In response to questions regularly received about PANDA’s stance on the products known as “Covid vaccines”.
In late 2022 we published a document summarising our thoughts on Covid vaccines as they stood then. What we have learned in the past year has made us rethink nearly every single aspect of what was written in that document.
Yes, we still stand by the title referring to the vaccine rollout as a “failed experiment”.
But we would now go much further.
The protocols for the Phase III trials which formed the basis of the authorisation of these products specified clinically irrelevant endpoints and were (in the main) conducted in healthy, younger subjects who were at negligible risk of serious illness. Consequently they were incapable of measuring the purported benefits.
Moreover, there is rapidly accumulating evidence of conduct designed to skew the results which many would regard as fraudulent. In any case, critical analysis of the results is not consistent with any benefit when all-cause outcomes are considered.
The so-called “real-world” studies conducted after rollout are riddled with obvious confounders and use a variety of statistical tricks – completely ignored by previously reputable academic journals – which significantly bias the results.
Hence the claims made by public health officials, politicians and media regarding safety and efficacy were without basis or merit.
The purported benefits claimed are starkly contradicted by population-level data suggesting significant increases in overall mortality and morbidity in heavily vaccinated populations.
In terms of safety, each week brings new data and potential biological mechanisms of harm suggesting that these inadequately tested and complex therapeutics are substantially more dangerous than originally claimed. It is not our intention in this piece to give a summary of the current state of knowledge relating to safety, the story around which is in any case evolving so rapidly it is difficult to keep up with developments.
The above would be concerning enough even if there had been an actual justifiable need for the vaccines in any segment of the population. However, even that prior assumption – which we had (albeit tentatively) accepted in the case of the elderly or otherwise “vulnerable” – must now be challenged, because our further research has led to the following conclusions in respect of the purported “pandemic”.
There never was a lethal pandemic of any pathogen which was “risk additive” to the already existing causes of respiratory infections. This is the case whether or not there was something some might regard as “novel” circulating, whether “it” came from a lab or was zoonotic in origin, and whether “it” originated in China or elsewhere.
Whatever “it” was which caused the various tests developed and rolled out at insane speed and cost to turn “positive”, there is ample evidence that “it” had become widely spread across several continents months before the emergency was declared, without apparently causing any excess mortality or reports of clusters of unusual clinical presentations anywhere (other than the cases claimed for Wuhan).
The null hypothesis, therefore, is that it was the declaration of the emergency itself, and the cataclysmic changes to health and social care consequent to that, which caused any and all the harms which those responsible are attempting to attribute to a novel virus.
There is no convincing evidence that the spread of any pathogen – as opposed to the spread of waves of fear, panic and medical dystopia – is directly linked to waves of fatal illnesses.
Had the testing not been available, and had doctors continued to treat patients with respiratory infections on an individual basis according to their presenting symptoms (consistent with decades-old practice), we do not believe that anything unusual would have been noticed, as what was happening before the “emergency” (ie nothing of note) would have continued thereafter.
In other words, had we done nothing, there would have been no 2020 pandemic mentioned in the history books, using any reasonable definition of the word “pandemic”.
It follows from the above that there was no need or justification for the rollout of any novel therapeutics, including the products termed “vaccines”.
Rather than asking the question “were the vaccines needed as a response to the pandemic?” we should instead be asking “was the pandemic needed for the vaccines?”.