If this is the type of review Australia will have regarding Adverse Effects, we can save our money and call it all off!

I think the National Academies has cornered the market in whitewash. When will we get an honest look at the harms and death government caused via mandating experimental jabs?

TrialSite News has just released their preliminary assessment of this recently published so-called review of adverse effects of the COVID-19 jabs. I refuse to call them vaccines because they just aren’t.

The whole thing is completely biased and dishonest, but does that surprise anyone? After all, you have the fox here looking at a mass of feathers and chicken blood on the ground saying - I have no idea what happened but leave it with me and I’ll get to the bottom of it.

What part of independence don’t they understand?

This is described as an independent report, but according to one of the very helpful comments on the TrialSite page, this review…:

"was sponsored by the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services." (https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2024/04/new-comprehensive-review-examines-potential-harms-of-covid-19-vaccination-and-intramuscular-vaccination).

The HHS is part of NIAID - Anthony Fauci’s organisation. Need I say more. The NIH is to independence as a mirage is to water.

In fact, right at the start of the Review (which can be downloaded for free at this link or by clicking on the image above), it states:

This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and Health Resources and Services Administration, which includes funds from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

The CDC was involved? Say no more! And I love the, “…recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.”

Well, you can bet 100% for sure that if they had done anything but reflect the views of the funders, this would never have been published, and most likely, heads would have rolled.

Disclaimer

I only saw this report about an hour ago and have done nothing more than skim it so far. But a few things jumped out at me, and some were pointed out by very helpful comments on the original article from TrialSite News.

The first is the very limited list of reactions the Ad Hoc committee (comprised of people closely linked to both the NIH and pHarma) ‘investigated’.

COVID-19 vaccines and specific adverse events i.e., Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), transverse myelitis, Bell’s palsy, hearing loss, tinnitus, chronic headaches, infertility, sudden death, myocarditis/pericarditis, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), thromboembolic events (e.g., cerebrovascular accident (CVA), myocardial infarction (MI), pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis (DVT)), capillary leak syndrome, and • intramuscular administration of vaccines and shoulder injuries. The committee will make conclusions about the causal association between vaccines and specific adverse events."

While these encompass some of the more severe and discussed side effects, remember that prior to the jabs being released, Pfizer had issued a report to the FDA (which was supposed to have been redacted for 75 years but was released under FOIA request) showing something in excess of 1,100 adverse events (from memory) they had noted.

What about the links between these jabs and turbo cancer? Miscarriage? Early Onset Dimentia? vCJD? Oh, such a LONG, LONG list!

Below is the latest OpenVaers Red Boxes Summary Page as of March 29th, 2024.

Some of the most commonly reported side effects of these shots are not even in the list of those being ‘investigated’. Yeah, they seriously want to know how harmful these shots are, right?

What kind of review process was used?

There is an extensive list of supposedly eminent people listed who are called reviewers. But at the end of the list it states:

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report, nor did they see the final draft before its release.

Now, I just want to say here and now that I have never been asked to be a reviewer for any peer-reviewed paper (crazy, I know! 🤣), but if I were asked to do a review, and I knew that my name - and reputation - might be affected by a poor study, I would damn well want to make sure that I endorsed what was said, or had an opportunity to publish a dissenting opinion and I would also want to read the whole thing before saying I’d reviewed it. But what would I know? I’m not a SCIENTIST™️.

Where is the clinical data? The people who were actually harmed?

I haven’t even read the conclusion (and I believe it would be foregone…) but what I did notice is that the vast majority of the papers reviewed are epidemiologic in nature - not clinical. And, as I think I’ve said before, I think epidemiology is a junk science when it comes to trying to ascertain the effects of any product at the individual level. Great for looking at an overview but terrible when trying to determine safety or efficacy of any treatment or preventative.

I don’t believe they spoke with anyone who had actually been harmed by these jabs or the families of those who died. How in the world can you draw any conclusions without looking at these people?

If I am wrong and they did speak with or examine these people, I apologise. I only scanned the document, again.

Australia’s own inquiry

As you know, Australia will be holding an inquiry into these jabs and the deaths and injuries caused by them. We are already starting to see that there will be certain exclusions and biases, but if the result will be as poor as this one appears to be, there’s really no point. Give the money the inquiry would have cost to those who are suffering and call it a day.

I’m over these fake reviews; lying inquiries and lip service to the victims of government policies.