{"id":6686,"date":"2024-07-04T20:16:27","date_gmt":"2024-07-04T20:16:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/humanityandearth.com\/wp\/?p=6686"},"modified":"2024-09-08T13:02:07","modified_gmt":"2024-09-08T13:02:07","slug":"a-critical-analysis-of-all-cause-deaths-during-covid-19-vaccination-in-an-italian-province","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/humanityandearth.com\/wp\/?p=6686","title":{"rendered":"A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

One and two doses of the COVID-19 vaccines were linked to an increase in all-cause mortality<\/a> in a new peer-reviewed study that analyzed data from the Italian National Healthcare System.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on their analysis, a team of Italian researchers verified what they called \u201cthe real impact of the vaccination campaign\u201d by comparing the risk of all-cause death among vaccinated<\/a> and unvaccinated residents of the Italian province of Pescara.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In their multivariate analysis, the researchers found the risk of all-cause death to be higher for those vaccinated with one or two doses of the COVID-19<\/a> vaccine compared to the unvaccinated<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those who received three or four doses had roughly the same risk of all-cause death as the unvaccinated, they said, in contrast with prior research done in the same region suggesting those with three or four doses had a lower risk of all-cause death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe also found a slight but statistically significant loss of life expectancy for those vaccinated with 2 or 3\/4 doses,\u201d they said in the report, which they published June 30 in Microorganisms<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Peter McCullough<\/a> told The Defender<\/a>, \u201cThese findings call for an immediate halt of COVID-19 vaccination across the globe and a thorough investigation of what went wrong during the COVID-19 vaccine campaign.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

McCullough wrote on Substack<\/a> that the paper\u2019s main point is that \u201cCOVID-19 vaccination did not \u2018save lives\u2019 as so many in Washington have proclaimed without evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alberto Donzelli, one of the Italian study\u2019s authors, told The Defender the study is \u201can important advance\u201d because it looks at all-cause mortality broken down by vaccination status, and accounts for confounding variables that may have affected earlier reports on COVID-19 vaccination and all-cause mortality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Very few studies in the world have successfully done that, he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

McCullough also told The Defender the study\u2019s findings are \u201ccohesive\u201d with those of a recent German study<\/a> \u2014 currently available as a preprint \u2014  which found COVID-19 vaccination was linked to increased all-cause death in 16 German states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Researchers undertake study to correct for bias<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

For their study, Donzelli and his co-authors<\/a> used the same data analyzed by other researchers in an earlier Italian study<\/a> on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The earlier study \u2014 which followed up with people two years after the start of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign \u2014 found that those who received one or two doses had a significantly higher risk of all-cause death, while those who received three or more vaccine doses had a lower risk of death<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, these results were likely distorted due to \u201cimmortal time bias,\u201d Donzelli and his co-authors said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Immortal time bias<\/a> is a common study design flaw that can throw off statistical estimations between an exposure (such as a COVID-19 shot) and an outcome (such as an increased risk of death), according to the University of Oxford\u2019s Catalogue of Bias.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Donzelli said the bias \u201cafflicts most observational studies on mortality from COVID-19.\u201d So he and his co-authors took the necessary steps to correct for the bias and reanalyzed the same data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They looked at vaccination records from Jan. 1, 2021, through Dec. 31, 2022, for people ages 10 and up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They also looked at follow-up data collected from Jan. 1, 2021, through Feb. 15, 2023, for these people, as long as they hadn\u2019t tested positive for COVID-19 on the date of the follow-up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They also looked at other variables, such as pathologies other than COVID-19, that may have affected people\u2019s health.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe results are startling,\u201d wrote McCullough, after doing calculations using the report\u2019s data. \u201cCOVID-19 specific deaths were not reduced with vaccination, however there was a U-shaped trend of note when COVID-19 deaths were adjusted per 1000 population: unvaccinated 1.98\/1000, one dose 0.27\/1000, two doses 1.08\/1000, and 3\/4 doses 3.5\/1000.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Additionally, Donzelli and his co-authors in their multivariate analysis found that those who received one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine had a hazard risk ratio \u2014 which is a statistical estimate of risk \u2014 of 2.4 for all-cause mortality, meaning they were much more likely to die compared to the unvaccinated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThose vaccinated with two doses showed an almost double hazard ratio of death: 1.98,\u201d Donzelli pointed out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These numbers are significantly worse than what was reported in the original study that hadn\u2019t corrected for the immortal time bias, he said. Correcting for that bias changed the results for those who were vaccinated with three or more doses, too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The original study authors had claimed that being vaccinated three or more times reduced the risk of mortality more than four-fold. Based on his and his co-authors corrected analysis, Donzelli called the claim \u201cimplausible.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He said, \u201cThose vaccinated with three or more doses turned out to die at the same rate as the unvaccinated.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CDC: COVID shots \u2018save lives\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Drug manufacturer Merck misrepresented the efficacy of its mumps vaccine<\/a> for years, \u201coverfilling\u201d the vaccine with live mumps virus to meet efficacy targets despite the lack of safety testing \u2014 and the practice may be continuing today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Merck appears to have concealed the practice from public health agencies, which have taken no action to stop it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children\u2019s Health Defense<\/a>, joined \u201cThe Defender In-Depth\u201d this week to discuss the revelations, which stem from a lawsuit two Merck whistleblowers filed in 2010 under the False Claims Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia heard oral arguments<\/a> in the case on July 9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Hooker, the Merck measles, mumps rubella vaccine, MMR II \u2014 the only mumps vaccine<\/a> licensed in the U.S. and listed on the childhood vaccine schedule<\/a> for 12- to 18-month-olds \u2014 may contain up to 4 times the approved concentration of live mumps virus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A two-part<\/a> deposition<\/a> by Dr. David Kessler<\/a>, former head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), also indicates that Merck, rather than informing regulators that it was \u201coverfilling<\/a>\u201d its MMR vaccine, relied on passive surveillance<\/a> \u2014 reports from parents regarding vaccine reactions in their children \u2014 to identify possible safety signals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018We do not know how this is going to affect the body\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this week\u2019s interview, Hooker emphasized that vaccine<\/a> dosages with a higher concentration of live mumps virus were never tested for safety or efficacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhat is in the Merck MMR II vaccine is not what is being reported,\u201d Hooker said. \u201cThis is a live virus vaccine, and these viruses are at higher concentrations. and we know, as far as the mumps vaccine, that the concentrations that are in the vials have never been tested for safety.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hooker explained that guidelines for the amount of live virus in the MMR II vaccine were last changed in 1999, \u201cas a result of an FDA action that showed that the mumps portion of the vaccine was losing potency over its sort of two-year [shelf life] before the vaccine expired.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This prompted Merck to \u201cchange the mumps concentration of the vaccine,\u201d Hooker said. However, Merck<\/a> did so without informing health regulators or the public, gaining regulatory approval or performing safety tests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe mumps portion of the vaccine lost its potency to an ineffective and an unacceptable endpoint, and the FDA notified Merck of this in 1998,\u201d Hooker said. \u201cIn order to compensate for this, Merck merely did something that is called \u2018overfill\u2019 to the virus, overfilled the vials to a higher starting level.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey started out with \u2026100,000 TCID50<\/a>,\u201d Hooker said \u2014 referring to the measure of the number of viral particles in a vaccine. \u201cThey changed that to 160,000 active virus particles in 1999.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hooker added:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhat that means from a production standpoint is that the exact middle concentration of virus is 160,000. The vials can deviate as much as four times over that, and they can be as high as 600,000 viral particles, or they can be as low as 100,000 viral particles.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This poses a public health risk, Hooker said, because concentrations higher than 160,000 viral particles are \u201cfar beyond anything that has ever been tested for safety.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSafety testing has only been done to that lower limit of 160,000,\u201d Hooker said. \u201cIn order to achieve immunity, according to the FDA, you only need 20,000 \u2026 virus particles. So, looking at that, Merck is overfilling the vaccine, and it can be as high as 30 times what is required.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hooker said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMore virus particles mean more problems. It means that you can have a cytokine storm. It means that you can have autoimmune reactions, and this has never ever been tested for safety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThat\u2019s a serious safety problem because we do not know what will happen without a maximum. There is no cap.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cytokine storm<\/a> refers to \u201clife-threatening systemic inflammatory syndromes involving elevated levels of circulating cytokines and immune-cell hyperactivation,\u201d according to The New England Journal of Medicine. Hooker said this can lead to cellular damage and autoimmune disorders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hooker noted that higher concentrations of virus do not just mean a higher level of live virus, but also a higher concentration of \u201cdead virus, RNA particles within the vaccine,\u201d which can also lead to adverse reactions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Referring to Kessler\u2019s deposition, Hooker said it \u201ccame to the conclusion that Merck concealed this information [and that] the packet insert was incorrect. It was nebulous and it did not reflect the higher concentration,\u201d Hooker said. \u201cHe basically said Merck is deceiving the public.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kessler also testified that this practice continued at least until 2018. Hooker said, \u201cNothing has changed since 2018 that we know of \u2026 If Merck has done anything to change the formulation of the vaccine, it has not told the public, it has not told the FDA.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This means the practice of \u201coverfilling\u201d might still continue today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe\u2019re in no-man\u2019s land,\u201d Hooker said. \u201cWe do not know how this is going to affect the body because this has never been tested at this concentration. This was a brand experiment that they foisted on the public of the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Merck \u2018defrauded\u2019 the government and the public<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hooker said the revelations stemming from the whistleblower lawsuit show the FDA was initially unaware that Merck was \u201coverfilling\u201d the MMR II vaccine \u2014 calling into question the agency<\/a>\u2019s capability to perform oversight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe only way the FDA found out was when these court documents actually surfaced, because the only thing Merck directly told the FDA was the concentration of mumps virus [was] 160,000 virus particles,\u201d Hooker said. \u201cSo, FDA had no idea that they\u2019re going even higher.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lawsuit was filed under the False Claims Act \u2014 under which whistleblowers can be rewarded for disclosing fraud that results in a financial loss to the federal government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s the same law under which a lawsuit alleging safety deficiencies during clinical trials<\/a> for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19<\/a> vaccine was filed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The two whistleblowers in the Merck case \u2014 Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, virologists who worked for Merck in the early 2000s \u2014 have since become the subject of a recently released film, \u201cProtocol 7<\/a>,\u201d which chronicles their claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Hooker, the revelations may lead to further legal implications for the company and may call into question the liability shield<\/a> it enjoys for its MMR II vaccine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMerck not only defrauded the government \u2026 Merck defrauded the public,\u201d Hooker said. \u201cFrom my contention, that would be a very, very good legal argument to opt out of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program<\/a> [because] it is a no-fault program<\/a>, and it assumes that the vaccine manufacturers acted in good faith.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hooker said this \u201creally means that this could be taken to court by \u2026 individual petitioners\u201d because Merck was \u201cduplicitous and they have not been forthcoming with the exact concentrations that are in those vials.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis is fraud, pure and simple,\u201d Hooker said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Merck \u2018not an entity that we should trust to put things into our bodies\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Hooker, the allegations against Merck are indicative of broader corruption among public health agencies and pharmaceutical companies \u2014 including a \u201crevolving door<\/a>\u201d between the two.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hooker said Merck \u201cis the company that brought us Vioxx<\/a>, that basically knew that this was going to cause cardiac damage \u2026 in individuals that took Vioxx.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Merck also faces hundreds of lawsuits<\/a> relating to injuries and deaths connected to Gardasil<\/a>, its human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe first version of Gardasil \u2026 that came out in 2007 was then very quickly put on the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] schedule,\u201d Hooker said. \u201cAnd then the CDC director [Dr. Julie Gerberding<\/a>] \u2026 left the CDC in 2008 and started as the president of Merck\u2019s vaccine manufacturing division \u2026 in 2009.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere\u2019s a revolving door there, and I think that if we really were able to open the coffers in terms of the relationship with Merck and Gerberding while she was at the CDC, we would show that they did quite a few favors,\u201d Hooker added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhen you look at chief officials at the FDA, in the CDC and in the HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] \u2026 there\u2019s so many conflicts of interest \u2014 and the conflicts of interest run not only at the top level, but they get down into the woodwork of the individual workers and scientists,\u201d Hooker said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Noting that Merck has had an \u201cexclusive license\u201d to distribute MMR vaccines in the U.S. \u201cfor many, many years,\u201d Hooker said that this is likely why the company sought to quietly change the concentration of live mumps virus in its vaccine, \u201ceven if it meant fudging the books,\u201d to maintain its market exclusivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhen you look at Vioxx, when you look at HPV, when you look at the \u2026 MMR II vaccine, this is not an entity that we should trust to put things into our bodies,\u201d Hooker said, referring to Merck, adding that agencies like the FDA \u201care not trustworthy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey are driven very, very much by financial gain directly through incentivization, through the pharmaceutical industry,\u201d Hooker said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Watch \u2018The Defender In-Depth\u2019 here:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/boxcast.tv\/view-embed\/new-details-reveal-merck-fraud-tgajtxnhfkwpq939i2o2<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Listen to the podcast on Spotify<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018The Defender In-Depth\u2019 airs on CHD.TV Wednesday at 10 a.m. ET\/9 a.m. CT.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Defender asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) if it planned to modify its statement that \u201cCOVID-19 vaccines save lives<\/a>\u201d in light of the study\u2019s findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A CDC spokesperson told The Defender that the CDC \u201cdoes not comment on findings or claims by individuals or organizations outside of CDC.\u201d The spokesperson declined to provide studies or data supporting the agency\u2019s claim that the vaccines<\/a> save lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCDC research has continuously found that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective,\u201d the spokesperson said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Autopsies Link 73.9% of Post-Jab Deaths to the Shot<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n