17.4 C
Friday, March 1, 2024
HomeNewsNew study of mRNA vaccine phase III trial data finds rate of...

Popular Now

Guy Hatchard
Guy Hatchardhttps://hatchardreport.com/
Guy Hatchard PhD is a statistician and former senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food safety testing and certification laboratory. Guy's book 'Your DNA Diet' is available on Amazon.com.

New study of mRNA vaccine phase III trial data finds rate of serious adverse events was 12.5 per 10,000 above the background rate

A greater number than the Covid-19 hospitalization risk reduction.

This study raises truly serious doubts about the advisability of mRNA Covid vaccines. The co-authors include Sander Greenland, Emeritus Professor of Epidemiology and Statistics at UCLA and the co-author of the premiere text book on epidemiology. Professor Greenland is a world-leading expert on the postmarketing surveillance of drugs, vaccines, and medical devices.

The paper concludes:

“The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes such as hospitalization or death.”

It is of note that this conclusion undermines the last remaining argument relied upon by governments and mainstream media to support the continued use of mRNA Covid vaccines, namely that they improve hospitalisation and death outcomes.

So far there are 4.11 million people in New Zealand fully vaccinated. The study’s conclusions suggest that more than 4,000 NZers will have suffered serious adverse effects from Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccination. It demolishes the persistent contention of Medsafe that Covid vaccine adverse events are primarily non-serious and occur at rates lower than background rates.

The study provides suggestive support for our contention that the elevated rates of all cause mortality we are seeing in New Zealand are related to vaccination.

It supports our contention that Medsafe has mistakenly and too hurriedly dismissed as unrelated a wide range of adverse effects observed in New Zealand post vaccination.
It supports our contention that at-risk individuals, including those injured by their first dose, have been wrongly denied vaccine exemptions.

It supports our contention that unvaccinated individuals have taken a wise decision to avoid risk based on scientific information and assessment.

The study analyses the phase III trial data of Pfizer and Moderna. It applies the criteria established by the Brighton Collaboration and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations partnership, Safety Platform for Emergency vaccines (SPEAC), which created and subsequently updated a “priority list of potential adverse events of special interest relevant to COVID-19 vaccine trials.” This approach has been endorsed by the WHO.

The exhaustive analysis of the long list of adverse events of special interest indicated some areas of particular concern including coagulation disorders, colitis/enteritis, arthritis, cholecystitis, and acute respiratory distress.

The authors note that it is still the case that key details about the phase III trial outcomes remain unavailable, saying:

“A systematic review and meta-analysis using individual participant data should be undertaken to address questions of harm-benefit in various demographic subgroups. Full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed to properly evaluate these questions. Unfortunately, well over a year after widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines, participant level data remains inaccessible.”

We also note that the study is limited to particular phase III trial data, it does not therefore cover longer term adverse health outcomes of vaccination. We also note substantive concerns raised in other papers and forums about the integrity of data in Pfizer and Moderna trials where adverse events were excluded and remained unreported.

This paper carefully asks probing questions and provides answers that Medsafe should have sought from Pfizer from the outset. It highlights the potential risks associated with the rapid introduction of the new biotechnology vaccines. Even analysis of the preliminary trial data from vaccine manufacturers should have raised alarm bells among those charged with protecting the New Zealand public.

  • It underlines the need to immediately pause the saturation advertising still being undertaken in New Zealand advising safety and efficacy of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine
  • It validates those including doctors and researchers who have been raising concerns through public dialogue, correspondence, and in the courts.
  • It silently criticises the suppression of public debate mandated by the government and all political parties, supported by mainstream media.

The study shows how the New Zealand pandemic response will come to be regarded as a chapter of great shame in our history.

Promoted Content

No login required to comment. Name, email and web site fields are optional. Please keep comments respectful, civil and constructive. Moderation times can vary from a few minutes to a few hours. Comments may also be scanned periodically by Artificial Intelligence to eliminate trolls and spam.


  1. Jacinda’s contribution is to politicalise NZ health system, create divisions in the name of equity, take away professional freedom of doctors and nurses and reduce them to walking robots and silence them, centralise all decision making by those who have health qualifications, force Pharmac and other bodies to simply adopt CDC and other overseas advice, give unlimited access to big Pharma and big Tech to our ha data, reduce normal health services to a bare minimum level, increase waiting list for surgeries, prescribe more and more antidepressants to kiwis, ban all natural health practices or place as much restrictions as possible, make healty food beyond the reach of kiwis and export all healthy food overseas, create worst housing crisis and force renters live in third world conditions and poorly heated homes creating asthma and other allergies, irrationally jab younger population who are going to suffer for years to come, push DHBs to a crisis poiint so that an American model provate life insurance to form a solid base in NZ, and the list can go on.

    The “team of 5 million” slogan does not supplant science or logic. Just a satanistic low life who came into our life as a curse.

  2. Thanks for your great articles Guy.
    If your 400,000 Kiwi’s injured is based on 12.5 per 10000 shouldn’t the number be around 5000?

  3. Hi Clive I have emailed the editor to correct the 400,000 figure. It was my mistake. Hopefully he will get around to it soon The study focuses directly on the serious adverse effects of the Pfizer and Moderna phase III trials which occupied a short period of time soon after vaccination, it doesn’t take account of the long term effects or of minor adverse effects. Moreover it is known that Pfizer and Moderna excluded data including some very serious outcomes. The actual extent of the effects of the vaccine is undoubtedly much larger, especially over the longer term. Even so, the rate of serious adverse effects noted by this study is considerably larger than anything admitted by Medsafe to date. Medsafe and Bloomfield have been maintaining that serious adverse effects are limited to myopericarditis at a rate of 3 per 100,000 whereas this study pinpoints serious effects at 12 per 10,000 40 times higher. The even larger total figure that we both believe is not supported by published papers because everyone has stopped measuring adverse effects and is generally in denial. I will have to chalk my mistake one up to confirmation bias. I was not totally on the ball this morning.

    Of particular interest here is the denial of of ACC benefits to many people based on Medsafe’s contention that most adverse effects are not caused by vaccination. This study should change this ACC process, but cynically speaking it probably won’t change at least until someone takes this to the courts



  4. Well, the estimate of excess serious adverse events of 12.5 per 10000 over placebo baselines does not reveal the whole story. mRNA injuries are enduring in nature. Given that the study period is a small window in someone’s life, the authors must have used a right truncated distribution to estimate the excess risk.

    mrNA jab related serious adverse events are also deliberately misclassified. We all know the “with covid” fraud.

    A simple commonsense comparison of serious adverse events due to mRNA jab when compared to a similar case namely flu jab suggests that the risk is several hundred times greater. Have you heard of a serious adverse event after a flu jab? Rarely. On the other hand, there are hundreds of stories in your own known little circle of family and friends.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here



clear sky
11.4 ° C
13.8 °
9.8 °
92 %
0 %
16 °
19 °
19 °
17 °
19 °
-- Free Ads --spot_img