Trusting the science on COVID when scientists disagree and face 'backlash'
The public has been told numerous times that according to the science, “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective”. Source.
We recently reported on a Danish study indicating that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have no statistically significant benefit for all-cause mortality, potentially killing as many people as they save due to cardiovascular adverse effects. The lead author of that study, Professor Christine Stabell Benn, was recently interviewed and explained that in addition to their intended effects and severe side effects, “vaccines also have what we have called non-specific effects. They affect the immune system more broadly and the way the immune system subsequently handles other infections, also those unrelated to the vaccine itself or the vaccine disease itself”, further clarifying that based on the data this is “beyond doubt”, and also noting that these could be positive or negative. She also stressed the importance of looking at “all-cause mortality” and “all-cause morbidity” rather than just the vaccines’ effects on the “vaccine disease”, stating that there is not enough focus on this. She further explained that live vaccines seem to have positive non-specific effects, with non-live vaccines [mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are non-live] often showing higher all-cause mortality in certain groups, whilst also typically being “not very good at stimulating a good, strong immune response”, hence the need for multiple shots and/or adjuvants.
The medical scientist also felt that the vaccine trials ended prematurely, with the elimination of control groups making looking for long-term effects impossible. And while immunity wanes, “non-specific effects do continue to occur months after” (tying in with the question we posed about how in future the vaccines may actually have killed more than they saved). She added: “there are danger signals in relation to cardiovascular deaths and diseases, we know that now with certainty for the mRNA vaccines with respect to myocarditis and pericarditis… this is something which should be investigated further”.
When prompted on financial and political influences, she said: “I have been in this game for now almost thirty years, studying vaccines and finding these non-specific effects which have been very controversial, and really like you say, there are large, strong powers out there who don’t really want to hear about them”. She implied that there would be “backlash” from authorities like the WHO if it turns out these vaccines have “negative non-specific effects”, and that “there are powers out there who aren’t interested in really digging into these findings”.
She explained that she would recommend the mRNA vaccines for a 75 year old, risking the unknown side effects, but not for a healthy 30 year old, whose “risk of dying of COVID would be so low, it wouldn’t be acceptable with any increased risk of dying from any other disease”. Based on current information, she “wouldn’t recommend vaccination [with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines] of anybody [under] 50 years of age”. Further asked if she would vaccinate her hypothetical children in their 20s with the mRNA vaccines, she responded: “No, neither of the vaccines, of course that comes from decades of studying non-specific effects of vaccines and realising that the protective immunity against the vaccine disease can come at a high price. With the unknowns in relation to the new vaccine types, I would be on the safe side of things and say that as long as your risk of severe COVID is low then I wouldn’t run the risk of taking a new vaccine which hasn’t been tested for its overall health effects. And regrettably, we still lack that data. We tried to do the best we can with the very limited data in this study that we have now submitted, but it’s not good enough.” Asked if she has been interviewed on this for the mainstream news outlets, she responded with: “No.” Source.
Okay then.