The very high risk v/s very low benefit of updated Covid vaccines – as per the info shared by the CDC | Dr. John Campbell | Sep 15, 2023 (Video)
- Sep 16, 2023
- 2 min read
Summary:
The CDC is recommending updated Covid-19 vaccines for everyone 6 months and older in the US.
The information they provide however completely contradicts the necessity for this taking these updated vaccines.
And additional information from various medical sources.
13 min
Content Source: Dr. John Campbell
~~
Notes and References:
Updated COVID-19 vaccines are recommended for everyone 6 months and older and will be available by the end of this week
“Safe and effective” ?
Estimated hospitalizations prevented per 1,000,000 vaccine doses
12 -17 years
19-95 hospitalizations,
5-19 ICU admissions,
and perhaps one death.
5 – 11 years
16 hospitalizations,
(based on Spring 2023 data)
18 – 49 years
75 hospitalizations,
(based on Spring 2023 data)
Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults
Pfizer vaccines excess risk of serious adverse events
(Higher than placebo baseline)
10.1 per 10,000
101 per 100,000
1,010 per 1,000,000
Moderna vaccines excess risk of serious adverse events
(Higher than placebo baseline)
15.1 per 10,000
151 per 100,000
1,510 per 1,000,000
In Western Australia
Total AEFI rate following a COVID-19 vaccine
264.1 per 100,000 doses
2,641 per 1,000,000 doses
—-
Moderna CEO defends $130 US COVID vaccine price in Senate hearing (March 23, 2023)
$130 per dose
Pfizer last year suggested $110 to $130 per dose.
—-
From FDA to MHRA: are drug regulators for hire?
Money derived from Industry
US Food and Drug Administration, $3,416,000,000 (2022)
The revolving door
FDA, nine out of 10 of its past commissioners, 2006 to 2019 went on to secure roles linked with pharmaceutical companies
2005 UK, House of Commons’ health committee
Industry funding could lead MHRA, to “lose sight of the need to protect and promote public health above all else as it seeks to win fee income from the companies.”
BMJ investigation (2022)
We found that industry money permeates the globe’s leading regulators,
raising questions about their independence
Sociologist Donald Light, Rowan University, New Jersey
“Like the FDA, the TGA was founded to be an independent institute.
However, being largely funded by fees from the companies whose products it is charged to evaluate is a fundamental conflict of interest,
and a prime example of institutional corruption.”
It is no longer possible for doctors and patients to receive unbiased, rigorous evaluations from drug regulators.
FDA
“It’s the opposite of having a trustworthy organisation independently and rigorously assessing medicines.
They’re not rigorous, they’re not independent, they are selective, and they withhold data.
Doctors and patients must appreciate how deeply and extensively drug regulators can’t be trusted so long as they are captured by industry funding.”
Revisiting financial conflicts of interest in FDA advisory committees
Large study, FDA advisory committee members over 15 years,
those with financial interests solely in the sponsoring firm were more likely to vote in favour of the sponsor’s product.
Comments