UK Makes First Payments to Compensate Injury or Death from Vaccines | The Most Revolutionary Act

https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2022/06/24/uk-makes-first-payments-to-compensate-injury-or-death-from-vaccines/

Jacqui Wise

British Medical Journal

The first compensation payments in the UK have been made to families who have been bereaved, or to people who have been injured, as a result of a covid-19 vaccine.

Vikki Spit from Cumbria is believed to be the first person to receive compensation, after her 48 year old partner, Zion, became ill eight days after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine. Zion, a former rock singer, died at the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle in May 2021.

A handful of other people have received payments in the past few days under the government’s vaccine damage payment scheme (VDPS), which pays out up to a maximum of £120 000 (€140 000; $150 000).

Sarah Moore, a partner at the Hausfeld law firm, which is representing people seeking compensation, told The BMJ it was an important moment. “While the VDPS payments are very modest in amount, and will do very little to alleviate the financial difficulties with which many families are now struggling as a consequence of injury or bereavement, the fact of payment for some will mark a moment of vindication in that it is the clearest statement yet, by the government, that in some rare instances the covid-19 vaccines have caused very significant injury or death.”

However, it was “far too little, too late,” she said. “With a 60% disability eligibility criteria, a historical acceptance rate of 1.7%, and a maximum cap of £120 000, the inadequacies of the scheme mean that some families will have no choice but to look at litigation in order to access substantive financial support.”

Moore added that she believed that most of the payments so far have been made as a result of an individual experiencing vaccine induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) or cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) after vaccination. But she said she knew of one payment for someone who had developed Guillain-Barré syndrome after covid-19 vaccination.

The NHS Business Services Authority, the body that handles the VDPS, confirmed that as of 20 May 2022 it had received 1681 claims in relation to covid-19 vaccines. A spokesperson emphasised that the VDPS was not a compensation scheme but one for payments to help ease the financial burden for those people who are severely disabled as a result of vaccination against a specific disease. All claims are medically assessed by an independent, third party medical assessor.

“The covid-19 vaccines are new. Establishing a causal relationship between the vaccines and their potential adverse effects is not a straightforward matter and has taken time,” the spokesperson told The BMJ. “It was vital we didn’t make assessments before the scientific evidence reached a more settled position, to avoid claims resulting in inconsistent outcomes, or disadvantaging claimants.

“We have to follow due process when progressing claims to ensure they are assessed in a fair and consistent way. As part of this process we must ensure that decisions are made based on all the evidence available. This requires gaining access to people’s medical notes and their previous medical history, so that the assessor can, having looked at all the evidence, determine whether there is a causal link and level of disability in each individual claim.”

The spokesperson said that the average (non-covid related) claim takes around six months to process from the date a claimant’s medical records are requested, because of the need to gather records from the claimants’ GPs, medical care providers, local authorities, or other relevant healthcare providers. “This can vary from case to case, and for covid-19 claims it has taken longer. We understand the frustration this is causing for claimants, and we appreciate their continued patience. We have scaled up a dedicated team of caseworkers to help speed up this process, support claimants through the application process, and provide regular updates on the progress of claims.

“Based on current timescales, once medical records have been sent for assessment, we expect to receive an outcome for most cases from the independent medical assessor within 12 weeks.”

Via https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1565.short

CDC Admits It Never Monitored VAERS for COVID Vaccine Safety Signals | Aletho News

https://alethonews.com/2022/06/22/cdc-admits-it-never-monitored-vaers-for-covid-vaccine-safety-signals/

By Josh Guetzkow, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 21, 2022

In a stunning development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) last week admitted — despite assurances to the contrary — the agency never analyzed the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines.

The admission was revealed in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by Children’s Health Defense (CHD).

In September 2021, I published an article in The Defender in which I used the CDC’s published methodology to analyze VAERS for safety signals from COVID-19 vaccines.

The signals were loud and clear, leading me to wonder “why is nobody listening?”

Instead, I should have asked, “Is anybody even looking for them?”

After that article was published, I urged CHD’s legal team to submit a FOIA request to the CDC about its VAERS monitoring activities.

Since CDC officials stated publicly that “COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring is the most robust in U.S. history,” I had assumed that at the very least, CDC officials were monitoring VAERS using the methods they described in a briefing document posted on the CDC website in January 2021 (and updated in February 2022, with minor changes).

I was wrong.

The lynchpin of their safety monitoring was to mine VAERS data for safety signals by calculating what are known as proportional reporting ratios (PRR’s).

This is a method of comparing the proportion of different types of adverse events reported for a new vaccine to the proportion of those events reported for an older, established vaccine.

If the new vaccine shows a significantly higher reporting rate of a particular adverse event relative to the old one, it counts as a safety signal that should then trigger a more thorough investigation.

The briefing document states, “CDC will perform PRR data mining on a weekly basis or as needed.”

And yet, in the agency’s response to the FOIA request, it wrote that “no PRRs were conducted by CDC. Furthermore, data mining is outside of the agency’s purview.”

The agency suggested contacting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which was supposed to perform a different type of data mining, according to the briefing document.

CDC officials repeatedly claimed they have not seen safety signals in VAERS.

For example, on April 27, 2021, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky stated the CDC did not see any signals related to heart inflammation.

But a PRR calculation I did using the number of myo/pericarditis reports listed in the first table produced by the CDC obtained via the FOIA request reveals clear and unambiguous safety signals relative to the comparator vaccines mentioned in the briefing document (i.e., flu vaccines, FLUAD and Shingrix).

The table is dated April 2, 2021, almost four weeks before she made those remarks.

In fact, among the 15 adverse events for adults included in that week’s tabulations, PRRs I calculated also show loud-and-clear safety signals for acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell’s palsy, coagulopathy, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A), stroke and death.

The actual monitoring the CDC did diverges from the one promised in the briefing document in other ways.

For example, the CDC never created tables of the top 25 adverse events reported in the previous week, tables comparing different vaccine manufacturers, or tables of auto-immune diseases.

And it only began monitoring in early April 2021, even though reports from COVID-19 vaccines had been flooding VAERS since mid-December of the previous year.

To be clear, VAERS is not the only database the CDC uses to monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety.

For example, the CDC sponsored several studies of COVID-19 safety using the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), which is comprised of millions of medical records from HMO’s across several states.

Those studies do not raise many safety concerns. However, they make many questionable methodological choices.

To give one example, a major safety study based on VSD data published in September 2021, in “JAMA,” compares adverse event rates that occur within 1-21 days of vaccination to the rate of occurrence from 22 to 42 days after vaccination.

It makes no comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, or before vaccination versus after in the same individuals.

Moreover, the VSD is far from infallible, having failed initially to detect the increase in myocarditis rates.

In contrast, although calculating PRR’s is a blunt pharmacovigilance tool and far from perfect, it nevertheless has the advantage of being straightforward and difficult to manipulate with statistical sleight of hand.

PRRs are one of the oldest, most basic and most well-established tools of pharmacovigilance. The calculations are so straightforward that the CDC automated it several years ago, so it could have been done at the press of a button.

It simply beggars belief that the CDC failed to do this simple calculation. Even now, a paper published by CDC staff in March on the safety of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines remains purely descriptive with no PRR calculation.

Meanwhile, a study published by a researcher not affiliated with the CDC in February in “Frontiers in Public Health” analyzes VAERS and EudraVigilance data using a method similar to PRRs, revealing clear and concerning safety signals.

And while it is true that VAERS is not the only database the CDC can use to monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety, it is of critical importance because it can reveal signals much faster than any other method — if anybody cares to look for them.

It remains to be seen if the FDA was properly monitoring VAERS. That will be the subject of a future FOIA request.

But even if it was, it doesn’t change the fact that the CDC completely failed in its promise to monitor VAERS for safety signals.

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Australian Doctors Finally Speak Out! – Conference Of Conscience – Part 1 | Aletho News

https://alethonews.com/2022/05/22/australian-doctors-finally-speak-out-conference-of-conscience-part-1/

For the first time in a conference of this nature, a group of brave Australian doctors have finally decided to speak out about what they and their patients have been subjected to, the ways the government and TGA have skewed the safety and efficacy data of the COVID-19 vaccines, purposeful suppression of early treatment that could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and the danger of continuing the COVID-19 vaccination program.

Australia and the whole world is currently at risk. The World Health Organization who is largely responsible for millions of deaths globally is currently proposing a global Pandemic Treaty which seeks to give the WHO complete control over every country. More information about this can be found on zeeemedia.com.

Stay tuned for Part 2.

COVID Vaccines Don’t Prevent Transmission, Severe Illness or Deaths, Data Show | The Most Revolutionary Act

https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2022/04/04/covid-vaccines-dont-prevent-transmission-severe-illness-or-deaths-data-show/

What is the bottom line?

High-quality, official data obtained on more than 30 million American adults and 48 million residents of England incontrovertibly reveal that:

  • Natural immunity was three times better at preventing cases than vaccination alone, even before Omicron.
  • Natural immunity was somewhat better at preventing serious illness, measured as hospitalizations, than vaccination alone, even before Omicron.
  • Boosters (a third shot) reduced the death rate in England of those vaccinated against Omicron, but the benefit was starting to drop off by January 2022.
  • Overall, England’s unvaccinated population had a lower COVID death rate during the Omicron wave than the COVID death rate in its doubly vaccinated population.
  • Walensky and the other so-called experts are wrong. Natural immunity provided three times more protection against infection (and therefore against transmission) than did double vaccination, even before Omicron. After Omicron, vaccine efficacy was even worse.
  • While vaccination provided some protection against severe illness (measured as hospitalizations) during the Delta wave, it provided less protection than natural immunity.
  • The vast majority of COVID deaths occur in those over 70. In this age group, the doubly vaccinated died from COVID at higher rates during Omicron than the unvaccinated.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccines-dont-prevent-transmission-severe-illness-deaths-data/

20 questions they don’t want to answer | Truth2Freedom’s Blog

https://truth4freedom.wordpress.com/2022/04/02/20-questions-they-dont-want-to-answer/

The problem I have is simple: the data clearly shows that it is the CDC and other government agencies that are spreading misinformation, not me. In order to resolve the conflict, I’m going to make the following offer in good faith: I will happily stop spreading “misinformation” if you all would just take a few minutes to answer a few questions for me. Fair enough? Will you do that?

The more you vaccinate, the worse the outcomes.
Why do over 10 studies (including one covering 145 countries)
all show that the more we vaccinate, the worse the infection and fatality rates? Since nobody has been able to refute any of these studies, shouldn’t we at least put the mandates temporarily on hold until the studies are refuted?
Negative efficacy. The latest UK government report
shows that for most age groups, you are now more than 3 times more likely to get COVID if you are triple vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. It seems the more you vaccinate, the worse the disparity. It’s clearly tied to the number of vaccinations. How do you explain this if the vaccines are protective?

Pfizer Cover-up Exposed! | Call Me Stormy

https://callmestormy.net/2022/03/31/pfizer-cover-up-exposed/?amp=1

Josh Sigurdson reports the latest whistleblower to come out against Pfizer, who was previously offered a bribe for his silence, is warning of the Covid vaccine dangers.

Dr. Paul Alexander, a consultant-researcher in evidence-based medicine, says Pfizer offered him a lump sum of $1 million and a $50,000-per-month job to keep quiet about the dangers of Covid injections. This revelation follows Pfizer’s manipulation of the media surrounding the content in vaccines. Here’s more from …

Twitter censored Oxford academic who shared Daily Mail article about inflated Covid deaths – Nwo Report

https://nworeport.me/2022/03/29/twitter-censored-oxford-academic-who-shared-daily-mail-article-about-inflated-covid-deaths/

Twitter backtracked, admitting it got it wrong.

Twitter is still fighting against Covid-related information using various censorship methods, including censoring academics and labeling what appear to be legitimate news stories based on scientific studies as “potentially spammy or unsafe.”

Professor Carl Heneghan, who heads the University of Oxford’s Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, got locked out of his Twitter account that has over 100K followers last weekend for sharing a link to a Mail on Sunday story about an Oxford study into the Covid death toll in the UK.

The study found that the 164,000 number may be exaggerated, thanks to errors in the way fatal outcomes were recorded in hospitals and nursing homes.

TRENDING: DEFEAT THE “GREAT RESET” TO SAVE AMERICAN FREEDOMS

Despite the fact the Oxford study relied on reviewing 800 responses to freedom of information requests sent to these institutions to arrive at its conclusions, Twitter’s “fact-checkers” decided to slap a warning on the link, trying to dissuade those sharing the story by effectively calling it fake news.

Heneghan was one of the scientists involved in producing the study that the article was about, and was not spared Twitter’s Covid censorship either: his account got locked for a policy violation, while the professor was accused of spreading “misleading and potentially harmful information related to Covid-19.” On top of that, Heneghan was warned that should he continue with such “violations,” he could be banned permanently.

Doctor Offered Hush Money After Warning Of Vaccination Dangers – Nwo Report

https://nworeport.me/2022/03/26/doctor-offered-hush-money-after-warning-of-vaccination-dangers/

Source: KLTV | Banned.video

Dr. Paul Alexander is a Canadian health researcher and a former official at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Trump administration.

Dr. Alexander recently talked with Kristi Leigh about how he received phone calls from Pfizer with a lucrative offer.

National Geographic: Why Is It So Hard to Compensate People for Serious Vaccine Injury? | The Most Revolutionary Act

https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2022/03/25/national-geographic-why-is-it-so-hard-to-compensate-people-for-serious-vaccine-injury/

Vaccine injury compensation in the U.S. is broken, according to Tara Haelle, an independent science and health writer. In an article for National Geographic, Haelle outlined some of the flaws in existing programs, and what might be done to fix them.

Medical Conspiracy: With Eyes Wide Open, They Killed, Maimed Thousands, by Dr. Joseph Mercola | STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC

https://straightlinelogic.com/2022/03/23/medical-conspiracy-with-eyes-wide-open-they-killed-maimed-thousands-by-dr-joseph-mercola/

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

> A small batch of documents released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in mid-November 2021 revealed that in the first three months of the COVID jab rollout, Pfizer received 42,086 adverse event reports that included 1,223 deaths

> The first really large tranche of Pfizer documents — some 10,000 pages — was released by the FDA March 1, 2022. Included are nine pages of recorded side effects, about 158,000 different health problems in all

> An initial review of case report forms (CRFs) reveal significant data collection errors and anomalies

> Problems included patients entered into the “healthy population” group who were far from healthy; serious adverse event (SAE) numbers that were left blank; sample barcodes that were missing; at least one death of a patient the day before being listed as being at a medical checkup; and second doses that were administered outside the three-week protocol window. There also are questions as to whether participants were properly observed for an adequate amount of time; plus adverse events were listed as “not serious” despite extended hospital stay and much more

> A majority of the CRFs in this release were from Ventavia-run trial sites. Ventavia is currently facing a lawsuit brought by Brook Jackson, a former Ventavia regional director. Jackson was fired shortly after she brought concerns about potential data falsification and poor laboratory management to the attention of the FDA and higher-ups in the company