Detection of Positive Covid-19 Vaccine Bias in Reports of Serious Adverse Events. Dr. Peter McCullough
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Global Research Wants to Hear From You!
***
The clinical reality of COVID-19 vaccine myocarditis, blood clots, and other medical disasters seems much larger than available reports in the medical literature. Because the vast majority of academic physicians who produce the worlds universe of medical manuscripts start from a pro-vaccine position, there is undoubtedly publication bias.
Publication bias means that compliant doctors at institutions that mandated the COVID-19 vaccines are disincentivized and may be implicitly prohibited from studying and reporting vaccine side effects.
Even compelling papers describing new, important life-threatening conditions may fail to be approved by the institution and never make it to journal submission.
Nevertheless, I have been struck with obvious pro-vaccine bias in papers that are describing horrific adverse events.
You can look for these because they are not supported and appear completely out of place. One wonders if these statements are reflecting a true psychological bias of mass formation or if they are intentionally deceptive so the authors do not appear to “dampening enthusiasm” for the novel shots. In some cases, the authors encourage vaccination despite the harms.
Sung JG, Sobieszczyk PS, Bhatt DL. Acute Myocardial Infarction Within 24 Hours After COVID-19 Vaccination. Am J Cardiol. 2021 Oct 1;156:129-131. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2021.06.047. Epub 2021 Jul 12. PMID: 34364657; PMCID: PMC8272970.
Be wary of glowing praise for the vaccines like “remarkably effective” or “blockbuster” in papers that present no efficacy data. It has been said that flattery will get you nowhere, expect possibly, publication of a COVID-19 vaccine paper in a medical journal.
Maruyama T, Uesako H. Lessons Learnt from Case Series of Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest and Unexpected Death after COVID-19 Vaccination. Intern Med. 2023 Nov 15;62(22):3267-3275. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.2298-23. Epub 2023 Aug 23. PMID: 37612082; PMCID: PMC10713381.
Altman NL, Berning AA, Mann SC, Quaife RA, Gill EA, Auerbach SR, Campbell TB, Bristow MR. Vaccination-Associated Myocarditis and Myocardial Injury. Circ Res. 2023 May 12;132(10):1338-1357. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.122.321881. Epub 2023 May 11. PMID: 37167355; PMCID: PMC10171307.
Any time you see “the risks are far outweighed by the benefits” without a formal risk-benefit analysis, you are receiving dangerous pro-vaccine bias. This is particularly true for vaccine induced death. It is very hard to argue that case away and encourage more shots.
Eslait-Olaciregui S, Llinás-Caballero K, Patiño-Manjarrés D, Urbina-Ariza T, Cediel-Becerra JF, Domínguez-Domínguez CA. Serious neurological adverse events following immunization against SARS-CoV-2: a narrative review of the literature. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2023 May 21;14:20420986231165674. doi: 10.1177/20420986231165674. PMID: 37223456; PMCID: PMC10201278.
Other obvious statements such as “vaccines have been integral in our pandemic response” or “vaccines have saved millions of lives” or accolades such as “cutting-edge mRNA technology” or “breakthrough” or “cornerstone” seem out of place when the paper is describing vaccine victims either permanently damaged or sadly dead after the shot.
Aye YN, Mai AS, Zhang A, Lim OZH, Lin N, Ng CH, Chan MY, Yip J, Loh PH, Chew NWS. Acute myocardial infarction and myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination. QJM. 2023 Apr 29;116(4):279-283. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hcab252. PMID: 34586408; PMCID: PMC8522388.
Probably the most severe form of positive vaccine bias and hubris would be “the vaccines are indicated or recommended for everyone” when a manuscript is not evaluating the overall population benefit it should not be making recommendations.
Liko J, Cieslak PR. Assessment of Risk for Sudden Cardiac Death Among Adolescents and Young Adults After Receipt of COVID-19 Vaccine – Oregon, June 2021-December 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024 Apr 11;73(14):317-320. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7314a5. PMID: 38602888; PMCID: PMC11008789.
I hope these examples are helpful. The goal of reviewing papers is to evaluate the data yourself and in the context of vaccine side effects, overall risk-benefit statements by likely vaccinated authors from mandating institutions should be freely disposable.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense
