Commentary about the article “Rational harm-benefit assessments by age group are required for continued COVID-19 vaccination” and reflections about the strategies adopted by the main stream media

May 05, 2023

On December 21^th, 2022, my letter to the editor of the Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, co-authored with Dr. Peter A. McCullough, and titled “Rational harm-benefit assessments by age group are required for continued COVID-19 vaccination” was published (1).

This paper emphasizes the fundamental notion of immunology that every human cell that produces non-self antigens inevitably becomes a target of the immune system (2, 3). This notion is crucial in order to understand the potential harms posed by the genetic vaccines against COVID-19, which contain the genetic information that hijacks human host cell proteosynthetic machinery to synthesize the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 (4–6). Due to the principles of the antigen presentation process, it has to be abundantly clear that “every human cell that intakes the LNPs and translates the viral protein (in case of the mRNA vaccines), or that gets infected by the adenovirus and expresses and translates the viral protein (in case of the adenovirus-based vaccines), is inevitably recognized as a threat by the immune system and killed” (6).

Personally, I cannot figure out how the international scientific community has not considered the repercussions of the autoimmunological response against human cells expressing non-self proteins as one of the major drawbacks of the genetic vaccines. Due to this threat, it is crucial to perform accurate pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic investigations, in order to identify the areas of the body where the genetic material accumulates and, as a consequence, which tissues may suffer an autoimmune inflammation. Despite the fact that such evaluations have not been performed for the genetic vaccines against COVID-19, indiscriminate vaccination has been expanded even to younger age groups and naturally immune who have a negligible theoretical benefit from vaccination, and a lot of medical doctors are advising young, healthy children and pregnant women to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Therefore, the article “Rational harm-benefit assessments by age group are required for continued COVID-19 vaccination” aims to raise serious concerns about the safety of vaccination, drawing the attention on the need of biodistribution studies as well as of rational harm-benefit assessments by age group.

Among the topics covered in the article, we called attention to the worrying trend of sudden deaths among athletes observed from 2021 to the end of 2022. Regarding this topic we cited the data reported on: goodsciencing.com. We used the data from the aforementioned blog because, at the time of writing, it was probably the most comprehensive record of events over the previous two years that was publicly accessible. Such choice attracted a lot of criticism and and sparked a frenzy within the fact-checking apparatus (7). Consequently, I believe it is appropriate to address this issue.

At the time of writing I made the decision not to alter the data reported on goodsciencing.com, i.e.: “1598 athlete cardiac arrests, serious issues, 1101 of them dead, since COVID injection” (8). In hindsight this was a mistake for which I want to publicly apologize, specifying that I am the only one responsible for it. In fact, the blog’s list of fatalities includes even deaths of former athletes and of people who died from causes other than cardiovascular issues. I want to make it clear that I remain firmly convinced that using the information from goodsciencing.com was the right choice, firstly because it was imperative to draw attention to the alarming issue of athletes' deaths (our priority was to capture immediately a “signal” of harm) and secondly because, even though the blog cannot be regarded as a “scientific source”, the reported events are supported by newspaper links (sometimes up to four different links per event). Having said that, in the article I should have reported only the deaths of the athletes who were still engaged in their sports at the time of death and who passed away exclusively as a result of cardiovascular issues. For this reason, on January 13^th, 2023 we wrote to the editor of the SJI asking for a corrigendum. In the updated version (published on February 20^th, 2023) we reported only the deaths of professional or semi-professional athletes, still active in their sports, who died exclusively due to cardiovascular complications, stratifying them by age. We found that from January 2021 to the end of 2022, 697 athletes (instead of 1101, reported in the initial version) under the age of 50 collapsed and died, 558 of which were ≤35 years (1). It must be noted that the number of events reported on the blog is largely underestimated, due to the difficulty to gather data from countries where the script/alphabet is not translatable.

Ultimately, I am thankful to goodsciencing.com since it is a blog run by volunteers that keep track of athlete fatalities that the established narrative tries to ignore. It is essential to reflect on these tragedies, to remember them, and to carry out thorough investigations into why they occurred in order to prevent further deaths.

I have to say that it has been incredibly “amusing” to witness for the umpteenth time during the “COVID-19 era” the strategies employed by the mainstream media and the fact-checking apparatus to push the established narrative.

The initial version of our letter to the editor of the SJI contained ~850 words, but the fact-checkers leveraged on 19 words (i.e.: “From January 2021 to the time of writing, 1598 athletes suffered cardiac arrest, 1101 of which with deadly outcome”) in order to smear the content of the whole paper, which aims to alarm the scientific and the regulatory communities about the need of more accurate biodistribution evaluations as well as of rational risk-benefit assessments by age group. The paper stresses the necessity of accurate biodistribution evaluations in light of the alarming events (like the rise in children and athlete mortality) that are occurring concurrently with the vaccination campaign, especially given the mounting body of histopathological evidence showing that the vaccine-derived spike protein can be synthesized in off-target tissues, like the heart and the brain (9). It is the responsibility of every unbiased and objective scientist to gather as much data as possible in order to establish or refute any potential association between two concurrent events. By definition, there is nothing unscientific in seeking for more accurate scientific evaluations, and anyone who tries to obstruct this process goes against the fundamental principles of the scientific method, causing grave negative effects on global health.

I wonder if the fact-checking apparatus has been “equally zealous” with numerous claims made in public during the pandemic by people with high institutional positions or of social impact. Just to recall a few examples:

I wonder if fact-checkers have been that zealous in fighting misinformation, when on March 29^th, 2021, the CDC director Rochelle Walensky stated on MSNBC that: “Vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick” (10).
I wonder if fact-checkers have been that zealous in fighting misinformation, when on May 04^th, 2021, the CEO of Pfizer Dr. Albert Bourla stated on CNBC that: “There is no variant that we have identified that escapes the protection of our vaccine” (11).
I wonder if fact-checkers have been that zealous in fighting misinformation, when on May 17^th, 2021, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Dr. Anthony Fauci stated on MSNBC that “when people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected, whether they are outdoors or indoors” (12, 13).
I wonder if fact-checkers have been that zealous in fighting misinformation, when on June 02^nd, 2021, the former director of the NIAID Dr. Anthony Fauci stated on MSNBC that “You wanna be a dead end to the virus, so when the virus comes to you, you stop it” (Figure 1) (14).

Figure 1: The former director of the NIAID Dr. Anthony Fauci during his interview on the MSNBC on June 02^nd, 2021 (screenshot from YouTube).

I wonder if fact-checkers have been that zealous in fighting misinformation when on July 21^st, 2021, the President of the US Joe Biden stated on CNN that: “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations” (15).
I wonder if fact-checkers have been that zealous in fighting misinformation when on July 23^rd, 2021, the President of the US Joe Biden stated that: “We have a pandemic among the non-vaccinated, those who are not vaccinated. If you are vaccinated, you are safe. If you are vaccinated you have over 98% chance of never catching the virus at all” (16).

I could go on for pages and pages with examples of public statements that have been loudly refuted by the facts, without the fact-checking apparatus having produced a single word to reveal the truth. Instead, the main stream media grasped at straws to justify and support the regime’s agenda during the pandemic, pulling the wool over the eyes of the global society. Below are listed some examples:

On May 31^th, 2021, the government of Peru reviewed the criteria for recording COVID deaths, broadening them to include people who died within 60 days of a positive test (!!!), as well as suspected cases without a positive test (!!!), updating the official death toll and increasing (retroactively) the number of deaths from 69,342 to 185,380 (!!!) in one day (Figure 2) (17, 18). Rather than questioning the sense of these kind of policies, the mainstream media have endorsed them, spreading fear in society.

Figure 2: Screenshot from www.bbc.com.

On December 12^th, 2021, the Express published an article, titled: “Heart attack: Does skipping breakfast increase your risk?” (Figure 3)(19).

Figure 3: Screenshot from www.express.co.uk.

On June 28^th, 2022, the New York Post published an article, titled: “Falling asleep with the TV on could bring early death: study” (Figure 4)(20).

Figure 4: Screenshot from www.nypost.com.

On July 03^rd, 2022, the Express published an article, titled: “Blood clots: How do you sleep? One position may increase the risk of deep vein thrombosis” (Figure 5)(21).

Figure 5: Screenshot from www.express.co.uk.

On July 21^st, 2022, the TimesNow published an article titled: “Heart attacks in healthy people: A popular shower habit could take the blame” (Figure 6)(22).

Figure 6: Screenshot from www.timesnownews.com.

On July 25^th, 2022, CNN published an article, titled: “Napping regularly linked to high blood pressure and stroke, study finds” (Figure 7)(23).

Figure 7: Screenshot from www.cnn.com.

On July 27^th, 2022, Fortune published an interview to Dr. Stuart Ray, vice chair of medicine for data integrity and analytics at Johns Hopkins’ Department of Medicine, titled: “Think you have Omicron but keep testing negative? An expert says to trust your gut: ‘If you feel confident you have COVID, you probably have COVID” (Figure 8)(24).

Figure 8: Screenshot from www.fortune.com.

On July 29^th, 2022, the Mirror published an article titled: “University student 'dies of joy' after hearing he'd passed his exams with flying colours” (Figure 9)(25). Despite the fact that the vaccination status of Mubarak Hussein Sayed Abdel-Jalil (22 years old) remains unknown, this is a clear example of “normalization” of sudden death among young people.

Figure 9: Screenshot from www.mirror.co.uk.

On October 14^th, 2022, AP News published an article titled: “Posts mislead on Pfizer COVID vaccine’s impact on transmission” (Figure 10) (26), in an attempt to pervert the meaning of Janine Small’s own words, when she admitted to the European Parliament that the Pfizer vaccine had never been tested on preventing transmission before entering the market, and to distract the focus from the main issue, i.e.: That up until that moment, many governments had implemented several policies, such as mandatory vaccinations, on the basis that vaccination was preventing transmission.

Figure 10: Screenshot from www.apnews.com.

On March 27^th, 2023, the Washington Times published an article titled: “Study finds negative attitudes amplify vaccine side effects” (Figure 11)(27).

Figure 11: Screenshot from www.washingtontimes.com.

On April 09^th, 2023, the Daily Mail published an article titled: “Do YOU live under a flight path? You may be at risk of a heart attack: Study finds rates are 70 PER CENT higher in noisiest areas” (Figure 12)(28).

Figure 12: Screenshot from www.dailymail.co.uk.

Even though several of the above-mentioned newspaper articles are based on scientific studies (note: I am not questioning the quality of the results and the science behind those studies), over the past three years the mainstream media have done an ostentatious effort to spread fear among society, to endorse every kind of pandemic policy (regardless its sense), to propagandize vaccination, to minimize any possibility of adverse reactions related to the genetic vaccines, and to normalize heart attacks and sudden deaths among young and healthy people. Suddenly, it looks like everything in this world is causing heart attacks and blood clots, except one thing…

In the words of Scott Bennett, former US Army psychological warfare officer, who commented about Tucker Carlson’s firing by Fox News “institutions and agendas that seek an unenlightened uninformed semi lobotomized quasi retarded population that do not question, do not research, do not analyze but simply digest and follow instructions” (29).

Despite what the narrative pushed by the mainstream media is telling you, young, healthy people should not randomly collapse and die suddenly at these rates. You don’t have to take my word for that, all you have to do is to recall your personal memory database from the pre-pandemic era.

Perhaps some people are going to use the weak justification that they acted in accordance with the “general consensus” and the prevailing scientific opinion, in order to contain the spread of the deadly virus and to overcome vaccine hesitancy. In fact, someone is already talking of “pandemic amnesty” (Figure 13)(30).

Figure 13: Screenshot from www.theatlantic.com.

However, the pain and the deep wounds that such policies caused in our society are likely going to outweigh by far any kind of justification.

Let’s never forget what was done during the “COVID-19 era”, and let’s do all in our power to prevent similar policies from being implemented again. The future of humanity depends on it.

Dr. Panagis Polykretis Substack

Discussion about this post