News
Featured Image

(LifeSiteNews) – The mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer and Moderna under former President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed initiative are associated with an “excess risk of serious adverse events” (SAEs), according to a peer-reviewed study published August 31 in Vaccine, the official journal of the Japanese Society for Vaccinology.

The study, conducted by researchers from Stanford, UCLA, and the University of Maryland, analyzed the vaccines’ randomized clinical trials for serious adverse events, including myocarditis/pericarditis, kidney or liver injury, respiratory distress, hyperglycemia, pancreatitis, and more.

“Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2” respectively, the authors found. “The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36% higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated” while the “Moderna trial exhibited a 6% higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group,” for a combined “16% higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference.”

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Stop Tedros' WHO Pandemic Treaty
  Show Petition Text
101113 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 125000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

The WHO Pandemic Treaty looks set to be one of the biggest power-grabs in living memory, with unelected globalists seeking the power to declare pandemics, and then control your country's response. 

But it's not too late to do something about it. 

SIGN and SHARE this special petition telling Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus that the WHO will never usurp your nation's sovereignty.

The past two years have been rife with infringements on personal liberties and civil rights by national governments, but now the World Health Organization is seeking to appropriate those same abusive powers to itself at a global level. 

194 member states representing 99% of the world's population are expected to sign pandemic treaties with the WHO that would allow Tedros, or any future Director General, to dictate exactly how your nation would respond to a new disease outbreak which they consider a pandemic.

This attack on national sovereignty will come as no surprise to those who for years have listened to elites like Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates discussing their vision for the centralization of power into globalist organizations like the World Economic Forum (WEF), the WHO and the rest of the United Nations. 

SIGN this petition against the WHO's Pandemic Treaty, before it's too late.

Ludicrously, 20 world leaders calling for the treaty, including Tedros, Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron, compared the post-Covid world to the post-WWII period, saying similar co-operation is now needed to "dispel the temptations of isolationism and nationalism, and to address the challenges that could only be achieved together in the spirit of solidarity and co-operation - namely peace, prosperity, health and security."

Australian PM Scott Morrison is the latest leader to express support for a “pandemic treaty”.

The stated intention of the WHO is to “kickstart a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

The wheels are already in motion, with the Biden administration officially proposing the initial steps towards handing global pandemic control to the WHO. 

Biden's representatives have submitted amendments to the WHO's International Health Regulations (IHR), which would give the Director General the right to declare health emergencies in any nation, even when disputed by the country in question.

These amendments, which would be legally binding under international law, will be voted on by the World Health Assembly (the governing body of the WHO) at a special convention running from May 22-28 and set the stage for a fully-fledged pandemic treaty to be passed. 

SIGN and SHARE the petition telling the WHO that you won't accept any pandemic treaty

The ball has been rolling since the last World Health Assembly meeting in December, where the United States launched negotiations "on a new international health instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response," a U.S. statement read. 

"This momentous step represents our collective responsibility to work together to advance health security and to make the global health system stronger and more responsive. 

"We look forward to broad and deep negotiations using a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach that will strengthen the international legal framework for public health/pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response and enable us to address issues of equity, accountability, and multisectoral collaboration evident in the COVID-19 pandemic. 

"We know it will take all of us working together across governments, private sector, philanthropy, academia, and civil society to make rapid progress towards a long-term solution for these complex problems," the U.S. statement added.

SIGN the petition today to show the WHO that you won't accept this attack on national sovereignty.

These are precarious times in which freedom and self-determination must be defended from those who would ride rough-shod over your civil rights. 

We do not want to go back to global lockdowns, vaccine mandates and propoganda.

Sign the petition - speak up now!

For More Information:

Biden hands over American sovereignty with proposed WHO treaty - LifeSiteNews

Pandemic Treaty is a backdoor to global governance - LifeSiteNews

Dr. Robert Malone on the WHO's power-grab - LifeSiteNews

**Photo: YouTube Screenshot**

  Hide Petition Text

The authors caution that their findings should be taken with several limitations in mind. “First, benefits and harms are rarely exact equivalents, and there can be great variability in the degree of severity within both benefit and harm endpoints,” they wrote. “Second, individuals value different endpoints differently. Third, without individual participant data, we could only compare the number of individuals hospitalized for COVID-19 against the number of serious AESI events [adverse events of special interest], not the number of participants experiencing any serious AESI.”

Notably, they added, such limitations cut both ways: “First, Pfizer’s trial did not report SAEs occurring past 1 month after dose 2. This reporting threshold may have led to an undercounting of serious AESIs in the Pfizer trial. Second, for both studies, the limited follow up time prevented an analysis of harm-benefit over a longer period. Third, all SAEs in our analysis met the regulatory definition of a serious adverse event, but many adverse event types which a patient may themselves judge as serious may not meet this regulatory threshold. Fourth, decisions about which SAEs to include or exclude as AESIs requires subjective, clinical judgments in the absence of detailed clinical information about the actual SAEs.”

Still, they argue, the results demonstrate the “need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes.”

“[C]linical studies are needed to see if particular SAEs can be linked to particular vaccine ingredients as opposed to unavoidable consequences of exposure to spike protein, as future vaccines could then be modified accordingly or sensitivities can be tested for in advance,” the study explained. “In parallel, a systematic review and meta-analysis using individual participant data should be undertaken to address questions of harm-benefit in various demographic subgroups, particularly in those at low risk of serious complications from COVID-19. Finally, there is a pressing need for comparison of SAEs and harm-benefit for different vaccine types; some initial work has already begun in this direction.”

“Full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed to properly evaluate these questions,” the authors concluded. “Unfortunately, as we approach 2 years after release of COVID-19 vaccines, participant level data remain inaccessible,”

The study adds to a growing body of evidence fueling millions of people’s continued aversion to the COVID shots, which were developed far more quickly than traditional vaccines under Operation Warp Speed and have failed to stop the spread of the virus.

In March, it was found that 11,289 cases of pericarditis/myocarditis after COVID vaccination were reported to the U.S. government’s federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) between January 1 and February 25, which was already 47% of the 24,177 reports for the same submitted in all of 2021. An April study out of Israel indicates that COVID infection alone cannot account for such cases, despite claims to the contrary.

COVID shot defenders claim that VAERS offers an exaggerated view of a vaccine’s potential risks, as anyone can submit a report without vetting it, but the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention researchers have acknowledged “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.

Further, VAERS is not the only data source indicating cause for concern. Data from the Pentagon’s Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) has been similarly alarming, showing that 2021 saw drastic spikes in a variety of diagnoses for serious medical issues over the previous five-year average, including hypertension (2,181%), neurological disorders (1,048%), multiple sclerosis (680%), Guillain-Barre syndrome (551%), breast cancer, (487%), female infertility (472%), pulmonary embolism (468%), migraines (452%), ovarian dysfunction (437%), testicular cancer (369%), and tachycardia (302%).

Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

2 Comments

    Loading...