COVID-19 Vaccine Benefit Claims Are ‘Without Basis or Merit’: Research Group

Empty COVID-19 vaccine vials at a vaccination center in Rosenheim, Germany, on April 20, 2021. Christof Stache/AFP via Getty Images

Health officials and mainstream media spread meritless claims about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, while clinical trials of the vaccines were “fraudulent” and several studies after their rollout were “significantly” biased, according to research group PANDA.

In October 2022, PANDA called the COVID-19 vaccination campaign “a failed experiment.” The organization said in a recent update that it still stands by this assessment and outlined its concerns regarding the vaccines.

Phase 3 trials of COVID-19 vaccines were mainly “conducted in healthy, younger subjects who were at negligible risk of serious illness,” PANDA said. As such, “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.”

“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,” it said.

As such, claims made by politicians, health officials, and media about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines 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.”

For instance, a study by the nonprofit research organization CORRELATION published on Sept. 17 found that older people were at increased risk of dying after getting COVID-19 vaccines, with the risk of death doubling roughly every four years.

This doubling in mortality risk per COVID-19 injection every four to five years is about two times faster than the 10-year doubling rate of the yearly risk of death owing to key old-age illnesses such as cancer, pneumonia, and heart disease.

A recently published study from South Korea showed that individuals who took a COVID-19 shot were more likely to suffer a range of health issues like bruising, ear disease, menstrual disorder, and tinnitus.

PANDA pointed out that “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.”

In testimony to the European Parliament in September, cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough said that the spike protein in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines does not break down in the human body when injected, posing serious health issues.

He said that the spike protein is “proven” in 3,400 peer-reviewed manuscripts to cause four major domains of disease: cardiovascular, neurological disease, blood clots, and immunological abnormalities.

Speaking to the “American Thought Leaders” program, clinical pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole warned that DNA contamination in some COVID-19 vaccines could be related to rising cases of cancers and autoimmune diseases.

The Vaccine Myth

Last year, PANDA suggested that a case for “careful voluntary use” of COVID-19 vaccines among vulnerable groups could be made based on “solid evidence” of overall health benefits.

But in the latest update, PANDA said that this assessment “must now be challenged” as it concluded that “there never was a lethal pandemic of any pathogen which was ‘risk additive’ to the already existing causes of respiratory infections.”

The nonprofit noted there was “ample evidence” that the virus had already spread across multiple continents months before a health emergency was declared. And during this time, the infection spread “without apparently causing any excess mortality or reports of clusters of unusual clinical presentations anywhere,” except in Wuhan, China.

As such, it was the health emergency declaration and subsequent “cataclysmic changes” made to health and social care which caused “any and all harms” that are being attributed to the COVID-19 virus, PANDA stated. There is “no convincing evidence” linking the spread of any pathogen to waves of fatal illness.

“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,” it said.

“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.’”

PANDA’s observation that the pandemic was overhyped and resulted in draconian measures imposed by governments has also been raised by other experts.

An essay published in January by Douglas Allen, professor of economics at Simon Fraser University, points out that government officials initially panicked in the wake of the pandemic.

“First, many mistakenly thought that COVID-19 could be eradicated using a comprehensive track/trace/isolate strategy in the way SARS had been dealt with in 2004,” he wrote. “Second, groups of applied mathematicians immediately called for lockdowns, and their apocalyptic predictions heavily influenced policymakers.

“The immediate massive death toll did not happen; indeed, after five waves it still had not happened. The epidemiological SIR models used throughout the pandemic repeatedly failed to accurately estimate cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.”

Within the first wave of the pandemic, two things became clear: that the infection fatality rates were lower than assumed and that the mortality risk “heavily depended” on age. As such, “COVID-19 was never a serious threat for healthy people under age 60.”

Yet governments imposed lockdown after lockdown because admitting that they made a mistake would have been “exceptionally costly” to them, Mr. Allen said.

Ultimately, the negative effects of such lockdowns fell “disproportionately on the young, the poor, people of color, those with health problems other than COVID-19, the least educated, blue-collar workers, single parents, and many others at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder.”