Jeff Childers

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) quietly published a remarkable paper last month titled, “Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination in Randomized Trials.”

The conclusion is shocking. Let’s parse out the researchers’ technically-worded statement:

> The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).

In other words, they’re saying the risk of having a serious vaccine injury is greater than the benefits of the covid vaccines.

Smartly, the researchers used the drugmakers’ own clinical trial data, so there’s no arguing about the dataset. It’s the same dataset the FDA relied on to grant EUA approval to the drugs. Everyone is on the same page. Combining the two trials, “there was a +43% increased risk of serious AESI and an absolute risk increase of +12.5 serious AESI per 10,000 vaccinated participants.”

Also, between both trials, the largest increase in absolute risk occurred in the category of COAGULATION DISORDERS. Clotting. Imagine that. And they found “more cardiovascular AESIs occurred in the vaccine group in the Pfizer trial.”

The study also gets into why the FDA’s original conclusions were different than theirs. It’s pretty technical, having to do with things like that the FDA only counted a patient having multiple types of injuries as only a single injury. But the researchers appear to criticize the FDA, noting “In July 2021, the FDA reported detecting four potential adverse events of interest: pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, immune thrombocytopenia, and disseminated intravascular coagulation following Pfizer’s vaccine based on medical claims data in older Americans.”

Then, they noted despite finding signals of high adverse events, nothing much has happened, not in a YEAR: “FDA stated it would further investigate the findings but at the time of our writing has not issued an update.” Weird.

The researchers also shored up their conclusion by observing their results were “compatible with a recent preprint analysis of COVID-19 vaccine trials by Benn et al., which found no evidence of a reduction in overall mortality in the mRNA vaccine trials based on data from the later, March 2021 BLA (Biologics License Application) timepoints that underpinned subsequent regulatory approval.”

Studies like this one, and the Benn preprint, may be what’s fueling the narrative pivot we appear to be seeing. They directly challenge the original conclusions the FDA regulators used to approve the drugs. We have no idea how many similar studies are in the pipeline, but journal editors do. And we know that government actors like Fauci and Collins talk to the journal editors; we’ve seen this kind of “cooperation” in the covid emails. We’ve also seen Fauci and Collins plotting media campaigns.

So it’s not a stretch to link what’s happening in journals to what we see happening in corporate media. If there is a connection, things will get very interesting, very fast.