Censorship-Industrial Complex Loses Bladder Control Over New Study Implicating Vaxxxines in Global Excess Mortality

Researchers tell the truth; Journal and their employer promptly throw them under the bus.

Something unusual happened on June 3, 2024. BMJ Public Health, a prominent peer-reviewed British Medical Journal offshoot that covers public health research and policy, published a paper by Dutch researchers exploring the excess mortality in various countries during 2020, 2021 and 2022.

Three of the four authors, led by Saskia Mostert, hailed from the Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Mostert is one of the relatively few researchers with sufficient character to speak out against the abundant corruption within the health and medicine fields. In a 2019 journal comment, Mostert and another co-author, Gertjan Kaspers, wrote:

"Numerous investigations demonstrate that the problem of corruption in the health sector is enormous and has grave negative consequences for patients. Nevertheless, the problem of corruption in health systems is far from eminent in the international health policy debate ... we first need to talk about corruption. But above all, we need good people who are subsequently willing to walk the talk."

Mostert and her colleagues are the kind of researchers we need more of. But as you’re about to learn, there are several cowardly entities who would prefer they pack it up and pack it in.

In their recent BMJ Public Health study, Mostert et al calculated the excess mortality during 2020, 2021 and 2022 by deferring to the Our World in Data database, which retrieves reported number of deaths from both the Human Mortality Database (HMD) and the World Mortality Dataset (WMD)*.

Mostert et al confined their analysis to the Western world, where data for 47 countries was available. According to Our World in Data, the total number of excess deaths in those 47 countries was 3,098,456 from January 1, 2020 until December 31, 2022.

In 2020, the year of the COVID-­19 pandemic onset and implementation of containment measures, the records presented 1,033,122 excess deaths.

In 2021, the highest number of excess deaths was reported: 1,256,942 excess deaths. The authors correctly note this was the same year that the same containment measures were joined by the COVID-­19 vaxxx rollout.

In 2022, when most containment measures were lifted and the COVID-­19 gene therapies were continued, preliminary data present 808,392 excess deaths.

I describe the publication of this paper as "very unusual" because most other prominent pharma tabloids masquerading as medical journals have eagerly supported the COVID and gene therapy propaganda effort. Lancet, for example, famously published a paper blissfully ignoring the rise in global excess mortality since the vaxxx rollout. That paper instead absurdly claimed that the myocarditis-inducing clot shots had saved "tens of millions of lives."

The Lancet study used easily manipulated ‘modelling’ to contrive this absurd claim. The researchers responsible for the Lancet paper included Azra C Ghani, who has received personal consultancy fees from GlaxoSmithKline, WHO and HSBC related to COVID-19 epidemiology. He is an allegedly "non-remunerated" member of scientific advisory boards for Moderna and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness.

Alexandra B Hogan, and Peter Winskill received personal consultancy fees related to COVID-19 work from WHO.

Oliver J Watson was funded by a Schmidt Science Fellowship in partnership with the Rhodes Trust.

Watson, Ghani, Hogan, and Winskill have received grant funding from the WHO.

Ghani and Jaspreet Toor have received grant funding from The Vaccine Alliance, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Watson and Hogan receive support from the Imperial College Research Fellowship. The Imperial College is infamous for its ludicrous Neil Ferguson-led report predicting widespread death and destruction from the renamed COVID. That report was cited by governments around the world as justification for imposing tyrannical lockdowns and mandates.

All authors benefited from funding by the UK Medical Research Council.

CEPI, Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are closely intertwined outfits well known for their zealous promotion of vaccines, vaxxxines and all-round COVID bollockery that includes funding disingenuous fact check outfits and fraudulent pro-masking studies. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also has multimillion dollar financial investments in traditional vaccines and the COVID gene therapies.

In other words, the Lancet study featured an untenable conclusion arrived at by people who just happened to financially benefit from the COVID charade.

Yet no-one in the mainstream ever called for the Lancet study to be retracted.

The BMJ Public Health paper is further noteworthy because it somehow achieved mainstream press coverage. Newspapers around the world, including prominent tabloids like The Telegraph and New York Post, reported on the paper. “Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths,” headlined The Telegraph. Even the Murdoch press dailies in Australia, renown for their intensely pro-vaccine stance, ran the headline “New report links Covid vaccines to global mortality spike.”

This was clearly unacceptable to Big Pharma and GloboPedo, who have put much effort into transforming the ‘Fourth Estate’ into a compliant, unthinking mouthpiece that mindlessly regurgitates their megalomaniacal propaganda.

And so the smear campaign was launched.

On June 3, 2024, the Princess Máxima Center published a statement "distancing" itself from the BMJ Public Health paper.

“Serious questions have arisen regarding the publication,” claims the Center’s PR team. It doesn’t divulge any of those allegedly serious questions, but nonetheless asserts “we will further investigate the scientific quality of this study.”

“If it turns out that carelessness was involved in the realization of this publication, it will of course be withdrawn,” states the Center, again without divulging just what about the paper they suspect to be “careless.”

Among all the hand-wringing and pious-sounding BS, the Center fails to cite even a single inaccuracy in the paper.

A strong clue as to what really motivates the Center’s idiotic statement comes when it writes:

“We, as the Princess Máxima Center, want to emphasize that we strongly support vaccination, and that this publication should certainly not be read as an argument against vaccination.”

“The study in no way demonstrates a link between vaccinations and excess mortality,” claims the Center, “that is explicitly not the researchers' finding.”

“We therefore regret that this impression has been created,” concludes the driveling Center.

The study does in fact suggest a very strong link between the toxic gene therapies and the rise in global excess mortality that followed their release. The authors, quite reasonably, call for more research into this link.

If you still can’t work out why the spineless Center would “distance” itself from and even misrepresent its own researchers findings, the following might provide some clarity. The Princess Máxima Center just happens to run a business conducting clinical trials of oncology drugs for pharma companies. Among its clients is none other than Pfizer, the extremely nefarious multinational that has racked up billions in civil and criminal penalties for its fraudulent research, advertising, medicare and kickback behaviours.

The Princess Máxima Center has received money to conduct clinical trials of Pfizer oncology drugs such as bosutinib and inotuzamab, a critical fact it kinda sorta ‘forgot’ to mention in it recent “distancing” statement (image source: PHARMAFILES BY AUSSIE17)

Much a Spew About Nothing

A hit-piece authored by pro-vaxxx journalist Maarten Keulemans on June 11, 2024 in the newspaper De Volkskrant also points lots of fingers at zero flaws.

Just like the Princess Máxima Center, Keulemans and the motley assortment of 'experts' he cites - including a YouTuber and the usual hand-picked selection of indignant allopathic stalwarts - fail to raise even a single inaccuracy contained within the paper.

The best the Center and Keulemans can do is to incessantly whine that the manner in which the paper was reported by the media infers that the vaxxxines were responsible for the global excess mortality. Even though anyone with a shred of honesty in their souls knows they were, the paper refrains from making this claim and simply states that the connection demands further investigation - which it does.

In true halfwit fashion, the Center and Keulemans even acknowledge the paper does not make the causal claim, but still campaign for an "investigation" into the paper.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Even if the paper was misreported by the media (it wasn’t), then that is hardly the fault of Mostert et al.

What really needs investigating here are the true motives of the Princess Máxima Center and Maarten Keulemans.

Public Cowards

BMJ Public Health also showed its complete lack of backbone by cowering to the baseless criticism and joining the rush to throw Mostert et al under the bus. BMJ Public Health published an "expression of concern" where - just like Princess Maxima and Keulemans - it completely failed to express one single actual flaw with the paper itself.

A bunch of pretenders at BMJ who call themselves "The integrity team" and the editors solemnly announced they "are investigating issues raised regarding the quality and messaging of this work. The Princess Máxima Centre, which is listed as the affiliation of three of the four authors, is also investigating the scientific quality of this study. The integrity team has contacted the institution regarding their investigation."

Translated: A bunch of backpedaling cowards contacted another bunch of backpedaling cowards to work out how to appease the easily angered vaccine-industrial complex.

Once again, the real reason for their "concern" becomes obvious when Team BMJ concludes its statement with the line, "The research does not support the claim that vaccines are a major contributory factor to excess deaths since the start of the pandemic. Vaccines have, in fact, been instrumental in reducing the severe illness and death associated with COVID-19 infection."

We all know that's a blatant lie.

Pretending Deadly Drugs are Safe

In years gone by, drugs would be withdrawn from market for far less glaring safety signals. In 1982, the first SSRI - a drug known as zimelidine – was brought to market. It was withdrawn from sale the following year when it became apparent the drug caused liver toxicity, severe headaches, and greatly increased the risk of developing Guillain–Barré syndrome, a rather nasty autoimmune disorder. The risk of developing Guillain-Barré syndrome was increased around 25-fold among patients receiving zimeldine, compared with the natural incidence of the disorder.

In 1983, a drug called indalpine became the second SSRI to appear on pharmacy shelves, marketed as Upstene. The drug was pulled from the market in 1985 after displaying a penchant for markedly reducing patients’ white blood cell counts. In its first year, 30 cases of neutropenia, agranulocytosis and leucopenia were reported in indalpine patients, five of which were fatal. In indalpine’s second and final year, 32 cases were reported.

Cerivastatin (Baycol) was a member of the toxic statin class of drugs marketed by the pharmaceutical company Bayer A.G. It was voluntarily withdrawn from the market worldwide in 2001, due to reports of fatal rhabdomyolysis. During postmarketing surveillance, 52 deaths were reported in patients using cerivastatin, mainly from rhabdomyolysis and its resultant kidney failure.

After initially trying to hide then downplay its harms, on September 30, 2004 Merck publicly announced its voluntary worldwide withdrawal of its deadly NSAID Vioxx. No-one knows for sure how many people the drug killed, but FDA analyst David Graham and colleagues estimated that Vioxx may have caused between 88,000 and 140,000 heart attacks. With the US national estimate of the case-fatality rate (fatal acute myocardial infarction plus sudden cardiac death) at 44%, many of those excess cases attributable to rofecoxib would have been fatal.

Like Mostert et al, Graham was promptly thrown under the bus by his slimy, industry-funded bosses at the FDA. The FDA publicly attacked him, only to look like the dishonest industry punks they were when his concerns were confirmed in spectacular fashion.

"FDA is inherently biased in favor of the pharmaceutical industry," said Graham in a 2005 interview. "It views industry as its client, whose interests it must represent and advance. It views its primary mission as approving as many drugs it can, regardless of whether the drugs are safe or needed"

Fast forward to the present day, where VAERS reports promptly shot through the roof right after the Poison Prick campaign began, and where estimates of the post-vaxxx global excess mortality run as high as 35 million. We are supposed to jam our heads up our keesters and ignore these glaring safety sirens, and just keep repeating in sing-song fashion - like a bunch of synchronized morons - that vaccines and vaxxxines are wonderful innovations that have saved millions of lives.

I can't do that, because people of character should stick their necks out, not up their assholes.

Instead, I emailed the Princess Máxima Centre to inquire about their Minima ethics and backbone. Here's the email I sent to info@prinsesmaximacentrum.nl (feel free to send them your own "expression of concern" regarding their weasel behaviour):

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to express my disgust at your recent press release of June 11, 2024 titled "The Princess Máxima Center distances itself from publication Excess mortality during COVID-19 pandemic."

The Princess Máxima Center claims "Serious questions have arisen regarding the publication 'Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the COVID-19 pandemic: ‘Our World in Data’ estimates of January 2020 to December 2022.'"

The Center further claims it "deeply regrets that this publication may give the impression that the importance of vaccinations is being called into question" and "expressly distances itself from this publication."

Why?

Nowhere in your press release do you cite even a single actual flaw with the 12-page paper by Saskia Mostert and colleagues. You turn against your own researchers, but cannot even begin to point to anything resembling an inaccuracy in their paper.

I've read the paper, and it is evident why you cannot post any criticism of substance. It states verifiable facts and observations, is well-referenced, and completely justified in its conclusions.

The Center obviously wishes to maintain a head-in-sand approach in which vaccines (and gene therapies masquerading as vaccines) are held as unimpeachable drugs that should never be criticized. This is not the approach of an impartial scientific institute - it is far more akin to the reality-denying fervor of religious zealots.

The most prominent COVID-19 'vaccines' - the Pfizer and Moderna products - are in fact gene therapies based on mRNA technology that has over three decades of failure to its name. It took disingenuous Emergency Use Authorizations to sneak these dangerous drugs past the usual regulatory safeguards.

That these highly toxic and problematic drugs have played a major role in global excess mortality is hardly an unreasonable contention. In the clinical trial for the Pfizer 'vaccine,' the drug group evinced a higher death rate than the control group.

After their release, the COVID 'vaccines' produced a frightening and unprecedented volume of adverse event reports to databases in the US, UK and Europe.

Pfizer's own documentation ("5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021") shows that within months of release over 1,200 side effects were linked to the drug.

That the COVID gene therapies cause serious and life-threatening conditions such as myocarditis, pericarditis and thrombosis is not 'conspiracy theory,' but documented fact.

Despite all this, your researchers are apparently not allowed to think for themselves and even suggest that the dangerous COVID gene therapies have played a role in the global excess mortality that peaked after their introduction.

Why would you publicly throw your own researchers under the bus like this?

It clearly isn't because they erred or lied - as stated, you cannot even cite a single instance of this.

Is it because your institution receives large sums of money to conduct clinical trials on behalf of the likes of Pfizer? Archived web pages confirm you have conducted clinical trials of Pfizer oncology drugs such as bosutinib and inotuzamab.

What we have here is a situation in which an institute that receives large sums of money from Pfizer has inexplicably "distanced" itself from its own researchers after they recently published a peer-reviewed paper that implicates the Pfizer COVID gene therapy in the heightened global excess mortality evident in 2021 and 2022.

We are all supposed to assume this is just a remarkable coincidence.

If this is more than just a coincidence, what does it say about The Princess Máxima Center when, instead of standing in solidarity with its own researchers, it would rather act on behalf of a pharma giant with an appalling track record of serial fraud? (Pfizer holds the record for the largest ever criminal fine in US history).

Please don't insult my intelligence by replying with feigned indignance at what I've just written - I'm not an idiot and we all know what's going on here. You can hardly claim to be an impartial actor in this matter when with one hand you receive money from Pfizer, and with the other hand you pen attacks on staff who question the safety of Pfizer's highly problematic COVID shots.

If you are going to persist in peppering your website with heartwarming platitudes about scientific integrity and expertise, you really need to withdraw your traitorous "distancing" statement, apologize to Mostert and co-authors, and immediately insert a prominent clause in your trial contracts that your services do not include professional prostitution.

Regards,

Anthony Colpo.

Shame on you Princess Máxima Center and BMJ Global Health. Grow some balls and ethics ASAP.

---

*HMD is sustained by research teams of both the University of California in the USA and the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Germany. HMD recovers its data from Eurostat and national statistical agencies on a weekly basis. WMD is sustained by the researchers Karlinsky and Kobak. WMD recovers its data from HMD, Eurostat and national statistical agencies on a weekly basis. The ‘Our World in Data’ database started to use WMD as a data source next to HMD since February 2021.