Last month, a significant study was published in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine called “Pharmaceutical product recall and educated hesitancy towards new drugs and novel vaccines.” This study is well-researched and reviewed by experts, with solid evidence for each claim supported by numerous footnotes that critique the COVID vaccine.
The data clearly indicates that the negative effects associated with the COVID-19 vaccine are significantly greater than those linked to other vaccines that have been in use previously. For instance, when examining historical cases, the 1967 RSV vaccine was withdrawn from the market following the occurrence of just 2 deaths, while the 1976 Swine Flu vaccine was recalled after a relatively small number of only 25 fatalities. This comparison raises important questions about the safety and monitoring of vaccine reactions in the context of public health initiatives.
The study critiques the entire pharmaceutical safety process but focuses on the COVID vaccines within the context of past pharmaceutical failures and medical scandals. It compares these vaccines to controversial drugs like Vioxx, Thalidomide, and DES, which were all marketed as "safe and effective" but later revealed serious long-term side effects, with recalls happening slowly. The authors then concentrate specifically on the COVID mRNA vaccines, referring to them as "gene technology," noting that they are the only drug in the paper that has not been recalled yet.
Rhodes P, Parry PI. Pharmaceutical product recall and educated hesitancy towards new drugs and novel vaccines. International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine. 2024;0(0). doi:10.1177/09246479241292008
The study's authors also challenged the belief that COVID vaccines prevent severe illness, stating new data contradicts this claim. They referenced official data from New South Wales during the omicron wave that did not support the idea that vaccines stop serious illness or death and suggested the opposite may be true. They also addressed vaccine mandates and excess deaths, implying that these mandates might have harmed people not at risk of dying from COVID. The study offered strong backing for those who think the vaccines were largely ineffective.
The study authors disputed the belief that COVID vaccines protect against severe disease, calling it a “narrative challenged by more recent data.” They noted that official data from New South Wales during the omicron wave did not support claims that these vaccines prevent serious illness or death, and even indicated the contrary. They then addressed vaccine mandates and excess deaths using solid data.
Without explicitly stating it, the article strongly implied that the political jab mandates resulted in the tragic deaths of individuals who were at absolutely zero risk of dying from COVID. The study was filled with compelling ammunition for all of us who have steadfastly refused to give up on demonstrating that the vaccines represent a historic calamity far surpassing the disasters of the Titanic or the Hindenburg. Robust evidence indicates that the COVID mRNA vaccine has clearly surpassed the threshold point necessitating a recall.