Panic over Dutch Study Raising Possibility of COVID-19 Vax and Excess Death
The heat is on a Dutch Academic Medical Center for some of its prominent physician-researchers conducting a population health study raising the possibility of a link of excess deaths to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines.
The Princess Máxima Center, part of the University Medical Center Utrecht Wilhelmina Kinderziekenhuis (WKZ) announced the academic medical center was distancing itself from the publication published in a prominent, peer-reviewed scientific journal. The paper “Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the COVID-19 pandemic: ‘Our World in Data’ estimates of January 2020 to December 2022” was featured in TrialSite.
The authors of this population-based study pointed to the data in their study, suggesting excess deaths could possibly be tied to the COVID-19 vaccines. They did not make any claims and emphasized that they simply came across a possible signal. But the authors, seriously credentialed including a literal Dutch knight, apparently crossed a no-no boundary.
According to a Princess Máxima Center media entry, serious questions have arisen regarding the publication “Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the COVID-19 pandemic: ‘Our World in Data’ estimates of January 2020 to December 2022”.
Serious pressure is now applied to this institution for one paper that Saskia Mostert, Assistant Professor, CCA, Professor Pediatrics and prominent colleagues, including a Dutch knight, authored—the manuscript was peer-reviewed and published by BMJ Public Health.
Now, suddenly the Dutch academic medical center announces publicly the need to “further investigate the scientific quality of this study.”
And it goes further showing the intensity of the underlying inquiry: “The Princess Máxima Center deeply regrets that this publication may give the impression that the importance of vaccinations is being questioned.”
Princess Máxima Center now goes on the record, finding it needs to explain the original purpose of the study. The “idea was to look at the effect of COVID measures on, among other things, the mortality rate of children with cancer in low-income countries. During the course of the study, the focus shifted and diverted in a direction that we felt was too far from our expertise: pediatric oncology.”
So essentially the institution on behalf of the authors of the study are explaining that they are “Not experts in epidemiology, nor do we want to give that impression.”
Consequently, the academic medical center “…emphatically distances itself from this publication. We should have been more alert to the formation and results of this publication and will further investigate the way it was created. If it turns out that carelessness was involved in the realization of this publication, it will of course be withdrawn.”
The media release concludes, “Princess Máxima Center, wants to emphasize that we strongly support vaccination, and that this publication should certainly not be read as an argument against vaccination. The study in no way demonstrates a link between vaccinations and excess mortality; that is explicitly not the researchers' finding. We therefore regret that this impression has been created.”
Ironically, one of the authors, Prof Dr Gertjan Kaspers, a prominent oncology-focused principal investigator was knighted by the King of Netherlands, the husband of Queen Maximia. He allocates considerable time working with less privileged countries.
Interestingly, another author, Minke Huibers, MD, PhD, while employed at Princess Máxima Center is also an instructor at Global HOPE, Baylor College of Medicine & Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston.
Daniel O’Connor, founder of TrialSite said, “These authors have serious credentials and they by no means downplay the importance of vaccination. They merely suggest a possible signal should be looked into. This pressure and resulting distancing by their institution evidenced serious problems associated with the COVID-19 countermeasure response, which included draconian measures such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates.”
Yes, clearly some serious pressure was applied to these Dutch institutions based on one obscure population-based study that never purports to connect vaccination to excess deaths—only that it should be looked into further.
Why is there so much concern for such an obscure paper that was reviewed and published in a notable peer reviewed journal? Is the topic of any issues with the mRNA vaccines too inconvenient?
In the Netherlands, the pressure to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2 was intense, and some ugly divisions emerged.
Note, also that there is a power shift in the Netherlands, as in the rest of Europe. A new government representing the extreme right is coming into power. How will that impact the perception of the COVID-19 vaccines?
********************************************
‘The treaty is done’: WHO pandemic treaty defeated, at least for now
Negotiations for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) proposed “pandemic agreement” – or “pandemic treaty” – and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) have failed, for now at least.
The New York Times reported that negotiators failed to submit final texts of the two documents before the May 24 deadline for consideration and a vote at this year’s World Health Assembly taking place this week in Geneva, Switzerland.
The WHO said the proposals are intended to prepare for the “next pandemic.”
But critics called the proposals a global “power grab” that threatened national sovereignty, health freedom, personal liberties and free speech while promoting risky gain-of-function research and “health passports.”
“Sticking points,” according to The Times, included “equitable access to vaccines and financing to set up surveillance systems.”
Instead of considering a full set of proposals from both documents, a more modest “consensus package of [IHR] amendments” will be presented this week, according to the proposed text of the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (WGIHR).
The text does not represent a fully agreed package of amendments and is intended to provide an overview of the current status and progress of the WGIHR’s work. …
The mandate of the WGIHR Co-Chairs and Bureau has now ended but we stand ready to support the next steps agreed by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, including facilitating any further discussions if so decided.
The final report of the International Negotiating Body (INB) for the “pandemic agreement,” dated May 27, states “The INB did not reach consensus on the text.”
Mary Holland, CEO of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), credited global opposition to the WHO’s proposals for shutting them down. She told The Defender:
It is a huge tribute to civic action that the WHO treaty and regulations have apparently failed. While delegates to the World Health Assembly are still engaged in last-minute negotiations, outside of approved procedures they do not have a consensus to move forward with a legal infrastructure to conduct COVID operations.
This is great news for the world’s citizens and shows us how powerful we can be when we work together creatively.
The Times reported that negotiators plan to ask for more time. According to The Straits Times, “Countries have voiced a commitment to keep pushing for an accord.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-treaty-is-done-who-pandemic-treaty-defeated-at-least-for-now/
*****************************************Major apology millions of Australians deserve
We are owed an apology for Covid vaccine mandates.
Mounting evidence shows the vaccines were rushed, less effective than you’d expect of a jab, and, in some cases, dangerous.
The whole premise of mandates was to protect the community. But these vaccines didn’t stop contraction or transmission of Covid – so what exactly were we protecting?
Sure, it may reduce your likelihood of catching Covid. But that should be, and should always have been, your decision.
If you were jabbed then what did it matter whether the person at the table next to you in the pub wasn’t? You’d taken your own precautions. It’s up to others to wear the consequences of their own decisions.
There are plenty of treatments that can help prevent and reduce the severity of myriad other diseases but the government does not force you to take them to participate in society.
Even former deputy chief medical officer Nick Coatsworth now admits he hasn’t had a Covid vaccine for two years.
If one of the most high-profile doctors in the country won’t do it, why would the rest of us?
And most of us haven’t. By May last year, nearly 17 million Australian adults had not had a booster in the past six months.
The sky has not fallen.
News.com.au’s Frank Chung recently detailed the death of 34-year-old Katie Lees less than two weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca Covid jab from vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome.
She had severe clotting in the brain and became unconscious, being put on life support. The plug was eventually pulled and she died.
At 34, her risk of death from Covid was minimal but in order to go about normal life, thanks to government-imposed rules, she – like the rest of us – had to be vaccinated.
Where there is risk of death or serious side-effects for a medical treatment there is no justification for force or coercion.
But that is what happened and no one has apologised.
AstraZeneca was pulled from Australia last year and its manufacturer discontinued it worldwide last month, saying demand had dropped because of the availablity of newer vaccines.
It followed an admission in a UK court that the vaccine could be deadly.
When the US Food and Drug Administration approved the Pfizer vaccine for use in December 2020 – long before it was largely rolled out in Australia – it admitted there was no “evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person”.
The federal government set up a $77 million compensation scheme for Covid vaccine injuries in December 2021 in a clear admission of the possible dangers.
About $7 million worth of WorkCover claims have been paid to vaccine-injured people in Victoria who were required to be jabbed by their workplaces.
The last regular report of Covid vaccine safety by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, in November last year, showed 139,654 known adverse reactions.
And Dutch researchers have now sounded the alarm about a possible link between Covid vaccines and excess deaths.
The academics, in a paper published in BMJ Public Health this month, wrote that excess mortality following the introduction of Covid vaccines was “unprecedented and raises serious concerns”, that data on deaths linked to the vaccines was murky and “simultaneous onset of excess mortality and Covid-19 vaccination in Germany provides a safety signal warranting further investigation”.
Excess deaths in Australia were 6.1 per cent higher than expected for the first eight months of 2023 and 14.1 per cent higher than expected in the same period the year prior.
So when will the apology for mandates be forthcoming?
*************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*********************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment