In recent years, the discussion about the safety and effectiveness of corona vaccinations has reached new heights. A recently published report in International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research has now presented a comprehensive benefit-risk analysis of COVID-19 vaccines that provides alarming findings.
Censorship and suppression of vaccine damage
Since the beginning of the pandemic and especially since the start of the vaccination campaigns, reports of possible vaccine damage have often been suppressed or censored. This applies both to alternative treatment methods for respiratory infections and to reports of side effects of the vaccines. The renowned physician and scientist Dr. Peter McCullough has repeatedly pointed out this problem.
Scientific studies expose false claims
Particularly significant is the case of a study that was originally published in Springer Nature CUREUS Journal of Biomedical Sciences and later retracted. This study was subsequently published in International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research published in full and shows that the risks of the vaccines far outweigh the theoretical benefits. In particular, the claim that SARS-CoV-2 infection poses a greater risk of heart damage than vaccination has been refuted.
Six main areas of vaccine damage
The study identifies six main areas where the observed adverse events outweigh the claimed benefits:
- Cardiovascular
- Neurological
- Hematological
- Immunological
- Oncological
- Reproductive
The authors of the study call for a global moratorium on the modified mRNA-LNP-based platform because current vaccination campaigns are causing more harm than good.
Political and social consequences
Despite the alarming findings and calls to reverse the vaccination strategy, politicians remain stubborn. Instead, new vaccination campaigns, such as those against monkeypox, are being prepared, which could also cause more harm. These campaigns divert resources from urgently needed measures in developing countries, where diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis are widespread.
A particularly controversial example is the planned vaccination campaign in Gaza, where 640,000 children are to be vaccinated against paralysis – while at the same time suffering the consequences of the ongoing war. Critics argue that the resources would be better spent on basic services such as nutrition and clean water.
Conclusion: A rethink is necessary
Current developments clearly show that mass vaccination campaigns against the coronavirus and other diseases require critical review. Politicians must take the scientific findings seriously and adapt their strategies accordingly to protect the well-being of the population.
It remains to be hoped that those responsible will finally listen to the warnings of scientists and take measures that are truly in the interest of public health.
