CDC, 코로나 백신 사망 청구 31,696건…”다른 모든 백신 합친 것에 3배” [팩트매터]

This right here is what's known as the VAERS system, which stands for the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. It was set up all the way back in the year 1990, so 32 years ago, as essentially an early warning system in order to detect any possible safety problems that arose from vaccines. Now, in terms of organizational structure, VAERS is run jointly by the CDC as well as by the FDA. And the way that the system works is that it both accepts as well as analyzes the reports of adverse events following vaccination in order to try to determine whether those adverse events were actually caused by the vaccine in question. Now, technically, anyone can report an adverse event to the VAERS system, meaning you, your grandma, your aunt, and anybody else can all report the adverse events that they experienced following vaccination to VAERS. They actually have a fairly easy-to-use online reporting tool. You can see it up on screen for yourself. However, while everyday Americans like you and me can report our adverse events to the VAERS system, there are other people who must report them. For instance, healthcare professionals are required to report certain adverse events that they see, while vaccine manufacturers are required to report all adverse events that come to their attention. However, because VAERS has this self-reporting component to it, it's officially classified as a passive reporting system. Here's, for instance, how it's described on the official government website. Quote, VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences to the CDC and the FDA. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but it's especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine. Meaning, in plain English, that VAERS is not to determine causation, but only to recognize patterns that are emerging in the broader population. And so today, let's take a look at what has been reported within the VAERS system so far in regards to the COVID vaccines, and see if we can, as the websites say, detect any unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events. So with that in mind, let's start with a high-level overview and compare what's been reported for the COVID vaccines over the past two years versus what's been reported for all other vaccines over the Before we start, I have to give a big shout out to the VAERSanalysis.info website, who actually pulls a lot of this data together in a simple and easy-to-access format. If you'd actually like to see some of their visualizations, I'll throw a link to that website. It'll be down in the description box below. And now let's delve into the data for ourselves. In terms of the number of adverse reactions over the past two years, the COVID vaccines have seen a staggering Compare that to only 903,917 reports that were submitted for all other vaccines combined over the past 30 years. Then in terms of the number of life-threatening events, the COVID vaccines have seen 34,619 records, while all other vaccines combined have only 14,751. When we look at the hospitalizations, the COVID vaccines have a staggering 181,555, while all other vaccines again combined have had only 85,749. In terms of the number of permanent disabilities post vaccination, the COVID vaccines have 59,374 records, while all other vaccines combined have only 21,454. In terms of the number of birth defects recorded after vaccination, the COVID vaccines have 1,174 records, while all other vaccines combined have only 205. And lastly, in terms of the number of deaths, the COVID vaccines have a total of 31,696 records, compared to only 9,962 records for all other vaccines. And just to highlight that last point, this means that just in terms of these VAERS records, the number of deaths that are associated with the COVID vaccines just over the past two years alone is more than triple the number of deaths that are associated with every other vaccine within the VAERS system combined since the year 1990. Now again, though, as I mentioned at the top of the episode, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, although we'll get to that later in the episode. However, right now, let's actually explore this data a bit further through the use of some graphs. Up on your screen is a graph going back to 1990, when the VAERS system was just created. And the lines in yellow represent the number of deaths reported for all other vaccines combined, while the blue lines, starting in the year 2020, represent the number of deaths reported for the COVID vaccines. And as you can see, the 2021 and 2022 numbers are just off the chart. And of course, I should mention here that the year 2022 is not over yet. And then just as another visualization for how steep this difference actually is, take a look at this chart here, which presents that same data in a bit of a different way. Since the year 2020, the rise in reported cases of death for the COVID vaccines, the blue line, has been so steep that quite literally in just two years, it's been triple the cumulative amount of reports of the yellow line, which is all other vaccines combined. Now, let's break up that yellow line into the individual vaccines that they represent and take a look at this chart here. It shows the number of reported deaths broken down by vaccine type since the year 1990. And at the top, you have things like the Ebola vaccine, the adenovirus vaccine, cholera vaccine, rubella vaccine, and so on, which have seen deaths reported only in these single digits. However, going down to the bottom of the chart, we have things like the influenza vaccine, which is commonly known as the flu shot. We have the pneumonia vaccine, then the diphtheria vaccine, which was, by the way, up until the year 2020, the vaccine with the most number of reported deaths. However, very obviously, the entire scale of the graph needed to be adjusted with the COVID vaccine, which has quite literally 10 times the reported number of deaths than the number two vaccine, diphtheria. And if we want to look a little closer at the COVID vaccine specifically, we can actually stratify that data by age. And we'll get this chart here. The red indicates the total number of reported deaths, whereas the blue indicates the ratio, the number of deaths reported for every million doses of the vaccine delivered. And as you can see, these numbers, well, they vary quite widely depending on the age of the recipient. For kids younger than two, while the number of deaths is low, sitting at about seven, the ratio is very high, sitting at about 16 deaths reported for every million doses of the vaccine. However, when you go to the right side of the chart, which is people over the age of 65, which is the demographic that is the most vaccinated, you'll see the highest number of overall deaths sitting at around 10,000, and simultaneously, the highest ratio sitting at a whopping 178 reported deaths per million vaccine doses administered. Then looking at the VAERS data from another angle, we can also see the number of deaths stratified based on the time that the person got vaccinated. That's this chart right here. As you can see, about a third of the cases of reported deaths occurred within a week of the person getting vaccinated. The rest of the reported deaths were spread out over the course of the next two and a half months post-vaccination. If we stratify this data by vaccine manufacturer, we find that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine had 2,752 records, Moderna had 8,599 records, and Pfizer had the lion's share with 20,251 records of death. Furthermore, if we take this VAERS data and stratify it by gender, we see that the majority of these deaths, 53%, were men. Women represented only 41%, and the rest were unknown. Now, so far, we've been looking exclusively at the charts for the number of reported deaths. However, if we look at some other charts, for instance, if we look at the number of adverse events as a whole, well, they actually follow the exact same trend. You can see the charts up on your screen. Now, we can keep dividing and visualizing these numbers every which way. However, in order to understand what the numbers actually mean, what some of the deeper implications are, what this all means for the future, as well as what some hidden variables might be within the VAERS system, well, here's a short excerpt from my interview with Dr. Robert Malone. Prior to COVID, what was the generally accepted understanding of what percentage of vaccine adverse reactions were represented by the number in the VAERS system? So, there's a diverse range in the literature. There's been a small number of studies that ask that question, and it's a really hard question to ask objectively because the way that you have to do it objectively is you have to find some variable that gets reported that is unlikely to vary by product. So, I can't, off the top of my head, I can't. So, you look for a adverse event that is going to be kind of normally distributed and not affected by the product category. And then you say, okay, that's occurring at this rate as detected in VAERS. In the general population, we happen to know that that occurs at this rate in the general population. And then you have to say, okay, what is the ratio between what we know it's occurring in the general population and how frequently is it reported in VAERS? And then you can come up with that ratio, and that ratio seems to vary between an underreporting of something like one in 10, one in 20. So, you know, only 10% or 5% are being reported up to 100-fold so that we have, you know, less than 1% or less of the adverse events are being reported, depending on how you do those calculations. And so that's where we end up with all of this arm-wrestling early on in the literature of what is that ratio number, because once you have that multiplier, then you can apply it to the other data. But it's very artificial. I was busy talking to a group of folks in senior positions at the FDA through the first third of the outbreak. And almost, we were having weekly Zoom calls. And one of their big gripes was that they had been working for years trying to get the FDA and the CDC to update the database systems and the data analysis tools that were being deployed. And they were incredibly frustrated. There has been multiple initiatives within the FDA and the CDC to come up with an improved system other than VAERS. And those systems have been developed. And unfortunately, apparently, what happened repeatedly is that when better systems of data analysis or data capture were developed, they revealed things that were inconvenient truths. And because there's a whole back underside of drug adverse events and other vaccine adverse events that has been a subject of controversy, as you know, way before COVID. So these better data analysis tools and better data systems have been developed, tested, revealed things that were inconvenient truths. And the response of the bureaucracy has been to shut down the program rather than to deal with the inconvenient truth, right? So this willful blindness. And we're seeing willful blindness now on steroids all the way through COVID because it's been intrinsic in this federal bureaucracy thinking. And it's this willful blindness. And we all know the metaphor of the, you know, see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. That seems to have become central to the culture of both the FDA and the CDC. And unfortunately, many of these agencies that have dual function, like the USDA and the FAA. And it's folks like you and me and your audience that suffer the consequences. So what you described, it makes me really wonder because if let's say in the general population, the instance of heart attacks is let's say X, just whatever it is. And let's say and there's a pain medication. And according to the VAERS system, the pain medication makes heart attacks 0.3% higher than X, right? But so you can create a ratio there, but who's to say that 0.3 is not even higher or higher, right? So it seems like there's no- With the VAERS system, it likely would be. It likely would be. So it's almost completely understood that- But remember the VAERS system is for vaccines. Right, right, right. But the same logic applies to other drugs. You're exactly on point. Because when I'm looking at it, because right as of today, I believe it's a little over 29,000 deaths, close to 30,000 deaths that have been linked to the COVID-19 vaccine on the VAERS system. All of which the CDC denies. Right, exactly. And so there's this funny, because as I'm trying to analyze these numbers, that 29,000, like you said, it might only be 10% of the actual number. But then out of that 29,000, likely not all of them are actually connected to the vaccine. Likely maybe somebody who just happened to die after getting the shot. So it's like, I'm really trying to figure out what the real number here is, and it's hard. You and all of us. Right. So that paradox has been bedeviling the whole world. And what we've had to do in the face of the fact that there's been so many forms of bias intrinsic in our federal data collection, that we've been forced to go offshore. And that was acknowledged at the outset, this small cadre of people that are in very senior positions outside of the regulatory branch of the FDA, who'd been working on these database problems for years, ran their tools on existing data, detected this event. And then that detection was not sufficient to raise red flags at FDA or CDC. They had to then go to Israel and say, hey, are you seeing something like this? The Israelis confirmed it. Then it was okay, since it was coming from the Israelis, to go to the CDC, who then did the test and found that this is in fact the case. And then it became a public policy. Underlying that little story, case study, is the fact that the CDC knew that the Bayer system was inadequate for surveillance. Even though they were telling Congress and the White House that they had the tools, they were telling Ron Johnson that they had the tools to track down every one of these and deal with them seriously. They knew that their system wasn't working, and they were relying on the Israeli database. Because that was much more comprehensive, larger population, inoculations started earlier. But the problem is that what we've learned since then is the Israeli situation is compromised by the contractual relationship that was established by Benjamin Netanyahu before he left and Pfizer as a corporation. Israel is acting functionally as an agent of Pfizer, because they have financial and other encumbrances. And so the CDC was relying on a toolkit that was offshore that they didn't have any control of, that had already been compromised by financial relationships with Pfizer. So that's, I mean, the whole system is a mess. It's compromised. It's corrupted. And the thing is, they knew that it was a mess before any of this started, and they didn't fix it when they had time and money to do so, and were under direct edicts from Congress to fix the system. And yet they didn't do it, largely apparently, because the truths that that revealed were inconvenient. Now, delving a bit deeper into this VAERS data, just a few days ago, while I was speaking with James Thorpe, I asked him about this study here that he published last month. He published it alongside a number of other physicians. And what they did within the study is that they delved into the VAERS system, and they compared the side effects of the COVID vaccine compared to other vaccines, specifically the influenza vaccine, to find some statistically significant differences. Take a listen. You actually published a preprint study. It was published alongside several other doctors, including Dr. Redshaw and Dr. Peter McCullough. I'll put it up on screen for the audience. It's titled COVID-19 Vaccines, the Impact on Pregnancy Outcomes and Menstrual Function. Can you sort of lay it out for the audience? How did you conduct this study, and what did you find? Thank you. I'd be honored to do that. And this is really the most, of all my 200 or so publications, even the book that we've recently written, this is the most important publication of my life. This is a publication that has so much truth and veracity and irrefutability in it that it just focuses on the truth. It focuses on the government data, and there is absolutely no way that it's wrong. I'm not confident of it. So what I did was, we determined to do a focused study on obstetrics. So what more perfect control group could we have as the influenza vaccine? Because I started pushing the influenza vaccines in 1997, apologetically. I probably shouldn't have done that, but doing my due diligence, I felt like it was safe. So the CDC and the FDA came out and approved it and started pushing it in pregnancy in 1997. So I thought, okay, that's reasonable. So all of us care providers started pushing that influenza vaccine in pregnancy, so in the latter part of 1997. So our study started January 1st, 1998, and went to June 30th, 2022. So you see that for the influenza vaccine, you get about 284 months, compared with only about, say, 20 months or so of the COVID-19 vaccine. So we use the influenza vaccine as a control group, which arguably isn't a perfect control group, but it is for this study, because it comes out of the same database. Yes, it does have some risks in pregnancy, but it has been studied for, you know, 284 months, and everybody seems to think it's safe. There are some risks. So it wasn't a perfect control group, wouldn't have been, would have been no vaccine. But we use the influenza vaccine. And then we went into the VAERS database, and we pulled out events, me as a senior author on the paper and the lead author, I looked for issues that I knew I was seeing after the rollout of the vaccine. And I had a whole list. So when I began harvesting the FDA and the CDC VAERS data, I went through all those thousands of symptoms, and I, but I focused only on the symptoms that I were interested that I've seen. So I, we then compared the event, adverse event with COVID-19, the specific, let's just say menstrual abnormalities, and then we compared it with the influenza vaccine. Well, if you compare those two, what we come up with, and we use exactly what the CDC and FDA advise us to use is what's called a proportional ratio, proportional risk ratio. And if a PRR is two or greater, that's a danger signal, according to the FDA. It's like a twofold increase in event rates or so. So, like, for example, with the menstrual abnormalities, these severe, very abnormal menstrual abnormalities, again, before pregnancy, now, this is obviously not pregnancy with menstrual abnormalities, but what we saw was that there is a 1,192-fold increase in the symptoms of menstrual abnormalities in those patients got the COVID-19 vaccine compared to the influenza vaccine. Now, that's a stunning number. That's almost 120,000 percent fold increase. So, it's a stunning number. Now, if you do the same analytics, and by the way, we did this extraordinarily methodically. You know, every single one of us reviewed all the abstracted data, made sure we all had the exact same data. We did. And then we all did our own analytics. I did my own analytics. But then our PhD statistician, Mike, came in, and he took it up to a different level. He basically, what we did was three completely separate analytics. We did adverse event per time period. We did adverse event for the number of vaccinations. And we did adverse event for the actual number of patients vaccinated. Those three completely separate analyses were still identical. There's nothing we could do to shake off this massive disaster danger signal effect. And this is the government's own data. So, just going through the rest of those PRRs, proportional risk ratios, you know, you're looking at miscarriage. The PRR was almost 60. It was 57, as I recall, a 57-fold increase. That's a 5,700% increase. For fetal malformations, there was a 20-fold increase in major fetal malformations of all organ systems. And one of the more common ones was what we call a cystic hygroma, and the reason why I picked up on that was because I've seen a spat of that, you know, over the last, since the vaccine rolled out. Also, fetal cardiac abnormalities are increased over 16-fold greater. Again, two is the danger signal, you know. And if you do these odds ratios, and I put up what I call a forest plot, unless I make the x-axis logarithmic, in other words, instead of it being linear from 1, 2, 3, 4, it's logarithmic, 1, 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000. Because if I didn't make it logarithmic, the indicator would be about a mile off to the right, outside of my house, into a different neighborhood. That's how far away the signal would be from the y-axis. So, I have to compress it by turning it into…that's the first clue that there's a problem when you have to do that. But also, we see a significant increase in fetal growth restriction, fetal growth abnormalities, and that was a no-brainer for me because I've seen so much of it, and because the placenta appears so devastatingly abnormal after a vaccine, many of them do. And I've had folks from all over the country that feed me ultrasounds that show me, so it's not just my practice. And then also, low amniotic fluid, which is a reflection of abnormal cell function, is up 16-fold. That's a danger signal, a death signal for fetuses when the fluid around the baby, the amniotic fluid, is low. And then finally, there's fetal cardiac arrest. Fetal cardiac arrest and fetal death. Abnormal fetal vascular perfusion, using our sophisticated velocimetry ultrasound flow metrics. So, all of these are very, very concerning. There's no doubt in my mind the vaccine, the COVID-19 vaccine, is absolutely contraindicated, should never be used in pregnancy, should never be used in a breastfeeding period. Now, Albert Benavidez, I think who you know well, I think might have been on your program, I'm not sure, but he's a world expert in VAERS, and of course, he's one of my co-authors, and he said, you know, Jim, we really, I have so much, he has proof that the VAERS data is being throttled and manipulated to downplay the disasters. And I think he's right, but he has solid proof of hundreds and hundreds of cases that were purposefully mislabeled or hidden. Now, he wanted to uncover those for our last paper, and I said, no, no, no, no, because if it is being throttled, and he's right, it is, they're doing a horrible job, and I don't want this data manipulated, I want this straight from the VAERS database, and that's what we did. Our next study, next study we do is we're going to let Albert Benavidez, the world expert, show us the proof that there's been some very, very unethical suppression of the database at VAERS, but they've done a horrible job. And the other reason why I know that to be the case is because all of the, well, in all the other databases around the world, you know, when you look at the Eudra Vigilance of the European Medicines Agency, the European Union's database, it's much worse than VAERS. Don't get me wrong, VAERS is bad, but they've done, they haven't been able to throttle it as much as they'd like, and they have several tricks doing that. The UK Yellow Card run is much worse. The WHO VigiAccess, their data is much worse than VAERS. So I could go on and on and on, but the COVID-19 vaccine is contraindicated in pregnancy. It's the greatest disaster in the history of obstetrics. Mark my words. Now, very obviously, we've gone through a lot of data in today's episode. And so if you'd like to go through the VAERS data for yourself, if you'd like to look through any of the graphs that we went through, or if you'd like to check out some of the links, the research links from the doctors that we interviewed and showed you in this segment, all those links will be down there in the description box below. You can click on them, head on over to those websites and delve deeper for yourself. And then lastly, if you got something out of today's episode, well, I certainly hope that you share it to your friends, your family, your coworkers, your neighbors, or frankly, anyone else in your life that you believe can find use in this type of information. The share button is right down there. We've made it super simple. Once you smash that share button, a little window comes up with a little different social media platforms that you can use. You just click on any one of those, the link will be copied, and you can easily send the link of this episode to your friends, family, and whoever else. So again, that share button is right down there. I hope you click it. And then until next time, I'm your host, Roman from The Epic Times. Stay informed, and most importantly, stay free.