Self-Amplifying mRNA Study Commits Fraud
Surprise: It's Nature Communications again
ARCT-154 — the Self-Amplifying mRNA shot soon to be released in Japan — has a fraudulent paper regarding harms the shots cause, in the study called “Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of the self-amplifying mRNA ARCT-154 COVID-19 vaccine: pooled phase 1, 2, 3a and 3b randomized, controlled trials”.
Starting with the highlight that it causes adverse events in at least 90% of the group who received the shot, they use every trick in the book to downplay and skewer harms.
Small Sample Fallacy
Most obvious: they have an absurdly small placebo (‘unvaccinated’) arm; a mere 253 people, compared to 670 who received the shots; or ~37% the size; that is to say, any small signal in the 253 is amplified artificially to make it seem like placebos are worse than they actually are.
Refusal To Capture Adverse Reactions Data
We’ve seen this trick before in the Daily Beagle article “Pfizer Blinded Clinical Study Was Rigged” where fraudulent “researchers” refused to allow those undergoing the experiments to submit any dynamic adverse harms data outside of an artificially constrained scope.
In these cases, digital forms artificially constrain and intentionally omit harms data by prohibiting their submission. We can see the same occurs in this form as it only lists 16 categories and omits any other classification:
For those who can’t read the tiny text, their only options are:
Any local
Pain
Tenderness
Induration/swelling
Erythema
Any systemic
Fever
Arthralgia
Chills
Diarrhea
Dizziness
Headache
Fatigue
Nausea
Vomiting
Myalga
This is an open and shut case of intentional research fraud, as by restricting their datasets to only conditions that are already mild by definition, they are intentionally omitting data that contradicts their findings, rigging the findings of the paper.
Notice there is no capture field for things like heart attack, hospitalisations, deaths, serious injuries. They even boldly state that they only solicited (asked for) specific AEs (adverse events) and that there are AEs they do not solicit (and did not report on in the paper; I.E. they intentionally omitted “unsolicited AEs”):
They might as well have written: we asked our cohorts to give us favourable responses and intentionally discarded any adverse events that made our shots look bad.
Used Misleadingly Broad Definition To Claim “Severe COVID-19”
The fraud doesn’t stop there, though, as they basically reclassified every conceivable major injury as ‘severe COVID-19’, including death. We’re not even joking:
Translating medical jargon, in order:
Acute pulmonary: severe lung damage
Cardiac: any heart injury or damage
Renal: any kidney injury or damage
Hepatic: any liver injury
Neurologic dysfunction: literally any brain dysfunction of any kind (including mental illness!)
SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t even infect the liver or the kidneys; and heart attacks are associated with the mRNA shots, this study is complete nonsense. These injuries are basically vaccine injuries being reclassified as ‘severe COVID’ so they can skewer the results.
The only valid one would be ‘acute pulmonary’, but given the bad faith broadstrokes being used to scoop up every conceiveable harm, this must also be treated with suspicion.
They Apply A Completely Different Rule For The Shots
On top of scooping up every illness and disease to count as “severe COVID-19”, they do the exact opposite for the shots and only accept cases where a virus was profiled and proven:
That is to say, in order to artificially bloat out the placebo arm with fake “severe COVID-19” they use dubiously overbroad definitions of multiple cause injuries not typically caused by COVID-19, and then to make the shots seem effective they artificially narrow the dataset to only those with confirmed viral samples guaranteeing a low count.
I.E. they are committing data fraud. Notice it does not say the viral sampling is used in the placebo arm, only the “primary vaccine efficacy”.
They Artificially Constrain The Monitoring Period
Capped to 36 days. Notice they’re only examining the first (‘primary’) shot and are not examining the second shot. I.E. they’re omitting data again.
That’s less than 2 months observation time. And even then, they muddy the waters by including 7 days from the second shot.
They then weirdly invert the assessment for the second shot and look explicitly for those with the intentionally narrow ‘virus sample’ version of COVID-19:
But again, capped to 92 days (less than 4 months).
And The Usual Data Secrecy Applies
They try to pretend they have 12 months worth of data on hand, but only pre-approved secret handshake scientists with a valid, preapproved research project will get to see the data (I.E. it doesn’t exist and they’re inventing artificial barriers so they don’t have to publicly disclose the fraud):
In Conclusion? These Shots Are Not Safe
This amount of fraud and data manipulation would not be required unless all evidence demonstrated that the shots were extremely harmful.
Found this informative?
Help inform?
Thoughts, dear reader?
Unredacted safety summary for BNT162c2.
TL;DR: I can see why they discontinued it at the time and tried to redact. I read that they advise not administering near a nerve, but the deal breaker is that 2 of the 12 (young) participants had severe local reactions, even at the lower dose.
They also reported poor immunogenicity in rats and NHPs, non human primates.
IMOH this should never have progressed beyond rodent studies.
* * *
6.1.1.2.4 BNT162c2 - Summary of safety
BNT162c2 has been tested at doses of 0.1, 0.3, and 1 μg. Minimal reactogenicity was reported with any local reactions (chiefly pain) being mild or moderate and present in 4, 7, and 11 subjects in each dose cohort respectively. Systemic reactions showed little dose dependency overall with 7, 7, and 8 subjects reporting any systemic reaction by respective dose cohort.
2 subjects each in the 0.3 and 1.0 μg cohorts reported severe local reactions. All reported events were self-limiting or simply managed. No SAEs were reported and no subjects have withdrawn due to an AE. At the time of preparation of this summary, the overall assessment of safety data following dosing with BNT162c2 has not changed.
...7.2 Posology and method of administration
The BNT162 vaccines are intended for IM administration in the upper arm (deltoid muscle) using two doses 21 day apart (P/B regimen). For BNT162c2, optionally a single dose regimen is also under investigation. The vaccine should not be injected into areas where there may be a major nerve trunk
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/19736_S0369-dsur-22apr2020-21apr2021.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjShJDqgNKIAxUfVUEAHbVRFzMQFnoECCEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0TZp0EVu4C-dQ80t1oZ0l_
Also, note that none of these studies identify what is in the “placebo” shot. In many prior vaccine studies, the new vaccine was tested against a “placebo” which was an already-approved vaccine. Not a placebo at all! The number of AE’s with the COVID vaccine placebos indicate that the placebos were not inert but in fact had something in them that also caused AE’s. There is speculation that the “placebos” may have been LNP’s with no mRNA: hardly inert. The Pharma companies refuse to identify what was used in their studies. Trust the science???