University Institution... intentions?

Universities are meant to be trusted learning facilities

I found this ‘piece’ while doing a random check for peer-reviewed literature on the VAERS under-reporting factor. It was published under the umbrella of McGill University in Canada and it is full of … Nonsense. It is entitled: “Don’t fall for the ‘VAERS Scare’ Tactic: Anti-vaxxers show how a precious adverse event reporting database can be used to scare the public”, and indeed, it was published by a distinguished University in Canada under the operations of the Office for Science and Safety; authored by someone named Jonathan Jarry M.Sc. on June 18, 2021.

The first thing I would recommend is for my readers to re-read the following article.

Now, let’s analyze the title.

“Don’t fall for the ‘VAERS Scare’ Tactic: Anti-vaxxers show how a precious adverse event reporting database can be used to scare the public”

1. It’s an order

2. It claims that a U.S.-based government run and owned pharmacovigilance database can be a tool used to scare the public

3. It uses the inflammatory and meaningless word “Anti-vaxxer”

These are my first three observations from simply reading the title.

The first point is that this title is written in command structure: do this. No serious scientific analysis relies on commands structure: it relies on facts and data. This is therefore a strange and unnecessary strategy to use when writing a title for an article about a pharmacovigilance database. And indeed, this is a strategy: there is motive and intention here.

The second point is interesting because a rabid claim is made that there are data analysts using this data to “scare the public”. This is not the intention of anyone investigating the VAERS data for signals that may emanate from this database. In fact, as the author also states in this article: “VAERS plays a vital role in detecting important but rare reactions caused by vaccines”. Yes. This is the design function of a post-marketing pharmacovigilance tool: the data is monitored for emanant safety signals. When one is found, it is highlighted and analyzed further using Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Bradford Hill causality criteria or Bayesian analyses in order to determine if a particular product is likely causing a particular adverse event. It is what has always been the course of action, until 2021.

Anyone with an intention to scare the public should not be working in any remotely prominent position.

The third point raises the issue of scare tactics actually deployed during the COVID-19 era and some may refer to these tactics as propaganda.

propaganda

the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause¹

The spreading of ideas to help an institution? This resonates. The idea that intramuscularly injecting every single human being - young and old - with experimental gene-based prodrugs with no long-term safety data to allegedly provide “protection” against a respiratory virus with a nil infection fatality rate, does sound like an idea. If the idea that the only way out of the “pandemic” was to inject everyone was spread, it might help the manufacturers of the products off-load more products, because their products would be promoted as the way to freedom. Remember, if you get the shot, you can hug your family again.

This appears to align with the definition above.

If the opposing cause was good data, and if there was an agenda to ensure that good data and research that indeed opposed the safe and effective narrative was suppressed, then the ideas spread deliberately would have actually been the “safe and effective” narrative, and not the good data or peer-reviewed literature. Quite the inversion. I can state for the record that my own data and research has been suppressed with no scientifically-based or reasonable reason to do so.

It is interesting how many labels are inverted to be mis-applied to the very people fighting to oppose fear and fear tactics. What is perhaps most disturbing to me personally, is that the public is ultimately not granted access to data and information such that they can decide for themselves where the line between truth and lies is drawn - between meritorious and not. The public are not granted the God-given right to decide for themselves what is in fact, best for them. For the individual.

This is the crux of the problem in my eyes.

I will leave it up to you to read the article and end with a screenshot of the “Take-home message” as determined by the author.

N.B. Reporting an adverse event in Canada is notoriously difficult. In fact, during the COVID-19 era, it was pretty much impossible, and that data was hoarded. See Charles Hoffe’s case.

There are over 8,000 reports in VAERS filed from Canada.

Death reports are in the tens of thousands in the VAERS Domestic data alone and although the author might not be aware of this, death is permanent and more serious than a rash.

I am not an “anti-vaxxer”. I am an expert. I probably know more about the VAERS database than anyone in the world right now having analyzed it for more than 3 years straight now, and I also have 5 post-secondary degrees in computational and biomedical sciences, Mr. Jonathan Jerry, MSc. I have indeed used the Bradford Hill criteria to determine cause-effect relationships between the COVID-19 shots and adverse events reported in VAERS as emanant safety signals and the data is clear: the shots are causing a multitude of the reported adverse events, including many a cardiac condition including myocarditis in children.

Maybe that should be further studied.

Oh, and the denominators are also CDC data.²

1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

2. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-people-boost