Increasing literature on vaccine dangers

Changing Views toward mRNA based Covid Vaccines in the Scientific Literature: 2020 - 2024

http://www.paom.pl

http://www.paom.pl/Changing-Views-toward-mRNA-based-Covid-Vaccines-in-the-Scientific-Literature-2020,189961,0,2.html

Before the global Covid-19 pandemic

mRNA based vaccines had never been administered to the public,

(outside of a single clinical trial that was not completed at the time.)

The aim of this article is to raise awareness that medical science can be biased due to social and economic influences,

especially during high stress epochs in history.

Scientists should be conscious of always being objective and sceptical regardless of what is happening in the wider world.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33332359/
Material and methods

A literature survey was performed examining the reporting of severe adverse events (SAEs) in articles published between 2020 and 2024.

4,130 articles

Results and discussion

From 2020 to 2024,

the literature has gone from claiming there are absolutely no SAEs from mRNA based vaccines (2020/2021),

to an acknowledgment of a significant number of various SAEs (2023/2024).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38350768/

Conclusions

The early scientific literature was biased,

so as not to report SAEs,

due to social and political concerns,

and overwhelming corporate greed.

Only in the last year have scientists been able to publish articles that acknowledge a high number of SAEs linked to mRNA based vaccines.

This should act as a warning that science should be completely objective when evaluating health risks,

but can often be influenced by social and economic considerations.

More detail

International competition between the United States, Russia and China

All three countries claiming their vaccine was the most effective and the safest.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32663910/

For unknown reasons, the United States chose to invest heavily into mRNA based vaccines,

as opposed to other types of vaccines with stronger research supporting the underlying technology.

Due to competition between the world’s three super-powers, no country wanted to admit there were any problems with their nation’s vaccination program.

Unfortunately, these toxic politics entered into the scientific literature en force.

Three time periods, 2020 to April 2024

2020 to the end of 2021

Scientific literature claimed there were absolutely no serious adverse events (SAEs) whatsoever

January to August 2022

Scientific literature claimed there were some SAEs,

but they were very rare and that mRNA vaccines were a miracle drug

September 2022 to April 2024

Characterized as being highly sceptical of mRNA based vaccines.

E.g. COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38350768/

Significant OE ratios were found for Guillain–Barré syndrome, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, myocarditis and pericarditis.

Conclusions

A drastic shift in the medical literature occurred concerning mRNA based vaccines between 2020 and 2024.

The early literature seems to have been heavily biased in favour of promoting an experimental vaccine,

without any previously completed human clinical trials,

for both monetary and political purposes.

Even as reports of SAEs became too numerous to dismiss in 2022, the literature at the time simply down played SAEs as extremely rare.

Even though there were blatantly obvious conflicts of interest, such as vaccine producers publishing manuscripts promoting their own vaccine, articles were published in very prestigious journals.

It wasn’t until late 2022 that the first criticisms of mRNA vaccines began to appear and, as time goes by, more articles are becoming more vocal about completely banning all mRNA vaccines until they can be thoroughly tested for safety concerns.

The drastic shift in attitude towards mRNA vaccines in only about three years shows serious vulnerabilities in Western medical research.