- According to a December 2021 survey of 2,840 Americans, between 217,330 and 332,608 people died from the COVID jabs in 2021.
- Survey results also show that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed.
- Of the respondents, 34 percent knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22 percent knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot.
- 51 percent of the survey respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 13 percent reported experiencing a “serious” health problem post-jab. Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis, which claimed only 1.2 percent of trial participants experienced a serious adverse event.
- In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll, 34 percent reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and 7 percent reported major side effects.
(Mercola) — While it’s clear that the experimental COVID shots have killed a considerable number of people, the total death toll remains elusive, thanks to U.S. health agencies obfuscating, hiding and manipulating data.
That said, the most recent survey – published in the peer-reviewed journal BMC Infectious Diseases – puts the death toll from the COVID jabs somewhere between 217,330 and 332,608 in 2021 alone. As noted by Steve Kirsch:
[We’ve] killed at least 217,000 Americans and seriously injured 33 million… in just the first year, and the CDC and FDA want to give you more shots… Since deaths from the vaccine were higher in 2022, most experts would estimate the all-cause mortality death toll from the COVID vaccines to be in the range of 500K to 600K.
So the global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people… These [data] are consistent with the numbers I’ve been saying for a long time. It’s not a coincidence.
Survey: Why people did or did not get the jab
Now, the slant of this paper is kind of interesting. The primary aim of it was to “identify the factors associated by American citizens with the decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19.”
The author was curious about why 31 percent of the U.S. population had declined the jab or not completed the primary series by November 2022, nearly two years into a massively advertised “vaccination” campaign.
READ: 26 Jewish scientists defend British MP after he was called ‘anti-Semitic’ for criticizing COVID vaccines
Calculating the proportion of fatal events from the jab was secondary. As explained by the author, Mark Skidmore, Ph.D., an economics professor at Michigan State University:
A largely unexplored factor is the degree to which serious health problems arising from the COVID-19 illness or the COVID-19 vaccines among family and friends influences the decision to be vaccinated.
Serious illness due to COVID-19 would make vaccination more likely; the perceived benefits of avoiding COVID-19 through inoculation would be higher.
On the other hand, observing major health issues following COVID-19 inoculation within one’s social network would heighten the perceived risks of vaccination. Previous studies have not evaluated the degree to which experiences with the disease and vaccine injury influence vaccine status.
The main aim of this online survey of COVID-19 health experiences is to investigate the degree to which the COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 vaccine adverse events among friends and family, whether perceived or real, influenced inoculation decisions. The second aim of this work is to estimate the total number of COVID-19 vaccine induced fatalities nationwide from the survey.
Here’s an excerpt describing the methodology:
An online survey of COVID-19 health experiences was conducted. Information was collected regarding reasons for and against COVID-19 inoculations, experiences with COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 inoculations by survey respondents and their social circles. Logit regression analyses were carried out to identify factors influencing the likelihood of being vaccinated.
A total of 2,840 people completed the survey between December 18 and 23, 2021. The mean age was 47, and the gender ratio was 51 percent women, 49 percent men. Just over half, 51 percent, had received one or more COVID jabs.
As Skidmore suspected, results showed that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed.
READ: ‘These people are lying!’: Michigan lawmakers, activists hold rally at Pfizer plant
Of the respondents, 34 percent knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22 percent knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot. So, as noted by to the author:
Knowing someone who reported serious health issues either from COVID-19 or from COVID-19 vaccination are important factors for the decision to get vaccinated.
As for the types of side effects experienced by people within the respondents’ social circles, they included (but were not limited to) the “usual suspects,” such as:
- Heart and cardiovascular problems.
- Severe COVID infection or other respiratory illness.
- Feeling generally unwell, weak, fatigued and out of breath for weeks.
- Blood clots and stroke.
Hundreds of thousands killed for no reason
Based on these survey data, Skidmore estimates:
[…] the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 278,000 (95% CI 217,330-332,608) when fatalities that may have occurred regardless of inoculation are removed.
Were COVID-19 an infection with an extremely high mortality rate, perhaps high rates of death from a vaccine would be acceptable. But COVID-19 has an exceptionally low mortality rate, on par with or lower than influenza, hence the risk associated with the COVID jabs ought to be equally low.
READ: ‘Never Again’ documentary takes deep dive comparing COVID propaganda with Nazi Germany
As it stands, the risks of the shots are very high, while Pfizer’s own trial data, with more than 40,000 participants, show they offer no benefit in terms of your risk of hospitalization and/or death. The absolute risk reduction is so minute as to be inconsequential.
High rates of side effects
The death toll from the jabs isn’t the only disturbing part of this paper, though. Skidmore’s findings also suggest side effects from the jab may be more common than previously suspected.
As mentioned, 51 percent of the respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 15 percent reported experiencing a new health problem post-jab and 13 percent deemed it “serious.” Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis, which claimed only 1.2 percent of trial participants reported a serious adverse event.
Now, as suggested by Kirsch, “we need to discount that by a factor of two because people report less severe adverse events as adverse events.” Still, that means serious adverse events from the jab are five times higher than what Pfizer reported.
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**
READ: Top microbiologist alleges Thailand may cancel Pfizer contract after suspected vax injury to princess
“This is why the FDA never does after-market surveys in the drugs it approves. Because reality hurts,” Kirsch writes.
It is the FDA that should have discovered this before Mark Skidmore. The FDA is asleep at the wheel and they just believe everything the drug companies tell them, hook, line, and sinker. This is a major miss. Why aren’t they doing surveys like this to see if the reality matches the study?
More side effect rate comparisons
For additional comparison, here are the findings of several other investigations:
- Rasmussen Reports: In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll – taken one year after Skidmore’s survey – 34 percent reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and 7 percent reported major side effects.
- CDC’s V-Safe data: In October 2022, ICAN obtained the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe data. This is a voluntary program to monitor adverse vaccine reactions. Of the 10.1 million COVID jab recipients who used the app, 7.7 percent had to seek medical care post-jab.
- Kirsch-funded survey: A June 2022 U.S. survey by the market research company Pollfish found that 16.3 percent of COVID jabbed respondents experienced an injury, and 9.7 percent required medical care.
The graphic below, which visually compares Skidmore’s findings to the findings of the Rasmussen, V-Safe, and Pollfish surveys was created by InfoGame on Substack. As noted by InfoGame:
Skidmore’s article serves as another sign that the rate of COVID-19 side effects is extremely high and that the COVID-19 vaccines are an unprecedently risky medical product.
READ: Pfizer exec tells Project Veritas COVID jabs have ‘concerning’ impact on menstrual cycles
Menstrual irregularities are common post-jab
While we’re on the topic of reported side effects, several surveys have also focused on the frequency of abnormal menses in women who got the jab, which could be indicative of reproductive harm. For example:
- A British survey published in early December 2021 found 20 percent of women experienced menstrual disturbances following their jab.
- A study published in Science Advances in mid-July 2022 found 66 percent of “fully vaccinated” postmenopausal women experienced abnormal breakthrough bleeding. In total, 42.1 percent reported heavier menstrual flow post-jab (this included women of all ages, as well as transgenders on hormone treatments).
- An Italian peer-reviewed study published in March 2022 found that “50–60% of reproductive-age women who received the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine reported menstrual cycle irregularities, regardless of the type of administered vaccine.” After the second dose, abnormal menses were reported by 60 percent to 70 percent.
People in high places seek retraction
Not surprisingly, people in high places are already trying to force a retraction of the paper. A special notice from the editor, dated just two days post-publication, states, “Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by editors. Specifically, that the claims are unsubstantiated and that there are questions about the quality of the peer review.” As noted by Kirsch:
They are actively trying to get the paper retracted because it destroys the narrative. I’m certain they will succeed because journals are under intense pressure to censor any anti-narrative paper. The problem is that Mark’s survey was entirely consistent with my surveys.
If they want to have the paper retracted they need to show us THEIR surveys. But of course, they don’t have any surveys because they are too afraid of the results.
So they will use hand-waving arguments like ‘I don’t like the methodology’ or some nonsense like that instead of gathering their own data. They will NEVER show us survey data that supports their narrative because it isn’t there.
That’s why there are no success anecdotes. NOBODY can give me the name of a U.S. geriatric practice where all-cause deaths plummeted after the vaccines rolled out. In every case, they went the wrong way. The narrative is unraveling at an accelerated pace but the medical community is still fighting the truth.
Reprinted with permission from Mercola.
Political elites are shameless in their weaponization of the past
Pfizer denies bombshell Project Veritas report about mutating viruses for profit
MIT analytics expert calls for end to mRNA COVID shots: ‘No other ethical or scientific choice’
Ireland sees 42% more deaths in past two months compared to pre-COVID levels