By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
I have been struck by the plethora of papers that disclose horrific, serious adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination including hospitalization and death, yet somewhere in the paper the authors insert a gratuitous promotion such as “vaccination has saved millions of lives” or “the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks.” These phrases come with no evidence or support, seem out of place, and I wonder if they are inserted to gain institutional approval for submission or by design are used to get past biased editorial boards and reviewers who want to keep the false “safe and effective” narrative flowing in the medical literature.
I sat down with lead author and epidemiologist M. Nathaniel Mead, MSc, to discuss his recent publication titled COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign and published in the PUBMED listed journal CUREUS. With 293 references and detailed analyses, Mead et al conclude that vaccines never should have been used in children and at this point governments all over the world should stop vaccination in all age groups. The authors demonstrate the vaccines are neither safe nor effective. Here is an excerpt from the abstract:
“Among the other major topics addressed in this narrative review are the published analyses of serious harms to humans, quality control issues and process-related impurities, mechanisms underlying adverse events (AEs), the immunologic basis for vaccine inefficacy, and concerning mortality trends based on the registrational trial data. The risk-benefit imbalance substantiated by the evidence to date contraindicates further booster injections and suggests that, at a minimum, the mRNA injections should be removed from the childhood immunization program until proper safety and toxicological studies are conducted. Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits. Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.”
Listen to the extra scrutiny and exhaustive peer-review process applied to this paper compared to common submissions and how Mead prevailed with great strength and perseverance. Never combative or argumentative with the reviewers or editors, Mead demonstrated how dispassionate professionalism works in a time of scientific turmoil.
Keep a watch for attempts by the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex to apply pressure on CUREUS and its editors to retract this paper in violation of the COPE ethics guidelines. The more it is disseminated and read now, the Complex will be less likely to succeed in suppressing the truth.
Please subscribe to Courageous Discourse as a paying or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth.
Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
President, McCullough Foundation
Share this post