A critical Danish study published last week in The Lancet examined the possible non-specific effects (NSEs) of the novel COVID-19 vaccines. The study suggests that traditional adenovirus-based vaccines such as Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca may be safer for overall mortality—including COVID-19 deaths, accidental deaths and cardiovascular deaths—than the experimental mRNA-based "vaccines" manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna. The preprint, titled "Randomised Clinical Trials of COVID-19 Vaccines: Do Adenovirus-Vector Vaccines Have Beneficial Non-Specific Effects?," notes:
"Given the public health importance, we used the final study reports currently available from the clinical testing to examine the impact of mRNA and adenovirus-vector vaccines on overall mortality, including COVID-19-related mortality, accidents, cardiovascular deaths and other non-COVID-19 mortality."
After reviewing the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for the four vaccine candidates, the April 5, 2022 preprint reports that for overall mortality, with 74,193 participants and 61 deaths (mRNA:31; placebo:30), the relative risk (RR) for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA "vaccines" compared with the placebo was 1.03. Comparatively, in the adenovirus-based vaccines there were 122,164 participants and 46 deaths (vaccine:16; controls:30). The RR for the adenovirus-based vaccines (Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca) versus the placebo/control vaccine was 0.37. The study notes that the adenovirus-based vaccines also demonstrated protection against COVID-19 deaths (RR=0.11), non-accident and non-COVID-19 deaths (RR=0.38). Nonetheless, as illustrated in the table below, the two types of vaccines were significantly different with respect to an impact on overall mortality.
The study explains that there now exists "ample evidence that vaccines can have broad heterologous effects on the immune system." Furthermore, "these effects can lead to additional protection or increasing susceptibility to unrelated infections or even non-infectious immune-mediated diseases." Expanding on this understanding further, the researchers explain that the current system for testing vaccines does not incorporate potential unexpected outcomes, adding:
"Therefore, as it has now been established in numerous studies, vaccines may have completely unexpected effects on overall mortality, different from what could be anticipated based on the protection against the vaccine-targeted disease."
According to the study, when the "new COVID-19 vaccines" were tested in RCTs against placebo/control vaccines, the trials were not designed to evaluate the impact on overall mortality. The researchers' comment that the possibility of observing such outcomes was hindered further by the short follow-up in the trials (individuals in the control groups received the vaccine after 3-6 months) after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) issuance of "emergency use authorization" (EUA).
Additionally, as numerous government agencies reference mortality rate while promoting COVID-19 vaccines, the researchers report that no formal studies have been conducted to determine whether the new COVID-19 vaccines—in the context of a pandemic—reduce overall mortality.
"You're Being Murdered!"—Pharma and Government Is Guilty Until Proven Innocent
The study authors include Peter Aaby, a trained physician and anthropologist, Dr. Mihai Netea, a well-known award-winning Romanian/Dutch scientist, and Danish colleagues from Odense Patient Data Explorative Network (OPEN) at the University of Southern Denmark. As previously mentioned, by using final study reports currently available from RCT testing, the group investigated possible NSEs of the COVID-19 vaccines, probing into overall mortality for not only COVID-19 deaths but also accidental deaths, cardiovascular deaths, and other non-COVID-19 deaths.
The study explains that "the placebo-controlled RCTs of COVID-19 vaccines were halted rapidly due to apparent effects on COVID-19 infections." With that in mind, the data presented in the study supports the researchers' argument for new, head-to-head, randomized controlled trials of mRNA and adeno-vectored vaccines to compare long-term effects on overall mortality.
Describing the lack of data studies during the administration of the EUA "vaccines" during the pandemic, the study explains that "an intrinsic limitation for the estimation of overall mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic is the nature of the cohorts studied." Specifically, the study underscores the fact that most of the volunteers participating in the study were "adult individuals in general good health," resulting in low COVID-19 and overall mortality.
However, the study reports that in a real-life situation where COVID-19 vaccines are administered to highly vulnerable populations with high COVID-19-dependent mortality, significant gains in overall mortality are expected, also for mRNA vaccines. Concernedly, however, the researchers maintain that the observed "intriguing differences" in the effects on non-accident, non-COVID-19 mortality are likely to continue and should be investigated further in future studies.
According to the study authors, the contrasts in results imply that adenovirus-based vaccines compared with placebo have beneficial non-specific effects, reducing the risk of non-COVID-19 diseases. Indeed, the most crucial cause of non-COVID-19 death was cardiovascular disease, against which the data for the current RCTs suggest that the adenovirus-vector vaccines provide "significant protection."
Speaking of the study, TrialSiteNews reports, "Of course, many experts may summarily dismiss [the study] findings as irrelevant." Still, the researchers agree that as mass-vaccination programs with COVID-19 "vaccines" are rolled out globally, experts should collect data on their effects on non-COVID-19 mortality. Unfortunately, once the vaccines were introduced generally in the population, the opportunity to conduct large-scale vaccine-vs-placebo RCTs trials was gone. To remedy this, the authors assert:
"To throw light on the potential differences in non-specific effects between vaccine types, one way forward would be for public health authorities to conduct RCTs comparing the mRNA vaccines and adenovirus-vector vaccines for their effect on overall COVID-19 mortality as well as non-COVID-19 mortality.
Even if effects within the group of adenovirus-vector vaccines would turn out to be more heterogeneous with longer follow-up and when more studies have been published, it seems clear that the overall health effects of the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines should be tested against the leading mRNA vaccines. In addition, future trials of new COVID-19 vaccines should be compelled to report mortality data by cause and sex. Post-licensure monitoring and evaluation should also focus on overall, non-accidental mortality."
Screenshot / The Lancet / Randomised Clinical Trials of COVID-19 Vaccines: Do Adenovirus-Vector Vaccines Have Beneficial Non-Specific Effects? / Conclusions
The researchers emphasize that beneficial effects of overall mortality were recently reported in an observational study in Buenos Aires using mainly non-mRNA vaccines. Yet, the researcher also speaks of an observational study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that reported lower rates of non-COVID-19 mortality among individuals injected with the mRNA experimental "vaccine" product. Stating the obvious while reiterating the need for comparative data on the two types of COVID-19 vaccine products, the study experts explain:
"... these observational studies [from CDC] have numerous sources of bias, including healthy vaccinée bias, and merely underscore that RCTs are needed to address the association between vaccination and overall health."
Dr. McCullough: "Beyond Any Shadow of a Doubt," The Vaccines Are Causing Death
