled to Wuhan? They move about in China quite a bit these days.
could have got there when a person travelled from the US to Wuhan. What is to stop that?
Dr David Martin and Dr Reiner Fuellmich et al., have a bit of an interesting chat…
https://brandnewtube.com/watch/dr-david-martin-dr-reiner-fuellmich-july-9-2021_RlmKScwsMf6ATEG.html
Plus some interesting evidence from Dr Martin…
https://f.hubspotusercontent10.net/hubfs/8079569/The%20FauciCOVID-19%20Dossier.pdf
KA-BOOM!
Yes, Dr Martin uncovers the bombshell news that SARS was patented in 2002, a story debunkeda year ago! https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience/patently-false-disinformation-over-coronavirus-patents
Fuck off 77
what – its been fact checked – well I’m convinced
Here’s another article from jonathon jarry from the mcgill fact checker
crew…
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-health/dont-fall-vaers-scare-tactic
ooo, loads of his stuff here…
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/articles-by-author/Jonathan%20Jarry%20M.Sc.?page=2
sounds like a fully paid up member of the ”the science” congregation.
Under the heading “Critical Thinking” (which phrase should always raise a red flag ) the McGill group accuses anti-vaxxers of misusing the VAERS system to “terrify the public.” Ha! Another instance of the evil-doers projecting their guilt on the innocent, accusing their opponents of precisely what they themselves are doing.
https://patents.justia.com/patent/7279327
The present invention relates to methods of producing recombinant nidovirus vectors, particularly coronavirus vectors, and expressing heterologous genes from said vectors.
Fact check this:fucker.
Yes Martin dealt with NCs involvement in detail. In particular when the CDC went to ridiculous degrees to purchase the patent off them when the US government automatically has the right to its use when it provides finance.
Indeed the CDC seems to have been very active in trying to cover tracks. Unfortunately for them Martin and his company is used extensively by the US Govt to audit these trails.
I remain in shock that he has publicly made his findings available, he clearly knows he has a lot of ‘stuff’ that most governments would not like making public, so is confident of his position. Presumably employs trusted bodyguards.
The sign that this is a guided missile is the rapid deployment of 77th interference on this , not just on this website but across the board where this news has been discussed.
Sooner or later the unredacted emails of Fauchi will reveal all
Beware. It could be a controlled demolition and “all” will never be revealed.
Except that large amounts of bullion will go missing and never be found
Yes. I’ve kept an open mind, but the bat > human direct transmission always seemed the least likely story, just on grounds of probability, given the geography and the obvious fakery surrounding the Wuhan ‘outbreak’.
The rush to deny the lab leak scenario is actually circumstantial confirmation of its likelihood.
Some people said so from the start…
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-covid-wuhan-iran-and-several-red-herrings/
These guys think that it was first set free deliberately to kill off the geriatric Iranian leadership.
After that, some things then might have gone wrong. Or not.
Technically, calling is a leak is not disinformation.
It was almost certainly released deliberately.which is an entirely different thing.
The more likely scenario is that it will eventually be admitted that it was an accidental leak, in the hope that nobody then looks any further for the real truth.
Like admitting you broke a window and hoping they don’t notice the safe is missing.
The important thing is not the leak itself, if that’s what it was, but:
1) Covering the leak up
2) Deliberately spreading disinformation about the virus in order to create panic and promote lockdowns
3) Western “democracies” swallowing whole propaganda from a regime not known for its respect for truth and freedom, and imitating repressive CCP measures without thinking about the consequences
I am afraid this has all the signs of a criminal conspiracy and not a mistake or incompetence.
It has been planned for many years, including the 2019 financial collapse which freed governments to print unlimited amounts of money to “pay” for the CV measures.
And how many of thise scientists who disagree are funded by the Chinese Communist Party?
Follow the money.
Greece decides It’s health fascism is worth more than it’s tourism industry
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-07-greece-pressures-vaccine-skeptics-infections.html
Has a Health Junta taken over in Greece?
Greece, France, UK and others all doing the same thing at the same time. What an amazing coincidence. This isn’t democratic Governments making these decisions, it just isn’t. Democracy is dead.
Democracy has been a con since a while now, the people who choose who can run for MPs in our rotten boroughs have been nobbled for a long while now.
Slightly off-topic, but we now live in the fully fledged fascist state of France. Macron has announced the full apartheid of vaxed and nonaxed phased in over the summer. No entry to bars, cafes or restaurants, hospitals(!) , trains, buses etc etc etc without ‘health pass’.
Could well be bringing forward the trip to Florida and trying to make it permanent.
Toby, spend more time with your delightful wife and family.
You are working too hard on this.
I think Toby Young’s article fails to address the central issue here and that is: why would reputable scientists be motivated to dismiss the Lab Leak Theory?
Is it because they are piss-poor scientists who can’t differentiate reasonable hypotheses from unreasonable ones? That seems unlikely to me.
Is it because they are corrupt and in the pay of the Chinese CCP regime? Not impossible given Chinese penetration of the world of academia but seems unlikely so many would be so corrupted, or feel strongly enough that they wished to dismiss the theory. .
Or is it because science has become politicised to the extent that these people whose professional life is so focussed on science can no longer distinguish between science and politics? This seems much more to the point.
We know that science has increasingly become a PC virtue signaller itself: overemphasising to an absurd extent the contribution of women who were, it is true, entirely overlooked by previous patriarchal generations; avoiding “sensitive” topics; undertaking politicised research e.g. research into right wing personality types, but not left wing ones; persecuting colleagues who speak in non-PC fashion.
We also know that it was Trump who was linking the virus to the Chinese and the CCP regime.Did these scientists feel they would be giving aid and comfort to Trump (whom the PC Globalists consider a reactionary to be defeated at all costs) if they stated the Lab Leak theory was a reasonable hypothesis? I think so. In the same way scientists and medics dismissed Trump’s claims about HCQ.
If scientists are prepared to lie about these things then maybe they are lying about other things e.g. the efficacy of the Covid vaccines, the risks to health from the vaccines, the efficacy of test&trace, the efficacy of masks and the efficacy of lockdowns. They may just feel they have to lie about all these things because in each case the opposing opinion tends to come more from the right of politics and certainly the Globalist Blairite faction (which probably attracts most scientists) definitely believe in the Holy Quadrality of vaccines, masks, lockdowns and testing.
“why would reputable scientists be motivated to dismiss the Lab Leak Theory?”
I found this suggestion, from a month or so ago, quite plausible:
“If the pandemic started as part of a lab leak, it had the potential to do to virology what Three Mile Island and Chernobyl did to nuclear science”.
But regardless of the particulars, the fact that the lies were Official Truth for so long and such forces were brought to bear to suppress dissent should disturb even the most complacent government/big media/big tech worshipper.
Why did they lie to us for so long
(As always in such matters, one motivation does not necessarily preclude others also applying, of course, and the ones you give are plausible as well.)
It’s probably a combination of 2 & 3. The thing you have to understand about Chinese hegemony is that it’s so pervasive that it would be much easier to list organisations and corporations etc that don’t have ties to the Chinese
It is our own governments. Check out what really happened at 9/11 and who benefited.
Perhaps because if it was a lab leak the obvious response would be a worldwide ban on gain-of-function research, which the scientists in question don’t want to happen?
Not a lab leak, but a deliberate release of a patented gain of function organism. The leak theory is disinformation. Catch up.
There is no British science. Just a group of bullies with their fingers in pharmaceutical pies who are pretending to be scientists. Do your due diligence and check out the qualifications of these unelected psychopaths
It is also a possibility that the virus came from the US lab at Fort Detrick (which had to be closed due to security concerns) and transported to Wuhan during the World Military Games held there just weeks before the outbreak where 300 US personnel competed.
Maybe the idea from the US Deep State and it’s Dr. Strangeloves was to harm the Chinese economy. They believed it was not that virulent and there would be no blowback as was the case with SARS -Cov-1, how wrong they were.
Was it also just a coincidence that thousands of miles away top leaders in Iran were some of the first to die from Covid?
Just imagine what the accusations would have been if Covid had originated in a US city just after 300 Chinese military personnel had been there.
The Chinese government has already accused the US of bringing the virus to China.
https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/chinese-foreign-ministry-spokesperson-implies-us-military-brought-coronavirus-to-wuhan/
There is a detailed analysis of the US releasing the virus in Wuhan here …..
https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-covid-bioweapon-made-in-the-usa-aimed-at-china/
The patents for SARS-CoV-2 have been known about for some time and were revealed in the film Plandemic InDoctorNation.
The worry is that the vaccines may also be a bioweapon.