I don't like to say things are huge, but this is huge. As promised, my own little article on COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness (where the jab INCREASES one's chance of COVID infection, hospitalisation, and even death) has been published in a major medical journal, the Australian Journal of General Practice. Published by The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, AJGP is literally THE medical journal for general practitioners (family doctors) in Australia. Also discussed in what became an epic and frank discussion amongst several Australian health professionals are vaccine injuries and 'long COVID' potentially being 'long jab'.

This all started with Tindle's article in AJGP earlier this year, which contained scarcely believable quotable quotes like:

"Because COVID-19 vaccines were approved without long-term safety data and might cause immune dysfunction, it is perhaps premature to assume that past SARS-CoV-2 infection is the sole common factor in long COVID."

He declared that "COVID-19 vaccination per se might contribute to long COVID, giving rise to the colloquial term 'Long Vax(x)'", since the "spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 exhibits pathogenic characteristics and is a possible cause of post-acute sequelae after SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination". Not to mention the "class switch to IgG4 antibodies", which Tindle thinks could lead to autoimmunity and cancer.

With the editorial team apparently happy to publish on the jab potentially causing immune dysfunction, I thought this could be my chance to once again bring up negative effectiveness in a major medical journal. Indeed, they accepted, and here is what I spoke about:

I cite several articles apparently displaying some sort of COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness, including one published by NEJM, another published in a Lancet journal, and the little discussion involving myself in the BMJ. In the worst cases, the vaccines' effectiveness drops to zero, and even turns negative, within mere months.

I cited the JECP4 articles, which show "that issues with counting windows have likely led to exaggerations of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and safety estimates, for both the clinical trials and later observational studies".

I also pointed to Fürst et al, a recent study revealing "strong evidence for the healthy vaccine effect", countering any excuse involving the idea that sicker people are the ones getting vaccinated. A pretty silly excuse anyway, since most adults took the jab.

I conclude:

"All this makes it plausible that the COVID-19 vaccines have always had an effectiveness that was very low, zero, or even negative, with inadequate methods allowing for a highly exaggerated effectiveness initially - an exaggeration that is lessened with time. It is, as Professor Tindle noted, possible that the vaccines could be causing immunosuppression. With the ubiquitousness of the vaccines, and the fact that some vaccine mandates are still in place, to say nothing of the upcoming Senate inquiry into excess mortality, I suggest we investigate this further."

Awesome, huh? But wait, there's more... A few more follow-up articles were published by AJGP (same link), one involving Liu and Macartney (from the influential pro-jab Liu et al study I've 'refuted', publishing forthcoming), with the usual attempts to "counter the unsubstantiated assertions that COVID-19 vaccination is causally associated with long COVID", customary claims that the jab "saved millions of lives" included.

Okay, so that bit of propaganda wasn't so exciting, but another follow-up was also published, by Murnane. They were also concerned about "spikeopathy", and declared:

"Professor Tindle's concerns about 'Long Vax(x)' very much echo conditions I have observed working as a general practitioner. I have seen patients present with long COVID symptoms post COVID-19 vaccine without prior COVID-19 infection. I have also observed patients with long COVID that has been acquired post COVID-19 infection, who have experienced a worsening of their symptoms post COVID-19 vaccination. This is consistent with studies that have shown a worsening of symptoms in 21% to 31% of long COVID sufferers post COVID-19 vaccination." They also shared that they "personally suffered from a COVID-19 vaccine injury leading to dysautonomia, small fibre neuropathy, thyroiditis and mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS)".

Finally, Tindle was granted the opportunity to wrap things up. He apparently agreed with my "case counting window concerns", observations of negative effectiveness, and the healthy vaccine effect, countering Liu et al. Tindle is all of us when he opines that the

"amount of spike protein from the vaccine is likely many fold greater than that from infection with virus because of stability mutations introduced into the vaccine mRNA, and the tissue penetrance of spike protein mRNA into a far more diverse set of tissues than infection".

In response to Murnane, Tindle claims that other GPs echoed similar concerns, about 'long COVID' being "a side effect of the COVID vaccination", and mentions the persecution of doctors who dared to speak out. Ending by questioning if the jabs are truly beneficial for all, Tindle even boldly noted that earlier "posts implicating COVID-19 vaccines were removed by the site moderators". Things are changing. We're winning.

Okay then.

Extra: Please note that this ridiculous situation, COVID-19 vaccine negative effectiveness, meaning the jab supposed to protect you from COVID-19 has COVID-19 as one of its most significant side effects, tells only part of the story. What about the other side effects? Did you know that there seems to be at least a serious side effect rate of 1 in 400? Did you know that the myocarditis risk alone appears to make clear that the jabs are a net harm for the young and healthy (at least)? From the science we were told to trust, it may be that we should no longer be talking about risks vs benefits. It might be time to start talking about risks plus risks.

Update 03/07/2024:

This has kind of gone viral, shared by people like Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, Craig Kelly, and President Trump's good friend General Michael Flynn. Lots of nice comments and lots of - you knew it - lies. Let me state for the record that my little paper is considered an article, is fully referenced, and it was peer-reviewed. Multiple times (the editors surely knew this would cause controversy).

Source link