Newly Leaked Data Shows Just How Dangerous the COVID Vaccines Are

Throughout my lifetime, I have heard people claim that the future will bring better technology and that science will make the world a better place and solve all our problems. Yet, again and again, these promises fail to materialize, and we are perpetually stuck waiting for science’s promised future.

In many cases however, the technology was in fact developed. The problem however was that the technology’s development threatened someone’s ability to make money (or gain power) so the technology was buried and never saw the light of day.

For example, throughout COVID-19 we heard numerous promises that a solution to the pandemic was around the corner (e.g., the miraculous vaccines) yet each time an un-patentable solution (e.g., ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine) was found, the pandemic-industrial-complex ruthless suppressed it to ensure their grift could continue.

Within the field of data, a similar issue exists. The mantra from Silicon Valley which has gradually entered the rest of the culture is that “more data” is the solution to all of our problems. However, once that data gets in the way of someone’s ability to make money, it often never sees the light of day.

In a recent article, I showed how there have been numerous vaccine disasters where a rushed vaccine was developed, the FDA was warned by its own scientists the vaccine was not safe (often due to its rushed production method) and then rather than heed those warnings, the government chose to bring the vaccine to market and have every authority repeat the mantra that the vaccine was “safe and effective.”

Then once Americans began to be injected and data started accumulating showing the vaccine was indeed not safe, the government instead chose to double-down on its position, insisting the vaccine was safe and doing whatever it could to cover up that inconvenient data — all of which also happened with the COVID-19 vaccines.

In each of the past vaccine disasters, the dangers of the vaccine were eventually exposed by the media, before long the unsafe vaccine was pulled from the market, and ultimately, there was some degree of accountability (e.g., the responsible officials had to resign or the victims received financial compensation through the courts).

Seeing that this was not good for business, the vaccine industry in turn adopted a few strategies which radically tilted the deck in their favor:

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

In 1986, an Act was passed by Congress to address the growing problem of vaccine injuries. Many remember this act because it gave legal immunity to the manufacturers through the federal compensation program. However, what’s less appreciated about it is that the activists also were able to force two other provisions into it.

First the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services was to appoint a Director and a National Vaccine Advisory Committee that would guide the federal agencies to:

“Develop the techniques needed to produce safe and effective vaccines.

Coordinate and provide direction for safety and efficacy testing of vaccines.

Promote the development of childhood vaccines that result in fewer and less serious adverse reactions than those vaccines on the market [in 1986].

Make or assure improvements in … the licensing, manufacturing, processing, testing, labeling, warning, use instructions, distribution, storage, administration, field surveillance, adverse reaction reporting, and recall of reactogenic lots or batches, of vaccines, and research on vaccines, in order to reduce the risks of adverse reactions to vaccines.”

Note: This has been a longstanding problem with vaccines — hence why the activists insisted something would be done about the hot-lot issue (as the DPT makers did not want to spend a bit more on manufacturing so hot-lots didn’t get out to the public).

Additionally, the Secretary was expected to:

“Within 2 years [of 1986] and periodically thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate a report describing the actions taken [to make safer vaccines].

Within 3 years [of 1986] complete a review of all relevant medical and scientific information [including the research mentioned above] on the link between DPT [and MMR] vaccination and the following conditions …”

Note: Once this report was completed, the secretary was to submit it to Congress, make it publicly available it and modify the vaccine injury table so those conditions would also be covered by the national vaccine injury compensation program, and then repeat this process at least once every 3 years.

The vaccine industry really did not want to do this, so except for DPT (where outside pressures forced them to), those safer vaccines never got made. In turn, the federal bureaucracy [e.g., the FDA and CDC] got around this law by simply choosing to be non-compliant — something RFK Jr. and Aaron Siri finally proved in 2014 when the H.H.S. admitted in court it had not done much of what the act required.

Note: Since 1986, very few conditions have been added to the table of vaccine injuries that will be covered. For reference, those injuries are: rapid-onset chronic arthritis, thrombocytopenic purpura specific autoimmune disorders and catching measles from the MMR vaccine, intussusception from the rotavirus vaccine, and Guillain-Barré Syndrome from the flu vaccine.

Second, it became mandatory to report vaccine injuries (although in practice this happens less than 10% of the time) and for those reports:

“… all information reported under this section shall be available to the public.”

Note: An exception was made for personally identifying medical information.

This gave birth to VAERS, the system we now use to report adverse reactions to vaccines and independent researchers around the world in turn use to assess the safety of various vaccines.

This provision was put in because those early vaccine safety activists had over and over run into the same problem we still face now — doctors and vaccine manufacturers refused to report the injury (to avoid liability) and the government refused to share any of the information it had demonstrating vaccines were unsafe, which in turn was used to argue there was “no evidence” vaccines were unsafe.

Once VAERS broke their information blockade, the government then switched to doing everything it could to undermine the system, such as:

V-Safe

Since VAERS had many alleged shortcomings (e.g., you had no idea how many people were being sampled by it and you had no idea if the reports were being legitimate), a new system was created for the COVID-19 vaccines to effectively evaluate if they were indeed “safe and effective.” However, before long, vaccine safety advocates noticed two major issues.

First, it was not possible to easily input many of the injuries into V-Safe that were commonly occurring after the COVID-19 vaccines. Second, the public was not given access to the raw data. Instead, we were given curated assessments of the data from “trusted” experts, who not surprisingly, concluded the V-Safe data showed the COVID vaccines were safe.

Fortunately, ICAN was familiar with these tactics and after 463 days of work defeated the CDC in the courts with an appropriately drafted FOIA request. From that data, ICAN discovered that those “trusted” experts lied and V-Safe actually showed numerous red flags with the COVID-19 vaccines (although much of the V-Safe data sadly has still not been made available).

Note: A similar issue exists throughout the pharmaceutical industry as it will repeatedly conduct trials that show their drug or vaccine is quite dangerous, and then concoct a way to hide those dangers from the final trial report.

The industry is able to get away with this because neither the government nor medical profession (both of whom are often taking money from the industry) calls out that behavior and because Big Pharma has successfully lobbied for its trial data to be deemed proprietary and thus permissible to withhold from the public.

Burying Inconvenient Data

In short, as I tried to demonstrate here, and in the first, second and third part of this series, the government has proven time and time again that it will bury data that indicates a vaccine is dangerous or makes the public doubt its declarations that all vaccines are “safe and effective.”

This in effect shows why “more data” is not our salvation as we will only be fed a curated picture of it that shows what the establishment wants us to see — rather than an inconvenient truth which requires us to fix an existing problem and actually make the world a better place.

Note: The one place where data has “made things better” is in marketing — as in that industry, there is a financial incentive to have accurate data as that is needed to maximize sales.

So throughout COVID-19, since the government deliberately withheld almost all the data that the COVID vaccines are harmful, we in turn instead have had to use the following data sources:

• Anecdotal ones (e.g., this Substack started almost two years ago after I decided to publish a log of all the injuries occurring within my personal circle, which included 45 fatal or likely to be fatal vaccine injuries) — These reports tend be reflexively dismissed as “not being credible” but since they are so frequent and so many are seeing them, it has not been possible to gaslight the population into believing they just “random coincidences” (especially since the sudden cardiac deaths in the young was is so unmistakably unusual).

Note: Large polls have likewise shown this. One for example found almost half of Americans believed they were suffering from side effects of the vaccine (with 7% characterizing them as “major”), another found half of Americans believed the vaccines were killing people, and a recent one found a quarter of Americans knew someone they believe had been killed by the vaccine.

• Data from clinical trials — Since it is often quite difficult to clearly untangle what a pharmaceutical does once it gets into the market (as so many other variables get added to the picture), the general consensus is that the risks and benefits of it need to be determined in the controlled environment of a clinical trial.

Unfortunately, as there is often so much money on the line, pharmaceutical companies will inevitably rig their trials to favor of their drug (which is why truly independent studies consistently paint a quite a different picture of each drug). In the case of the COVID vaccines, not only were the trials clearly deceptive but numerous whistleblowers came forward testifying as such. Sadly, their testimonies were almost completely ignored.

Note: Despite all of this, the data on the COVID-19 vaccines was still bad enough that the published data made it clear the vaccines were not safe. This is largely because the one thing which is very difficult to hide (e.g., by reclassifying the event) in a clinical trial is how many people in each group died. As a result, I typically consider the primary metric to judge a trial by its effect on overall mortality.

• Population wide datasets showing a massive increase in deaths and disabilities — Since COVID occurred throughout 2020, whereas the vaccines were introduced at the start of 2021, those datasets frequently make it quite easy to identify the impact of the vaccines.

Note: Ed Dowd’s team has done an excellent job of compiling this data, showing the immense cost it has had for our economy and demonstrating that it is statistically impossible it could have happened by chance.

• Data the government withheld that was obtained through lawsuits — The previously mentioned CDC V-Safe data is one example. Likewise, the documents Pfizer submitted for their FDA approval which ICAN also obtained through the courts is another example.

Note: The “FDA approved” vaccine (Comirnaty by Pfizer) was never actually brought to the market.

This was done so it could be claimed the COVID-19 vaccine was “FDA approved” (and thus possible for various groups to mandate), but simultaneously, for the dangerous vaccine to retain the blanket liability shield its Emergency Use Authorization provides (hence you can only obtain the EUA but not FDA approved Pfizer vaccine). In essence, we have a situation analogous to Schrödinger’s cat.

• Data leaked by whistleblowers — Since the government never will voluntarily disclose data which makes it look bad, data that can only be obtained through leakers inevitably is quite concerning. Similarly, whenever data of this type is requested, the government will always find ways make an unlimited number of excuses to not release that data (e.g., it doesn’t have it or releasing it would violate patient privacy).

Medicare Data

Steve Kirsch has been leading the charge to get the data which will objectively show how safe and effectives the vaccines actually are. Since he has reliably published that information and protected his sources, numerous whistleblowers have contacted him and shared data they risked their livelihoods to obtain.

One of Kirsch’s fundamental principles has been that record level data (raw data) that combines vaccination status with mortality is needed for the world to assess if the vaccines are saving lives or killing people.

Since Medicare has one of the most comprehensive data sources to answer that question (as Medicare tracks when each member is vaccinated and when they die), Kirsch has been working diligently to get that data. Likewise, Medicare was cited by the FDA in the same way VAERS was — as a way to monitor the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.

Note: All the graphs that follow were produced by Steve Kirsch).

First, let’s first look at a typical vaccine:

While it’s not entirely safe (e.g., I’ve admitted an elderly patient to the hospital who suffered a zeta potential collapse from the pneumococcal vaccine), the pneumococcal vaccine is fairly unlikely to kill you, and has a small chance of saving your life from pneumococcal pneumonia. Rather, most of the issues it creates are chronic in nature and take more time to show up.

In turn, if we look at the graph, we notice a few things. First, there is a drop the risk of dying (mortality) immediately after receiving the vaccine. This is a result of the “Healthy Vaccine Effect” which highlights that sick people at risk of dying are less likely to be vaccinated, and for this reason, the brief initial drop in each graph needs to ignored.

Note: The one spike at the very start most likely represents the small portion of patients who have a severe and immediate reaction to the vaccine like the patient I discussed above.

Secondly, the overall risk of dying stays steady after receiving the vaccine, and if anything is slightly reduced (which I believe comes from the vaccine actually doing what is supposed to do). In short, the above graph is representative of a relatively safe vaccine.

Next, lets go to the flu shot, a vaccine I consider to be more problematic and likely to injure you (e.g., I’ve run into far more cases of significant injuries following the flu vaccine):

As you can see, there is a distinct spike (roughly 15%) in death following vaccination before the death rate returns to baseline. Now let’s look at what happens with the COVID-19 vaccines:

Here we instead have a spike that never regresses and instead continues increasing to 30% above baseline. What that seems a bit abstract, it’s a huge deal and provides a concise way to quantify the wave of death we are seeing around us.

Note: Given that that same trend is not seen in the flu or pneuomcoccal vaccines which were given in the same time period, it is difficult to argue anything besides the COVID-19 vaccine could be causing it.

Let’s next look at the death trends from one, two and three COVID vaccines.

Note: The drop off at the end is likely due to the data series being incomplete.

Let’s quickly put all of that together into a chart Steve notated:

New Zealand’s Data

Recently, an insider at New Zealand’s ministry of health provided Steve with records tagged to the individual’s age, time of vaccination, number of..