A medical research group in the U.K. pointed out that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines are “unsafe for humans” based on adverse event reports.
Scientists and doctors looked at data from the British government’s Yellow Card vaccine event reporting system. They found that the “overwhelming” number of adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines definitely raised alarm bells.
The Yellow Card system is the British equivalent of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the U.S. The system is run by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Through the Yellow Card system, the MHRA keeps track of COVID-19 vaccines on an ongoing basis “to ensure their benefits continue to outweigh any risks.”
However, researchers at the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy (EbMC) research group based in Bath, England unveiled concerning findings.
EbMC Director Dr. Tess Lawrie wrote about her group’s findings in a June 9 letter to the MHRA Chief Executive Officer Dr. June Raine.
Lawrie wrote in her letter that between Jan. 4 and May 6 of this year, a total of 888,196 adverse events and 1,253 deaths were reported to Yellow Card. Similar to VAERS data, these were not directly proven as correlated with the COVID-19 vaccine.
Despite this, the EMBC director raised safety concerns for those getting the vaccine. She wrote that given the Yellow Card figures, “the MHRA now has more than enough evidence … to declare the COVID-19 vaccine unsafe for use in humans.”
Lawrie then asked urgent questions for the MHRA to answer as the soonest. She asked how many people have died within 28 days of vaccination and how many people have been hospitalized for the same period. She also asked the total number of people disabled by the vaccination.
In a later interview with TrialSiteNews, she described the total number of cases as “concerning” and called for follow-ups on persons who reported adverse reactions “to ensure there are no further problems.”
Lawrie said: “The scope of morbidity is striking, evidencing a lot of incidents and what amounts to a large number of ill.”
Reports in the Yellow Card system only prove the coronavirus vaccines are unsafe
Lawrie also lamented that Yellow Card was “incredibly opaque” during her TrialSiteNews interview. She shared that researchers are unable to filter vaccine safety incidents by age, gender or other attributed.
According to the EbMC director, about 60 percent or more of COVID-19 vaccines in the U.K. came from AstraZeneca, with the remainder from the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.
The letter called on the MHRA to urgently make reports of vaccine adverse reaction public, given that pharmacovigilance data is known to be subsequently under-reported. It also called on the regulator to assist people with reporting adverse reactions.
Lawrie concluded the letter: “Preparation should be made to scale up humanitarian efforts to assist those harmed by the COVID-19 vaccines, and to anticipate and ameliorate medium to longer term effects.
“As the mechanism for harms from the vaccines appears to be similar to COVID-19 itself, this includes engaging with numerous international doctors and scientists with expertise in successfully treating COVID-19.”
But according to an article published in late June 2021, vaccine deaths and adverse reactions are no cause for alarm. It even argued that people who died from COVID-19 vaccines served as proof of their effectiveness.
In a June 27 piece for The Guardian, David Spiegelhalter and Anthony Masters called on people to avoid thinking of vaccine deaths as “a bad sign.”
Rather, they insisted that such deaths were expected from an “effective but imperfect” vaccine.
They wrote: “Does this mean the [COVID-19] vaccines are ineffective? Far from it, it’s what we would expect from an effective but imperfect vaccine.”
The two also took a swipe at reports of vaccine-related deaths circulating on various social media platforms.
“Coverage and effectiveness are important … for assessing vaccination programs. It is better to look at cool analysis by analysis, rather than hot takes on social [media],” they wrote.
Comments
Post a Comment