COVID-19 Vaccine Benefit Claims Are ‘Without Basis or Merit’: Research Group

New data about vaccine harms suggest the shots are ‘substantially more dangerous than originally claimed,’ it said.

According to the research group PANDA, health officials and the mainstream media made baseless claims about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, while clinical trials were “fraudulent” and several studies after their rollout were “significantly” biased.

PANDA labeled the COVID-19 vaccination campaign a “failed experiment” in October 2022. In a recent update, the organization stated that it still stands by its assessment and outlined its concerns about the vaccines.
COVID-19 vaccine phase 3 trials were mostly “conducted in healthy, younger subjects who were at negligible risk of serious illness,” according to PANDA. Since this was the case, “they were incapable of measuring the purported benefits.”

additional to that, “there is rapidly accumulating evidence of conduct designed to skew the results which many would regard as fraudulent.”

“The so-called ‘real-world’ studies conducted after rollout are riddled with obvious confounders and use a variety of statistical tricks—completely ignored by previously reputable academic journals—which significantly bias the results,” according to the report.

As a result, claims about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines made by politicians, health officials, and the media were “without basis or merit.”

“The purported benefits claimed are starkly contradicted by population-level data suggesting significant increases in overall mortality and morbidity in heavily vaccinated populations.”

For example, a study published on September 17 by the nonprofit research organization CORRELATION discovered that older people were at an increased risk of dying after receiving COVID-19 vaccines, with the risk of death roughly doubling every four years.
This doubling in mortality risk per COVID-19 injection every four to five years is roughly twice as fast as the 10-year doubling rate of key old-age illnesses such as cancer, pneumonia, and heart disease.

A recent South Korean study found that individuals who received a COVID-19 shot were more likely to experience bruising, ear disease, menstrual disorder, and tinnitus.
PANDA went on to say that “in terms of safety, each week brings new data and potential biological mechanisms of harm suggesting that these inadequately tested and complex therapeutics are substantially more dangerous than originally claimed.”

Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist, testified to the European Parliament in September that the spike protein in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines does not degrade in the human body after injection, posing serious health risks.
According to him, the spike protein has been “proven” in 3,400 peer-reviewed manuscripts to cause four major domains of disease: cardiovascular, neurological, blood clots, and immunological abnormalities.

Dr. Ryan Cole, a clinical pathologist, warned on the “American Thought Leaders” program that DNA contamination in some COVID-19 vaccines could be linked to an increase in cancer and autoimmune disease cases.

The Vaccine Myth

PANDA suggested last year that a case could be made for “careful voluntary use” of COVID-19 vaccines among vulnerable groups based on “solid evidence” of overall health benefits.
However, in the most recent update, PANDA stated that this assessment “must now be challenged” because “there was never a lethal pandemic of any pathogen that was ‘risk additive’ to the already existing causes of respiratory infections.”

According to the non-profit, there was “ample evidence” that the virus had already spread across multiple continents months before a health emergency was declared. During this time, the infection spread “without apparently causing any excess mortality or reports of clusters of unusual clinical presentations anywhere,” with the exception of Wuhan, China.

As a result, the health emergency declaration and subsequent “cataclysmic changes” to health and social care caused “any and all harms” attributed to the COVID-19 virus, according to PANDA. There is “no convincing evidence” linking pathogen spread to waves of fatal illness.

“Had the testing not been available, and had doctors continued to treat patients with respiratory infections on an individual basis according to their presenting symptoms (consistent with decades-old practice), we do not believe that anything unusual would have been noticed, as what was happening before the ’emergency’ (ie nothing of note) would have continued thereafter,” the report said.

“In other words, if we hadn’t done anything, there would have been no 2020 pandemic mentioned in history books, by any reasonable definition of the term ‘pandemic’… As a result of the foregoing, there was no need or justification for the introduction of any novel therapeutics, including ‘vaccines.'”

Other experts have echoed PANDA’s observation that the pandemic was overhyped and resulted in draconian measures imposed by governments.

According to an essay published in January by Douglas Allen, a professor of economics at Simon Fraser University, government officials initially panicked in the aftermath of the pandemic.
“First, many mistakenly thought that COVID-19 could be eradicated using a comprehensive track/trace/isolate strategy in the way SARS had been dealt with in 2004,” he said in a statement. “Second, groups of applied mathematicians immediately called for lockdowns, and their apocalyptic predictions heavily influenced policymakers.”The expected massive death toll did not occur; in fact, it had not occurred after five waves. Throughout the pandemic, epidemiological SIR models failed to accurately estimate cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.”

Two things became clear during the first wave of the pandemic: infection fatality rates were lower than expected, and mortality risk “heavily depended” on age. Because of this, “COVID-19 was never a serious threat for healthy people under age 60.”

However, governments imposed lockdown after lockdown because admitting a mistake would have been “exceptionally costly” to them, according to Mr. Allen.

In the end, the adverse consequences of such lockdowns fell “disproportionately on the young, the poor, people of color, those with health problems other than COVID-19, the least educated, blue-collar workers, single parents, and many others at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder.”