Newly Leaked Data Shows Just How Dangerous the COVID

Vaccines Are
Analysis by A Midwestern Doctor December 09, 2023

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

 There is a longstanding precedent for the government to protect "emergency" vaccines

that were rushed to market by concealing the evidence those vaccines are harming
people and stonewalling attempts to make safer vaccines

 The vaccine adverse event reporting system was created because vaccine safety
activists forced the government to create a database of vaccine injuries which the public
had the legal right to view

 VAERS data is often dismissed because it is "unscientific." However, each time a "more
scientific" vaccine safety monitoring system is created, the government refuses to
release its data — because, as we’ve seen throughout COVID-19, those data sets show
the vaccines are in fact quite dangerous

 Recently a New Zealand whistleblower, at great personal risk, released a vaccine payment
database indicating that a significant number of people were being killed by the vaccine.
This data is consistent with other leaked government datasets

Throughout my lifetime, I have heard people claim that the future will bring better
technology and that science will make the world a better place and solve all our
problems. Yet, again and again, these promises fail to materialize, and we are
perpetually stuck waiting for science’s promised future.

In many cases however, the technology was in fact developed. The problem however
was that the technology’s development threatened someone’s ability to make money (or
gain power) so the technology was buried and never saw the light of day.

For example, throughout COVID-19 we heard numerous promises that a solution to the
pandemic was around the corner (e.g., the miraculous vaccines) yet each time an un-
patentable solution (e.g., ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine) was found, the pandemic-
industrial-complex ruthless suppressed it to ensure their grift could continue.

Within the field of data, a similar issue exists. The mantra from Silicon Valley which has
gradually entered the rest of the culture is that "more data" is the solution to all of our
problems. However, once that data gets in the way of someone’s ability to make money,
it often never sees the light of day.

In a recent article, I showed how there have been numerous vaccine disasters where a
rushed vaccine was developed, the FDA was warned by its own scientists the vaccine
was not safe (often due to its rushed production method) and then rather than heed
those warnings, the government chose to bring the vaccine to market and have every
authority repeat the mantra that the vaccine was "safe and effective."

Then once Americans began to be injected and data started accumulating showing the
vaccine was indeed not safe, the government instead chose to double-down on its
position, insisting the vaccine was safe and doing whatever it could to cover up that
inconvenient data — all of which also happened with the COVID-19 vaccines.

In each of the past vaccine disasters, the dangers of the vaccine were eventually
exposed by the media, before long the unsafe vaccine was pulled from the market, and
ultimately, there was some degree of accountability (e.g., the responsible officials had to
resign or the victims received financial compensation through the courts).

Seeing that this was not good for business, the vaccine industry in turn adopted a few
strategies which radically tilted the deck in their favor:

• Bill Clinton in 1997 legalized direct to consumer pharmaceutical (drug)

advertisement (something only otherwise legal in New Zealand). Since most of the
pharmaceutical industry’s expenditures are in advertising, this allowed them to
 become the dominant advertisers on television, and within a few years, the
networks stopped being willing to air stories critical of vaccinations, even when the
CEO personally supported the story being aired.

Note: The final unsafe vaccine the American media exposed was George W. Bush’s
2002 "emergency" smallpox vaccine (which rapidly ended the program because there
were too many injuries in the military). Not long after, in 2006, the incredibly
dangerous HPV vaccine entered the market, and despite a deluge of injuries, the
American media would not touch it — instead it was exposed by a Danish network in
2015.

• Vaccine manufacturers were exempted from liability for their products — instead
vaccine injuries were delegated to a federal compensation program which only
allowed a narrow range of injuries to receive compensation. This understandably
took away the industry’s motivation to produce safer vaccines.

• The vaccine industry worked with the FDA to create a variety of regulations for
"emergency" vaccines which waived both the existing requirements to prove safety
or efficacy and the ability to pursue the manufacturers in the legal system (either by
directly suing them or though the federal vaccine injury compensation program).

Note: The "compensation" program for the COVID vaccines, according to a 2/21/23
congressional report has thus far not provided compensation to anyone injured by
these "emergency" products.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

In 1986, an Act was passed by Congress to address the growing problem of vaccine
injuries. Many remember this act because it gave legal immunity to the manufacturers
through the federal compensation program. However, what’s less appreciated about it is
that the activists also were able to force two other provisions into it.

First the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services was to appoint a
Director and a National Vaccine Advisory Committee that would guide the federal
agencies to:

"Develop the techniques needed to produce safe and effective vaccines.

Coordinate and provide direction for safety and efficacy testing of vaccines.

Promote the development of childhood vaccines that result in fewer and less
serious adverse reactions than those vaccines on the market [in 1986].

Make or assure improvements in … the licensing, manufacturing, processing,

testing, labeling, warning, use instructions, distribution, storage, administration,
field surveillance, adverse reaction reporting, and recall of reactogenic lots or
batches, of vaccines, and research on vaccines, in order to reduce the risks of
adverse reactions to vaccines."

Note: This has been a longstanding problem with vaccines — hence why the activists
insisted something would be done about the hot-lot issue (as the DPT makers did not
want to spend a bit more on manufacturing so hot-lots didn’t get out to the public).

Additionally, the Secretary was expected to:

"Within 2 years [of 1986] and periodically thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare
and transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the
Senate a report describing the actions taken [to make safer vaccines].

Within 3 years [of 1986] complete a review of all relevant medical and scientific
information [including the research mentioned above] on the link between DPT
[and MMR] vaccination and the following conditions …"

Note: Once this report was completed, the secretary was to submit it to Congress, make it
publicly available it and modify the vaccine injury table so those conditions would also be
covered by the national vaccine injury compensation program, and then repeat this
process at least once every 3 years.
The vaccine industry really did not want to do this, so except for DPT (where outside
pressures forced them to), those safer vaccines never got made. In turn, the federal
bureaucracy [e.g., the FDA and CDC] got around this law by simply choosing to be non-
compliant — something RFK Jr. and Aaron Siri finally proved in 2014 when the H.H.S.
admitted in court it had not done much of what the act required.

Note: Since 1986, very few conditions have been added to the table of vaccine injuries
that will be covered. For reference, those injuries are: rapid-onset chronic arthritis,
thrombocytopenic purpura specific autoimmune disorders and catching measles from the
MMR vaccine, intussusception from the rotavirus vaccine, and Guillain-Barré Syndrome
from the flu vaccine.

Second, it became mandatory to report vaccine injuries (although in practice this

happens less than 10% of the time) and for those reports:

"… all information reported under this section shall be available to the public."

Note: An exception was made for personally identifying medical information.

This gave birth to VAERS, the system we now use to report adverse reactions to
vaccines and independent researchers around the world in turn use to assess the safety
of various vaccines.

This provision was put in because those early vaccine safety activists had over and over
run into the same problem we still face now — doctors and vaccine manufacturers
refused to report the injury (to avoid liability) and the government refused to share any
of the information it had demonstrating vaccines were unsafe, which in turn was used to
argue there was "no evidence" vaccines were unsafe.

Once VAERS broke their information blockade, the government then switched to doing
everything it could to undermine the system, such as:

• Continually attacking its credibility and reliability (and likewise having the scientific
establishment fail to do the same).
 • Refusing to fix it when solutions were proposed (e.g., in 2010, an AI system was
created that detected far more vaccine injuries and concluded VAERS was only
identifying 1% of those that were occurring — as you might expect, that system was
never adopted).

• Failing to hire the staff needed to run it. This in turn, became a huge problem once
the COVID vaccines entered the market (as we went from 50,000 reported injuries a
year — which the staff at VAERS could not handle to over 1.7 million from the COVID
vaccines).

In turn, as a recent investigation from a premier medical journal showed, VAERS

has not received the staff it needed to process those injuries and has abjectly failed
to fulfill its responsibility throughout COVID-19.

Note: At the time the COVID vaccines got an emergency use authorization, on a now
deleted page [archived here], when explaining how vaccine safety would be
monitored, the FDA stated that the U.S. government "has a well-established post-
authorization/post-approval vaccine safety monitoring infrastructure that has been
scaled up to meet the needs of a large-scale COVID-19 vaccination program," and
specifically listed VAERS as part of that infrastructure.

V-Safe

Since VAERS had many alleged shortcomings (e.g., you had no idea how many people
were being sampled by it and you had no idea if the reports were being legitimate), a
new system was created for the COVID-19 vaccines to effectively evaluate if they were
indeed "safe and effective." However, before long, vaccine safety advocates noticed two
major issues.

First, it was not possible to easily input many of the injuries into V-Safe that were
commonly occurring after the COVID-19 vaccines. Second, the public was not given
access to the raw data. Instead, we were given curated assessments of the data from
"trusted" experts, who not surprisingly, concluded the V-Safe data showed the COVID
vaccines were safe.

Fortunately, ICAN was familiar with these tactics and after 463 days of work defeated
the CDC in the courts with an appropriately drafted FOIA request. From that data, ICAN
discovered that those "trusted" experts lied and V-Safe actually showed numerous red
flags with the COVID-19 vaccines (although much of the V-Safe data sadly has still not
been made available).

Note: A similar issue exists throughout the pharmaceutical industry as it will repeatedly
conduct trials that show their drug or vaccine is quite dangerous, and then concoct a way
to hide those dangers from the final trial report.

The industry is able to get away with this because neither the government nor medical
profession (both of whom are often taking money from the industry) calls out that
behavior and because Big Pharma has successfully lobbied for its trial data to be deemed
proprietary and thus permissible to withhold from the public.

Burying Inconvenient Data

In short, as I tried to demonstrate here, and in the first, second and third part of this
series, the government has proven time and time again that it will bury data that
indicates a vaccine is dangerous or makes the public doubt its declarations that all
vaccines are "safe and effective."

This in effect shows why "more data" is not our salvation as we will only be fed a curated
picture of it that shows what the establishment wants us to see — rather than an
inconvenient truth which requires us to fix an existing problem and actually make the
world a better place.

Note: The one place where data has "made things better" is in marketing — as in that
industry, there is a financial incentive to have accurate data as that is needed to maximize
sales.
So throughout COVID-19, since the government deliberately withheld almost all the data
that the COVID vaccines are harmful, we in turn instead have had to use the following
data sources:

• Anecdotal ones (e.g., this Substack started almost two years ago after I decided to
publish a log of all the injuries occurring within my personal circle, which included
45 fatal or likely to be fatal vaccine injuries) — These reports tend be reflexively
dismissed as "not being credible" but since they are so frequent and so many are
seeing them, it has not been possible to gaslight the population into believing they
just "random coincidences" (especially since the sudden cardiac deaths in the
young was is so unmistakably unusual).

Note: Large polls have likewise shown this. One for example found almost half of
Americans believed they were suffering from side effects of the vaccine (with 7%
characterizing them as "major"), another found half of Americans believed the
vaccines were killing people, and a recent one found a quarter of Americans knew
someone they believe had been killed by the vaccine.

• Data from clinical trials — Since it is often quite difficult to clearly untangle what a
pharmaceutical does once it gets into the market (as so many other variables get
added to the picture), the general consensus is that the risks and benefits of it need
to be determined in the controlled environment of a clinical trial.

Unfortunately, as there is often so much money on the line, pharmaceutical

companies will inevitably rig their trials to favor of their drug (which is why truly
independent studies consistently paint a quite a different picture of each drug). In
the case of the COVID vaccines, not only were the trials clearly deceptive but
numerous whistleblowers came forward testifying as such. Sadly, their testimonies
were almost completely ignored.

Note: Despite all of this, the data on the COVID-19 vaccines was still bad enough that
the published data made it clear the vaccines were not safe. This is largely because
the one thing which is very difficult to hide (e.g., by reclassifying the event) in a
 clinical trial is how many people in each group died. As a result, I typically consider
the primary metric to judge a trial by its effect on overall mortality.

• Population wide datasets showing a massive increase in deaths and disabilities —

Since COVID occurred throughout 2020, whereas the vaccines were introduced at
the start of 2021, those datasets frequently make it quite easy to identify the impact
of the vaccines.

Note: Ed Dowd’s team has done an excellent job of compiling this data, showing the
immense cost it has had for our economy and demonstrating that it is statistically
impossible it could have happened by chance.

• Data the government withheld that was obtained through lawsuits — The previously
mentioned CDC V-Safe data is one example. Likewise, the documents Pfizer
submitted for their FDA approval which ICAN also obtained through the courts is
another example.

Note: The "FDA approved" vaccine (Comirnaty by Pfizer) was never actually brought
to the market.

This was done so it could be claimed the COVID-19 vaccine was "FDA approved" (and
thus possible for various groups to mandate), but simultaneously, for the dangerous
 vaccine to retain the blanket liability shield its Emergency Use Authorization provides
(hence you can only obtain the EUA but not FDA approved Pfizer vaccine). In essence,
we have a situation analogous to Schrödinger's cat.

• Data leaked by whistleblowers — Since the government never will voluntarily

disclose data which makes it look bad, data that can only be obtained through
leakers inevitably is quite concerning. Similarly, whenever data of this type is
requested, the government will always find ways make an unlimited number of
excuses to not release that data (e.g., it doesn’t have it or releasing it would violate
patient privacy).

Medicare Data

Steve Kirsch has been leading the charge to get the data which will objectively show
how safe and effectives the vaccines actually are. Since he has reliably published that
information and protected his sources, numerous whistleblowers have contacted him
and shared data they risked their livelihoods to obtain.

One of Kirsch’s fundamental principles has been that record level data (raw data) that
combines vaccination status with mortality is needed for the world to assess if the
vaccines are saving lives or killing people.

Since Medicare has one of the most comprehensive data sources to answer that
question (as Medicare tracks when each member is vaccinated and when they die),
Kirsch has been working diligently to get that data. Likewise, Medicare was cited by the
FDA in the same way VAERS was — as a way to monitor the safety and efficacy of the
vaccines.

Note: All the graphs that follow were produced by Steve Kirsch).

First, let’s first look at a typical vaccine:

While it’s not entirely safe (e.g., I’ve admitted an elderly patient to the hospital who
suffered a zeta potential collapse from the pneumococcal vaccine), the pneumococcal
vaccine is fairly unlikely to kill you, and has a small chance of saving your life from
pneumococcal pneumonia. Rather, most of the issues it creates are chronic in nature
and take more time to show up.

In turn, if we look at the graph, we notice a few things. First, there is a drop the risk of
dying (mortality) immediately after receiving the vaccine. This is a result of the "Healthy
Vaccine Effect" which highlights that sick people at risk of dying are less likely to be
vaccinated, and for this reason, the brief initial drop in each graph needs to ignored.

Note: The one spike at the very start most likely represents the small portion of patients
who have a severe and immediate reaction to the vaccine like the patient I discussed
above.

Secondly, the overall risk of dying stays steady after receiving the vaccine, and if
anything is slightly reduced (which I believe comes from the vaccine actually doing what
is supposed to do). In short, the above graph is representative of a relatively safe
vaccine.

Next, lets go to the flu shot, a vaccine I consider to be more problematic and likely to
injure you (e.g., I’ve run into far more cases of significant injuries following the flu
vaccine):

As you can see, there is a distinct spike (roughly 15%) in death following vaccination
before the death rate returns to baseline. Now let’s look at what happens with the
COVID-19 vaccines:
Here we instead have a spike that never regresses and instead continues increasing to
30% above baseline. What that seems a bit abstract, it’s a huge deal and provides a
concise way to quantify the wave of death we are seeing around us.

Note: Given that that same trend is not seen in the flu or pneuomcoccal vaccines which
were given in the same time period, it is difficult to argue anything besides the COVID-19
vaccine could be causing it.

Let’s next look at the death trends from one, two and three COVID vaccines.

Note: The drop off at the end is likely due to the data series being incomplete.
Let’s quickly put all of that together into a chart Steve notated:

New Zealand’s Data

Recently, an insider at New Zealand’s ministry of health provided Steve with records
tagged to the individual’s age, time of vaccination, number of vaccinations, and date of
death (if applicable). This was extremely useful for untangling what is going on,
particularly given that New Zealand has a relative small population (5.2 million people)
and is known for having relatively good record keeping.

This data set comprised 4,193,438 vaccination records (approximately 12 million COVID
vaccinations have been administered in New Zealand), and was composed of 2,215,730
unique individuals (37,285 of whom died). So in essence, it covered a third of the
vaccinations and slightly over half of the population. Let’s see what it found:

This graph again shows that the COVID vaccine dramatically increases your risk of dying
(Mortality Risk or "MR"), and sadly, that this effect persists for months afterwards.
Likewise, that risk increases as you get more of the vaccines.
This is important because it is both consistent with what we’ve seen throughout the
vaccination campaign (the vaccine toxicity increases with each successive dose) and
the general laws of toxicology (more doses of a toxin are more likely to kill someone).
The next chart is what I consider to be one of the saddest ones:
Throughout my medical career, I have heard a few stories I could never confirm (e.g.,
from a nurse who had worked at a facility years ago) of an influenza vaccination
campaign being followed by a significant number of deaths in the nursing home.

The best explanation I was able to come up with for those events was that the elderly
tend to have a poorer physiologic zeta potential (due to declining kidney function) and
as a result, they are much less able to tolerate the additional impairment in zeta
potential that either an infection (e.g., the flu) or a vaccine can create.

However, while I believed this was an issue, the effects I observed were less overt (e.g.,
the progressive cognitive decline following the vaccine) rather than overt and life-
threatening (e.g., while it happened, it was quite rare I admitted someone to the hospital
for a vaccine injury in the pre-COVID vaccine era).

Note: Suzanne Humphries MD, a nephrologist who has done a great deal of important
work exposing the dangers of vaccines said her work in this field was started her
observation the flu shot would frequently precipitate a kidney injury that required
hospitalization or worsen it in a patient who had already been hospitalized for one.

Once the COVID-19 vaccines hit the market, one of the most common stories I heard
was an elderly patient who had rapid cognitive decline after the vaccine and then died
shortly afterwards. In each case, while the relative was certain it was caused by the
vaccine, the death was written off as "Alzheimer’s" or "old age."

I, in turn, believe much of this resulted from these vaccines being much more toxic than
the typical vaccine (e.g., they had a much larger effect on the physiologic zeta potential).

This wave of injuries was particularly depressing to watch, because even when large
clusters of deaths occurred at a nursing home following the vaccination no one seemed
to want to acknowledge this was a problem and reconsider the vaccinations. Rather,
before long, the residents often got boosted.

Note: In addition to numerous examples where this was documented, I know of one
worker who witnessed it first hand at their facility but had no avenues to report what he
was seeing.

Remarkably enough, in medicine, one of the central dogmas when caring for the elderly
is that they are "vulnerable" patients who need to be protected since they often lack the
ability to advocate for themselves.

While I completely agree with this (you see many sad cases of the elderly being taken
advantage of because they cannot protect themselves), that dogma goes out the
window for vaccines because of the widespread belief they are "100% safe and
effective."

In turn, the medical field believes the elderly should always be vaccinated as much as
possible regardless of the injuries that occur from doing so or how unclear their consent
was to being vaccinated in the first place.

Note: One of the most important things to appreciate about this data is that the deaths
are only the tip of the iceberg, and for each death, there are a significantly greater number
of chronic and debilitating injuries (e.g., Dowd’s team found there were 10-20 times as
many disabilities as deaths).

Replicating the Data

Many of the physician authors I believe have done the best job illustrating the crimes of
the pharmaceutical industry have had a common mantra — the data for the drugs we
consume must be made public. Yet, over and over this never happens, and those authors
in turn are able to show the catastrophic harm that occurs from the data being kept
secret.

Conversely, Kirsh’s aim has been to make all the data he has collected be available to the
public so everyone can access it and verify his claims (which can be accessed here).

Note: Datasets from a variety of sources are posted in the Wasabi folders. With the
spreadsheets containing the NZ data, each column was randomized so that the statistics
of the dataset would be maintained, but personally identifying information would not be.

In turn, before publishing this, I attempted to see if I could replicate Kirsch’s findings and
see what else I could find within the dataset. Since many graphs have been produced
showing an increase in mortality following the vaccine rollout, I decided to see how the
deaths in the vaccinated would compare to the total deaths in the population.

To create this sheet, in addition to Kirsch’s data, I also utilized Google’s dataset of how
many people had received at least one dose, and New Zealand’s monthly death rates
(e.g., this one).
Note: If you use the randomized data Steve has provided to create this chart, the sheet
you will produce will be very similar but slightly different from this one. Additionally, the
peak in deaths is more pronounced if you were to instead make this chart with the elderly.

What all of this data (and others like countless VAERS analyses) have shown is that the
COVID vaccines have killed millions of people, and that the majority of those deaths
occur months after the shot and predominantly affect the elderly.

If you have a background in data analysis, I would strongly advise you try to look at the
data as well, both to confirm for yourself the vaccines are indeed harmful and to see
what else you can find in the dataset.

New Zealand’s Data Analyst Goes Public

On November 28th, the chief data analyst for New Zealand (and the source of the above
data) decided to go public and disclose what he was uniquely positioned to observe with
the vaccination roll-out. Specifically, he found that there was a massive spike in deaths
immediately following the vaccines being deployed.

Furthermore, he also shared that in a few instances, hot lots were being given that killed
between 4.5% - 21.3% of the recipients and that a few vaccinators had between a 10% -
24% death rate in those they vaccinated, but for some reason did not speak up. His
entire presentation can be seen in the video below and helps put into words what it is
like to be shouldered with the responsibility he had (while everyone else was staying
silent).

Note: An 8 minute shortened version of this video can be viewed in this article.

Conclusion

Ever since I first saw how over the top the efforts were to sell the COVID vaccines, my
belief has been that marketing and sales would predict everything which would happen
with them. More specifically, each time a market was capped, the rules would be
changed so a new market could be opened up. To illustrate:

Initially the vaccines were sold under a scarcity model to get as many people as
possible to receive them.

Once the scarcity model stopped working, they were traditionally marketed to the
population.

Once that market was capped, bribes (e.g., gift cards) were given to incentivize more
people to vaccinate.

Note: Many of those bribes were so ridiculous (e.g., drugs, donuts and sex) they made
many realize there had to be something wrong with the vaccines.

Once that market was capped soft mandates (e.g., to travel or go to a bar or to a
concert) were implemented.

Once that market was capped, hard mandates were implemented (e.g., losing your job
or being kicked out of your educational program).

Once that market was capped, they started pushing the vaccine on children.
 Once that market was capped, they decided the vaccine actually didn’t fully protect
you and boosters were needed.

Once that market was capped, they decided more boosters were needed and
eventually that the vaccine would instead become an annual shot.

As I watched this predictable chain of events, I also told many people that once it was
clear the vaccines could not be sold anymore, they would begin acknowledging the
injuries were real (e.g., Yale recently published a paper on "Post Vaccination Syndrome"
which will likely be shared throughout the medical community). This would of course be
done so they could pivot to selling proprietary pharmaceutical drugs that could be used
to treat the vaccine injuries.

Note: I suspect this new wave of therapeutics will also include monoclonal antibodies to
the original spike protein (which Biden took off the market) and complement factor B
inhibitors, new anticoagulants and the existing (but expensive) intravenous
immunoglobulin therapy.

At this point, all of us believe the healthcare authorities are fully aware of the current
disaster and are doing everything they can to cover it up. In turn, we expect a few people
will be thrown under the bus to protect the industry so business can essentially continue
as usual. I believe things are very close to a tipping point now because:

The majority of the population knows the vaccines are not safe or effective.

More evidence (and leaks) keeps on emerging of the vaccine’s harm.

There is no longer a financial incentive to cover that up and the funding to keep
pushing for them to be on the market (since no one will buy them). Rather the
incentive is now to pivot to the even more profitable treatment of them.

Getting to this point we are now has taken a lot of work from many dedicated activists,
and I want to sincerely thank Steve for the work he’s put into gathering this data. After he
informed me of what he was putting together, I realized the importance of it and hence
spent the last two weeks compiling this series which could put those leaks into context.
I hope it was helpful for each of you and provided a human face to the immense amount
of human suffering which is encapsulated within the abstract data points presented in
this article.

A Note From Dr. Mercola About the Author

A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician in the Midwest and a longtime

reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate his exceptional insight on a wide range of topics
and I'm grateful to share them. I also respect his desire to remain anonymous as he is
still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD's work, be sure to check out
The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.