Pharma study confirms high risks of jab injury - Jeff Childers - Coffee and Covid

? Remarkably, a large covid vaccine safety study dropped last week finding some problems with the jabs, and got my immediate attention by breaking through into corporate media. Why cover this one? The study, stuffed with 35 authors, was titled, “COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals.” The Hill’s article covering the study published two days ago under the headline, “Largest multicountry COVID study links vaccines to potential adverse effects.”

Linking vaccines to potential adverse effects used to get people canceled. So what on Earth is going on?

Our first clue lies in the Hill article’s revealing final paragraph (which should have been the first):

Several of the researchers also reported having relationships or having previously received payments from biopharmaceutical companies Pfizer, Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, and GlaxoSmithKline.

Pharma researchers! It got even more interesting when the study itself disclosed it was funded by the CDC, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, and the Canadian Institutes of Health. It was a “public/private” joint effort between big pharma and the most jab-invested big government agencies in the world. But it still found problems. Could this be honest science, at long last? Or was it something else?

It was high-level gaslighting combined with a limited hangout.

First of all, a point missed by most corporate media, probably intentionally, was the researchers cherry-picked only thirteen categories of adverse events, allowing lying corporate media outlets to mislead readers by generically claiming “the researchers looked for adverse events” as if they looked for any and all safety signals. They didn’t. They only looked for their carefully-curated list of injury types. Next, the researchers muted their findings with hand-waving about covid causing the same adverse events equally or more often than the jabs, so the risk/benefit analysis still favors the shots. (It doesn’t.)

The researchers admitted finding much higher risks of neurological, cardiovascular, and blood disorder complications than they expected. True, they found serious adverse events to be ‘rare’ and — hallelujah for profits — they found them mostly occurring in the already-withdrawn vaccine types like J&J and AstraZeneca and, fortunately, not so much in the fat cash cows, Pfizer and Moderna (whew).

But despite all that, in spite of all the hand-waving about risks and benefits, and despite minimizing the injuries as ‘rare’, the study ultimately disclosed broad increases in jabbed risk between +20% to +70% across 40 or more causes of death. The risks and benefits comparing covid infection versus the shots might have evened out when comparing two 85-year-olds with diabetes and hypertension. But there is no rational risk comparison for healthy or working-age people, who were never at any enhanced risk of serious complications from covid, and as for the young, they should have been nowhere near the shots.

In other words, for healthy, working-age, and young people, the shots are all risk and no benefit.

Given the study’s “reassuring but informing” narrative framing and the wide coverage by corporate media, this looks like a limited hangout. They are — just barely — admitting to a wide variety of disabling, not-mild, permanent side effects, far beyond simple allergic reactions, injection site pain, and temporary flu-like symptoms.

It’s kind of like when finding two chocolate chips between your eight-year-old’s bedsheets, and under intense questioning the child blurts out that, okay, he did break the rules — only a little! — and stole a teeny-tiny part off an already-broken cookie when nobody was looking, but he definitely wasn’t the one who cleaned out the jar. No way.

It’s just a teeny-tiny enhanced risk of death or permanent disability, but not the whole excess deaths jar. That wasn’t us.

In other words, the injuries are getting impossible to deny, and they quickly needed to gaslight everybody. So they bought themselves a nice little study, to put some stuffing in their argument that their jab program maybe wasn’t perfect, but it also wasn’t a catastrophic disaster either. So.