German man claims to have received 217 covid injections and other Covidians claim this is proof that vaccines are “safe and effective”

On Tuesday, The Washington Post published an article about a nutcase that claimed to have taken more than 200 covid injections. A 62-year-old man from Magdeburg, Germany, deliberately received 217 covid “vaccine” injections between June 2021 and November 2023.

German researchers examined the 62-year-old “hypervaccinated” man and didn’t find any noticeable side effects or harm to his immune system.

However, as Dr. Byram Bridle pointed out, all is not as it appears and the researchers have used some dirty tricks to hide the evidence of harm.  People should not take the study referred to as evidence that the covid injections are “safe and effective” because it is a bald-faced lie. Do not do what the crazy 62-year-old German did.

The hypervaccinated man came to researchers’ attention when German prosecutors opened up a fraud investigation, gathering evidence that he had obtained 130 coronavirus shots in nine months – far more than recommended by health authorities.  The man said he had received 217 vaccinations for “private reasons.” German authorities did not file criminal charges.

The Washington Post reported that the researchers’ “findings, published Monday in the Lancet Infectious Diseases, a medical journal, indicate that coronavirus vaccines have a ‘good degree of tolerability’, the researchers said, although they noted this was an isolated case of ‘extraordinary hypervaccination’.”

In a Substack article, Dr. Byram Bridle pointed out that failing to disclose important pieces of information is not acceptable and that it can be just as harmful as relaying misinformation. 

Dr. Bridle was specifically responding to how the article was shared on Twitter by Timothy Caulfield, a University of Alberta professor of health law and science policy, but most of the points are relevant to The Washington Post’s reporting of it as well.

The first point to note is that The Washington Post article is about a letter of correspondence in a scientific journal, not a scientific paper as implied.  “This is inappropriate,” Dr. Bridle said.  

The Lancet states that “correspondence” is “our readers’ reflections on content published in The Lancet journals or on other topics of general interest to our readers. These letters are not normally externally peer-reviewed.”

“People want to follow the science, not state-funded media opining about the science. Ditch the hearsay evidence,”  Dr. Bridle said.

He noted a critically important disclaimer the authors of the letter disclosed but which The Washington Post omitted: “Hypervaccination occurred outside of a clinical study context and against national vaccination recommendations.“

“The article describes a non-peer-reviewed study of a single individual who may very well be mentally ill. After all, they adopted a medical protocol that could legitimately be characterised as ‘crazy’,” Dr. Bridle said.

Size really does matter in the context of scientific studies. To promote a study of one person without placing it into the broader context of the massive body of scientific literature is misleading.

Dr. Bridle noted that the safety and effectiveness of covid injections are being actively debated in the peer-reviewed literature and through exposure of hidden information through court orders and Freedom of Information Act requests.

“The reality is that covid-19 shots are not completely safe, nor completely effective; no vaccine is. To avoid this larger context is to downplay the importance of the growing number of people that have suffered severe harms from covid-19 shots,” he said.

Dr. Bridle noted that baseline data are unavailable because, among other study limitations, the researchers stated: “This report is further limited by the fact that sampling for HIM only started after the 213th out of 217 vaccinations.“

Additionally, it was confirmed that the man had taken 134 injections by a prosecutor and through vaccination centre documentation, while the remaining 83 injections were self-reported – 83 of the 217 vaccinations, 38%, were self-reported, meaning they could not be verified.

Of substantial concern was that the researchers only evaluated routine clinical chemistry parameters and only in blood.  “From November 2019 to October 2023, 62 routine clinical chemistry parameters showed no abnormalities attributable to hypervaccination,” the letter published by The Lancet states.

“Despite the numerous documented side-effects of covid-19 shots, the authors failed to look for things like damage to the cardiovascular system, including D-dimer testing, etc. A classic way to demonstrate safety is to avoid looking hard for potential harms, especially if you avoid looking for known harms,” he said.

Additionally, people seem to be taking the statement “no abnormalities” at face value. But the authors used an unacceptable “trick” here, Dr, Bridle said. “They tempered the statement by claiming there were no abnormalities ‘attributable to hypervaccination’.”

Numerous abnormalities were indeed found.  “Out of the 62 routine clinical chemistry parameters that were evaluated, 32 of them (more than half) were abnormal on at least one of the timepoints tested,” Dr. Bridle said.

He added, “They hid the fact that there were numerous abnormalities detected and there would be no way for anyone to know whether they had been influenced by hypervaccination or not.”

Here’s how the researchers hid the abnormalities:

• No baseline clinical chemistry parameters were made available
• There is no documented history of data for people undergoing covid-19 hypervaccination schedules.
• Despite disclosing raw data for all immunological parameters, the authors, for some reason, refused to disclose absolute numbers for the clinical biochemistry data.
• Remarkably, they chose to report what would have been interesting and informative raw data in a table that simply stated how many tests came back as abnormal for a given parameter, alongside subjective comments in which they made claims that parameters were “not consistently changed.“
• Or they claim the changes were “mild” but, again, did not prove this by showing the numerical result relative to the normal range.
• Or, parameters were apparently “known before 2019, not related to vaccinations“ despite not disclosing whether out-of-range values had become accentuated.
• Even parameters that are “mildly” and/or “inconsistently” out of range can sometimes be indicative of serious problems. And even if “mildly and/or inconsistently out of range” were to equate with “mild or inconsistent harm,” that certainly does not equate to safety!

As Dr. Bridle noted, we are left with having to take the word of the authors at face value. “The authors should be compelled to disclose these raw data. Otherwise, what are they hiding?”

He encouraged readers to look at Table 2 from Appendix 2 of the study. It “provides evidence that receipt of 217 covid-19 shots might indeed be harmful! For anyone to state otherwise is a bald-faced lie.”

The most important message Dr. Bridle wants readers to take away from his analysis of the “study” is: Do not take the study that was referred to in The Washington Post’s article as evidence of the safety or effectiveness of covid injections as some, including Professor Timothy Caulfield and some of his followers, have done.

You can read Dr. Bridle’s full commentary HERE.