Why is the MSM ignoring this paper?

Abstract: To examine the possible non-specific effects (NSEs) of the novel COVID-19 vaccines, we reviewed the randomised control trials (RCTs) of mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines reporting overall mortality, including COVID-19 deaths, accident deaths, cardiovascular deaths and other non-COVID-19 deaths. For overall mortality, with 74,193 participants and 61 deaths (mRNA:31; placebo:30), the relative risk (RR) for the two mRNA vaccines compared with placebo was 1.03 (95% CI=0.63-1.71). In the adenovirus-vector vaccines there were 122,164 participants and 46 deaths (vaccine:16; controls:30). The RR for adenovirus-vector vaccines versus placebo/control vaccine was 0.37 (0.19-0.70). The adenovirus-vector vaccines were associated with protection against COVID-19 deaths (RR=0.11 (0.02-0.87)) and non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths (RR=0.38 (0.17-0.88)). The two types of vaccines differed significantly with respect to impact on overall mortality (p=0.030) as well as non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths (p=0.046). The placebo controlled RCTs of COVID-19 vaccines were halted rapidly due to clear effects on COVID-19 infections. However, the data presented here argue for performing RCTs of mRNA and adeno-vectored vaccines head-to-head comparing long-term effects on overall mortality.

The paper, Randomised Clinical Trials of COVID-19 Vaccines: Do Adenovirus-Vector Vaccines Have Beneficial Non-Specific Effects?, can be found here.

9 thoughts on “Why is the MSM ignoring this paper?”

  1. The public has been consistently lied to by the Government, by the media, by the vast majority of so-called “health” professionals.
    Devious lying bastards.
    Every last one of them.


    Report comment

    16
  2. For those who don’t know, Peter Aaby first noticed that populations which were vaccinated could, in some cases, find that they had acquired beneficial health effects far far more broadly than just the disease they had been inoculated against. He noticed this in the case of a mass vaccination programme in Africa in respect of measles, if I remember rightly.

    He was not an immunologist so he teamed up with Christine Benn (who is) – the author of this paper..

    Together Aaby & Benn have, over decades, established themselves at the centre of a web of studies of the non-specific effects of vaccines.

    From what I’ve read, the NSEs are more likely to be beneficial if the vaccine is “live” and more likely to be negative if the vaccine is “killed” … and more likely to be beneficial for females than males. Neither of these rules of thumb are remotely definitive, though.

    The important thing – and the reason I’m commenting – is that Christine Stawell Benn is very very highly respected in this area of research – a key figure, in fact – and it is hard to see why her research results in this area would not be treated as (with due scientific critical analysis, of course) likely to be “the good oil”.


    Report comment

    14
  3. MSM have been very poor on vaccine reporting. You don’t see much reporting on ;
    Adverse effects
    Difficulties in getting exemption after 1st adverse effects
    The obvious fact the vaccines wear off much earlier than anybody expected. This is obviously related to the high frequency of jabs.
    Accountability for who is responsible for people losing their jobs for not taking a vaccine not working as advertised.
    Coverage of Dr’s willing to lose their jobs for not following the narrative. Surely that is newsworthy?
    Anything to do with the Pfizer document release.
    You see little mention of actual average age of those dying being over 80 and with multiple co-morbidities. Deaths are used as a scare tactic.
    Whilst many expert’s have indicated the number of cases is far higher than official statistics no MSM is highlighting the obvious
    fact this means hospitalisation, ICU and deaths rate much lower.

    The whole narrative is pretty much not to question the Government desire to get the jab rates up. No alternative view allowed.

    They just churn out the latest info / modelling from Health Minister or CHO or Institute without any attempt to analyse it.

    It is like they are living in a bubble and not aware of reports like the above from overseas.

    Plenty of articles involving Rogan and horse dewormer but never seen a single mention of somebody like Dr John Campbell.


    Report comment

    13
  4. “The public has been consistently lied to by the Government, by the media, by the vast majority of so-called “health” professionals.”

    Govco – that’s quite normal and to be expected.

    MSM – has recently become “normal” and expected.

    Health Professionals: I think that under coercion from both GovCo and their “advisors” and the heads of associations etc, have simply said “fine, whatever”.
    Like many, they saw that speaking out was verboten and carried massive personal and professional penalties that they were not in a position to accept, or found highly distasteful. Only those medicos that were at or near the top of their fields could afford to stake not just their reputation, but their businesses and ability to practice medicine on this issue. Especially when it was most likely the case that their own advice would have been the same, but they were just going to be sticking up for the right of the patient to given all the facts and then make their own choice.

    To me, it wasn’t politicians or front-line workers that let us down – it was both the MSM, whose job is to hold GovCo to account, not cheer-lead us off a cliff, and the associations like the AMA, who should have been much more vocal about the patients right to refuse treatment. And also the bureaucrats who run things like AHRC that should have stepped in and said “We do not have the power under the constitution and statute law to stop the State Governments from doing this, but it is clearly a breach of Human Rights in our view, and contrary to our obligations under international law when we signed up to the UN Charter on Universal Human Rights.”
    But none of that happened, and so those of us who were “hesitant” felt alone, and that no-one anywhere close to the levers of power was on our side in any way at all – and most especially the left, who could normally be expected to agree that its “my body, my life, my choice”. And while it’s true that there was some minor support on web-sites like this, it was essentially banned in the MSM and on social media, and the fear factor ramped up to 11. Anyone opposing – even from a human rights PoV – was labelled a conspiracy theorist, a nut job, a member of the far right (and the implied association to white supremacists etc). It was all downside to objecting – lose everything: social standing, job, home, family, friends. Everything that gives your life meaning and what, in the end, you were really fighting for. Or take a larger risk than you would otherwise consider acceptable. Not much of a choice, is it?

    Essentially, it seems we have lost the checks and balances meant to protect us from unconscionable behaviours – and not just one of them, all of them in one go. Non-partisan bureaucrats, truthful “independent” associations, a media that investigates anything and everything. Gone. Or at least, clearly not to be trusted any more to do the job the were created to do. Very sad and profoundly disappointing state of affairs, even if it all goes away and nothing bad comes from this particular series of events.


    Report comment

    24
  5. MSM have been very poor on vaccine reporting.

    Consider the dramatic shift that has occurred in Media in the past 30 years. Things like classified adverts “rivers of gold’ are gone. People can get their news online for free and in almost real time rather than 24hr cycle. To survive the MSM have had to adapt enormously.

    Today they rely on advertisers of which the govt is now the biggest followed by corporate / big business. They can no longer support investigative journalism but need a large volume of content with a rapid turnover. Readers online have shorter attention spans so brief, snappy articles knocked out fast.

    The result is you get social media and govt departments as the main (free) source of news – so an emphasis on entertaining fluff and over-dramatised events to catch attention. Common theme is you are absolutely going to follow the govt / big business line at all times as you won’t exist without their support.


    Report comment

    5
  6. Only those medicos that were at or near the top of their fields could afford to stake not just their reputation, but their businesses and ability to practice medicine on this issue.

    Not even those, Kneel. From my experience, only those medicos and science professionals who were retired ventured to speak out against the narrative. And even these risked reputations accrued in a lifetime. One of the most senior practitioners in my world – and very, very respected – when asked about a prescription for Ivermectin replied, “They are watching me…..”

    But regarding dover’s query why the MSM won’t even publicise the Danish study comparing mRNA and DNA originating gene “vaccines” – I don’t think its a question of whether Pfizer has more clout than the manufacturers of AZ. I just think the MSM will not go anywhere near the issue of vaccine efficacy unless the government gives the nod. Why? I guess for the same reason that the daily features of commercial breakfast TV is pretty much the same these days as the ABC. There must be some sort of collusion – even if it just lazy producers.

    We live in an age of monumental and paralysing stupidity. It will be the ruin of us all.


    Report comment

    16

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.