The UN Pandemic Declaration Approval is a Testament to the Aversion of Evidence | Be prepared to respond with the most powerful word in every language NO!

AmericanThinker.com

Victor Fernandez

Robert Louis Stevenson in New Arabian Nights wrote the famous line, “I regard you with an indifference closely bordering on aversion.”  When it comes to the paradoxical relationship between the plans and actions of the United Nations and medical health agencies on the one hand, and the strong evidence that contradicts the benefits of their plans, the quote is more than apt.

On September 20th, government officials and their representatives assembled at the UN, and approved a political declaration on pandemic preparedness, prevention, and response, and a lengthy call to action of its members.  The declaration will privilege the WHO with the authority to oversee pandemics in the future, and the agreement is expected to be signed sometime in 2024.

Among the many items listed for its members, the subject of vaccines is sprinkled throughout numerous times.  One related section—item 64—concerns the reactions of those who are vaccine-hesitant:

Take measures to counter and address the negative impacts of health-related misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and stigmatization, especially on social media platforms, on people’s physical and mental health, including countering vaccine hesitancy in the context of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response….

Now, why would there be any vaccine hesitancy?  Have the Covid-19 vaccines led to more good than harm?  Have there been numerous vaccine adverse events that stand out as abnormal?  Do we have a body of evidence that might suggest that vaccine hesitancy is, in fact, a good idea?

The Bradford Hill Criteria is a good place to turn to for some answers as it is noted to be the most reliable way to assess causality of an association.  Bradford Hill, in 1965, listed 9 criteria but there are 5 that are applicable to vaccines: Strength of Association, Biological Plausibility, Temporality, Consistency and Specificity.  Dr. Peter McCullough and Steve Kirsch are at least two notable hard-working individuals who have consistently brought to light the relevance of the Bradford Hill analysis of causality with regard to the Covid-19 gene therapy injection in their presentations. A brief summary follows.

To begin, the association should be strong.  Rates of adverse events must be higher than normal, discounting the notion that the rates were simply random small numbers.  Dr. McCullough clarifies that, indeed, the rates are a big deal:

Normally 150 deaths across 270 million shots in the United States, and here with Covid-19 alone, we’ve got 12,000 Americans [dead], 12,000? Not 150… So it’s a huge signal.

There must also be biological plausibility.  The association should be coherent insofar as it is explainable and within the scope of known biological facts.  The mechanism of action of the vaccine should be able to explain the outcome.  And, indeed, we have biological plausibility as these genetic vaccines install a genetic code for a “lethal spike protein” that can create havoc in the body, as well as death.

With temporality, receipt of the vaccine should precede the earliest indication of a new event the patient did not have before injection.  Again, Dr. McCullough states, “Eighty percent of these deaths are within a week, fifty percent within 2 days!  It’s very tightly related, the deaths we’re seeing.”

Consistency relates to replicability in different localities revealing similar results.  This too has been achieved as things like heart attacks, strokes, and similar blood clots have been found across the board.  Dr. McCullough reminds us that “the same pattern is seen in the U.K. in the Yellow Card System, and the same pattern is seen in the Eudra[Vigilance] System.”

Finally, with specificity, the reaction should be specific or linked uniquely to the vaccine.  That means we need to observe the result of randomized clinical trials since they are essentially statistical comparisons designed to compare the outcomes of a group receiving a new product with one receiving a placebo.  Tragically, from a study published by Pfizer no less, there were more deaths (20) occurring among those who received the vaccine as compared to those who received a placebo (14).  That’s specificity!  Of course, Pfizer and the FDA simply ignored the outcome.

So, the Bradford Hill Criteria provides us with fundamentally determining standards that are essentially mutually reinforcing, interconnected links that, if met, relate to a causal relationship extending beyond mere correlation.  When looking at the wide body of evidence—of which only a brief snapshot is presented here—the only conclusion that can honestly be asserted is that there is a strong, plausible causal connection between the gene therapy injections and the adverse events that follow them.  Dr. McCullough asserts:

The Bradford Hill tenets of causality have been fulfilled, on a more probable than not basis,  and I would probably upgrade that to on a clear and convincing basis. The vaccines are causing death. It’s cohesive, it sticks together. The challenge is, in each and every next death, when did they take the vaccine and what were the circumstances?  Now is the time for autopsies. In pathology … fatal myocarditis is diagnostic. Fatal blood clots are diagnostic. The undertakers are reporting large blood clots that come out of the body intact. They’ve never seen this before.

Institutions like the UN, HHS, FDA, and the CDC, continue with their aversion to evidence as if none of the above is relevant or even exists.  And this is in light of the fact that all regulatory agencies now agree that the vaccines causemyocarditis.

Even mild myocarditis will cause a cardiac arrest if an athlete exerts himself.  Yet, athletes were required to get injected without any necessity.  Vaccines have also caused Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) andPostural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) whereby people pass out due to low blood pressure.  Neurologic diseases abound including stroke, Guillain-Barré syndrome, Small Fiber Neuropathy, and more. So do immunologic abnormalities like vaccine-induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia and Multisystem Inflammatory Disorder.  Again, all agreed to by the regulatory agencies.

Dr. McCullough considers the above categories to be the 4 major domains of disease caused by the spike protein as evidenced in 3,400 peer review manuscripts.  There is no mincing of words with Dr. McCullough’s conclusion:  “Until proven otherwise, it’s the vaccine that’s causing these cardiac arrests and dying suddenly in your sleep.”

The World Council for Health—a multinational, non-profit, evidenced-based physician and health care provider organization—also doesn’t mince words.  They issued a pharmacovigilance report on June 11, 2022 with the aim of determining whether or not there is sufficient data on existing pharmacovigilance databases to indicate a recall of Covid-19 vaccines.  They deeply researched the VigiAccess Database (WHO), the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (CDC and FDA), EudraVigilance (European Medicines Agency) and the UK Yellow Card Scheme.

Keep in mind that the 1976 Swine Flu mass vaccination campaign was halted after 54 deaths.  And the polio vaccine was recalled in less than 1 year after just 10 reported deaths.  Yet, the Covid-19 vaccine corresponded with over 28,000 associated reports of death on VAERS alone, and has not been recalled.

What did the Council conclude?

The magnitude of disparity in the number of adverse events compared to other commonly administered vaccines and therapies is sufficient to indicate an alarming safety signal for these products.

Thus, the severity of the reports was sufficient to indicate a removal of Covid-19 vaccines from the market for excess risk of death.

The UN continues with ambitious plans to control the populace with things like their “One Health” agenda linking human health with climate change and coupling with the Rockefeller Foundation to find “climate pandemics.”  Indeed, there is an ongoing push to merge Covid with climate.  And there will be more aberrations and aversions of evidence to come.  But through it all, let us never forget to continue to be vigilant, evidence-based, courageous and always prepared to respond with the most powerful word in every language—NO!

PDF Source: https://www.un.org/pga/77/wp-content/uploads/sites/105/2023/09/PPPR-Final-Text.pdf

Original Article: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/09/the_un_pandemic_declaration_approval_is_a_testament_to_the_aversion_of_evidence.html