GREAT NUMBERS OF PEOPLE DIED FROM THE COVID-19 VACCINE — THE GOVERNING BODY HAS SOME RESPONSIBILITY (I)

Data about the excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic shows that the Covid-19 vaccine may have killed great numbers of people. Part I discusses the evidence for this conclusion and shows that the death rate from Covid-19 among Jehovah’s Witnesses was between three and four times higher than in the world population. The members of the Governing Body have some responsibility for this situation. Part II discusses how the Governing Body treated the pandemic, and it points to the many problems in the congregations that the decisions of the Governing Body created.

 

I use the word “vaccine” for the mRNA injections, because this is the common usage. But mRNA is not a vaccine in the true sense of the word, but a “genetic modifier” — foreign genetic material is injected into the body. This is why many researchers have pointed out that mRNA can cause illness and death.

In Norway, by 2025, there were 63,100 suspected adverse events that have been reported after injections of mRNA, and 8,531 of these were serious adverse events. This means that there were 145 adverse events and 20 serious adverse events per 10,000 vaccinated persons that were reported to the health authorities. Three years earlier, the journal Vaccine for August 31, 2022, reported that the risk of serious adverse events from Pfizer mRNA injections was 10,1 per 10,000 vaccinated persons and 15,1 per 10,000 vaccinated persons from Moderna mRNA.

The ratio of deaths among the world population before and after the pandemic was about 70 million per year. During the pandemic, there were excess deaths of 15 million people or more (about 20% increase). In Norway, the excess deaths for the years 2022 and 2023 were calculated to be 6,700 persons.

When the COVID-19 vaccines were distributed, the death rates were increasing instead of decreasing, and by microscopic investigations, material from the vaccines were discovered in the bodies of many who had died. Therefore, we have good reasons to believe that a significant portion of the excess deaths was caused by the vaccines.

I WOULD LIKE TO STRESS THAT I AM NOT AGAINST VACCINES BUT I TAKE THE VACCINES THAT ARE RELEVANT TO MY HEALTH. I CRITICIZE THE mRNA SHOT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A VACCINE BUT A GENETIC MODIFIER.

This study was triggered by the daily text of April 7, 2025 (above) on jw.org and the source of the text, The Watchtower of July 2023, page 16, (below) where we read:

Be steadfast, immovable.​—1 Cor. 15:58.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Jehovah’s Witnesses who listened to the guidance given by our organization avoided the undue anxieties experienced by those who listened to misleading information. (Matt. 24:45) We must not lose sight of “the more important things.” (Phil. 1:9, 10)

 Today, Satan uses the media and social networks to spread conspiracy theories and false news reports promoted by political leaders. We saw much of this during the COVID-19 pandemic. Jehovah’s Witnesses who listened to the guidance given by our organization avoided the undue anxieties experienced by those who listened to misleading information.​—Matt. 24:45.

The issue here is the organization’s good guidance in contrast to conspiracy theories, false news reports, and misleading information. Several brothers have reacted negatively to this daily text and to its source because they say that the Governing Body’s guidance and demands during the Covid pandemic created problems and undue anxieties instead of solving them.

In  study I and II, I will show:

• Contrary to what the members of the Governing Body have said, taking the vaccine is a great health risk.
• That the members of the Governing Body ignored warnings about their advice and demands to the Witnesses.
• The advice and demands of the members of the Governing Body created problems for many Witnesses.

THERE ARE GOOD REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE COVID-19 VACCINES KILLED GREAT NUMBERS OF PEOPLE

SOME “CONSPIRATION THEORIES” THAT WERE TRUE

The members of the Governing Body portray their guidance as good, in contrast to conspiration theories and misleading information. However, it turns out that some of the “conspiration theories” were true, and the guidance given by the Governing Body was, to some extent false. And it led, and will in the future lead to sickness and death for many Witnesses.

The “conspiracy theories” that were true were:

• There are several health risks with the vaccine.
• Giving the vaccine to healthy persons below 65 years causes more harm than benefits.
• The authorities and big pharmaceutical companies have consciously hidden the dangers of the vaccine for political and economic reasons.

“Vaccinations of mRNA carry far more risk for healthy persons under 65 than the actual Covid-19 virus.” (Dr. Michael Thoene, May 2024) “It was far more dangerous to take a mRNA vaccine than it was to contract and be hospitalized with COVID-19. (Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, spring 2025)

The discussion that follows will present many data showing the dangers of the vaccine and how it has caused many deaths instead of protecting against COVID-19.

Part II shows that the members of the Governing Body implied that the vaccine “was safe,” and they have exerted pressure on the Witnesses to take the COVID-19 vaccine. Because of this, they have some responsibility for the excess deaths among Jehovah’s Witnesses. [1]

THE DANGERS OF THE mRNA VACCINE — AN AMERICAN STUDY

Let us first look at how the mRNA vaccine works. Proteins are made of amino acids, and mRNA can be compared to a template where the right amino acids are put together to form specific proteins. On the surface of the coronavirus, there is a large spike protein. The mRNA that is injected into humans, causes the muscles to begin making strings of amino acids (protein pieces) and showing them on cell surfaces. The person’s immune system now starts to create antibodies. And these antibodies will attack the spike protein on the surface of the coronavirus and possibly destroy the virus.

The theory was that once the right protein pieces were made, the cells would break down the mRNA and destroy it, so no damage would be done. However, the facts show otherwise. In spring 2025, Dr. Steven J Hatfill, who is a pathologist and a biological weapons expert, who served as a daily outside senior medical advisor to the Executive Office of the President throughout 2020, wrote an article that sounded the alarm about all the damage and possible future physical and psychological damage the mass-vaccination with mRNA had caused and would cause:  “Are there Next-Generation Costs for the Covid-19 mRNA Mass-Vaccination Campaign?” Jounral of American Psysichians and Surgeons. Volume 30 Number 1 Spring 2025., page 18:

These experimental, non-traditional “vaccines” contained a degradation-resistant mRNA sequence coding for a single COVID-19 viral antigen called the spike protein. Rushed testing and careless reviews by the FDA inexcusably missed the fact that the spike protein was a biologically toxic molecule. It also missed the fact that the spike protein mRNA insert of the pseudo-vaccine incorporated potential amyloidogenic regions in its tertiary structure.

The point here is that the spike protein that was caused by the mRNA was toxic. The adjective “amyloidogenic” means that the spike protein can cause a buildup of amyloid proteins in different organs, which can prevent the organs to function properly or even lead to life-threatening organ failure.

There is a blood barrier in the brain that prevents harmful substances from reaching the brain. But it has been shown that the spike protein and other substances influenced by the mRNA particles can cross this barrier. The toxic spike protein caused by mRNA can damage the brain (page 18):

 Because the mRNA vaccines are now known to cause the manufacture of viral spike protein in the body for months, it was possible that that the foreign, toxic S1 fragment of this protein was also accumulating in the brains of mRNA-vaccinated humans, causing abnormal microglial/astroglial cell reactivity and a further tissue-damaging cytokine release.

The Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD, cow-madness) is a brain disease leading to death after a few months. It is caused by an abnormal infectious protein in the brain called a prion. The CJD is a very rare disease, and some occurrences in 2021 and 2022 were connected with Covid-19 and the mRNA vaccine. But was there really a connection? We read on page 19:

In 2023, French scientists described 23 cases in which mRNA vaccine recipients developed sudden symptoms of CJD within days after their second injection of the Pfizer mRNA product.

Other research demonstrated that the CJD disease and other serious brain diseases were caused by mRNA. We read on pages 18 and 19:

The injection of purified spike protein into the mice was enough to cause brain cell death and the appearance of biomarkers normally associated with Alzheimer disease and CJD. The study of adult human autopsy material in this paper revealed the same accumulation of spike protein plaques in thebone marrow of the skull, the meninges, and the cortex of the brain, accompanied by a background of chronic inflammation.

In January 2023, this all changed when the late Professor Arne Burkhardt publicly documented his multiple organ/histological autopsy findings on patients who had died from COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations. His data revealed that the toxic spike protein from the COVID-19 virus could definitely be deposited in the adult human brain.

There is also a maternal/placental barrier that prevents harmful substances from reaching the fetus. On page 19, Hatfill writes:

Placental ultrasound evidence (Figure 1[a picture of the damage is shown]) does indeed show pathological changes consistent with mRNA vaccine-induced damage to the microvascular and larger vascular stroma in the placenta of vaccinated mothers…

There is also a functional indication that the transplacental mRNA nanoparticles are exerting a physiological effect either by means of a direct-stimulated apoptosis reduction of the CD34+ hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell (HSPC) stem cell population in the umbilical cord blood from the fetus, or as the result of a spike protein-generated cytokine response.

The quotations above show that mRNA can cause great harm both to the human brain and the placentas and fetuses of pregnant women. Research has shown that mRNA can cause other serious diseases as well. And the conclusions of Dr. Hatfill are frightening indeed. On page 21 we read:

The U.S. had two highly effective, safe, outpatient drug treatments for COVID-19 that were incorrectly and intentionally maligned. Under the FDA’s own EUA rules, not a single human should have been given a COVID-19 vaccine.[3]

Millions of pregnant mothers and children have now been used as experimental animals without informed consent. With limited data at the moment, we must wait to see whether the ill-advised repeated injections of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine and boosters will be associated with variable neurodevelopmental (NDV) damage within the upcoming generation of children.[4]

The quotations above show that mRNA vaccines can cause great harm both to the human brain and the placentas and fetuses of pregnant women. Research has shown that mRNA can cause other serious diseases as well. The main point of Hatfill’s article is that research results indicate that the effects of the mass vaccination can be that a great number of children who grow up will have different diseases and disabilities, and must be taken care of by society at great cost.

A new study from 14 April 2025 considered neuropsychiatric conditions as a result of the vaccine. In VAERS (The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System in the USA) the study refers to several such conditions. I quote from the Abstract (above) and the Introduction (below):

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are known to penetrate the blood-brain barrier and could potentially cause a myriad of unintended adverse effects. The purpose of this study is to explore potential associations between vaccination and neuropsychiatric conditions.

COVID-19 vaccine lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology was designed to facilitate delivery to all bodily tissues, including the ability to cross natural barriers, such as the blood-brain barrier. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its first Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 gene therapy product on December 11, 2020, followed one week later by Moderna’s version.

Although these experimental, non-traditional “vaccines” were classified as vaccines under a new CDC definition, they contained a degradation-resistant mRNA sequence coding for a single COVID-19 viral antigen, known as the spike protein. The spike protein can cross the blood-brain barrier through vascular damage and exhibit pathological activity, while both the LNPs and the spike protein are highly inflammatory. It is also known that the mRNA for the spike protein can be expressed in the brain following both a natural infection and, particularly, after repeated COVID-19 mRNA “vaccinations.”

Rushed testing and careless reviews by the FDA inexcusably overlooked the fact that the spike protein is a biologically toxic molecule. The FDA also failed to recognize that the spike protein mRNA inserted into the pseudo-vaccine incorporates potential amyloidogenic regions within its tertiary structure. Roh and colleagues report a potential association between COVID-19 vaccination and the rapid progression of Alzheimer’s disease. Further studies may link this to the effects of chronic cytokine production. Perez, Moret-Chalmin, and Montagnier, a former

Nobel Laureate, reported 26 cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), all diagnosed in 2021, with the first symptoms appearing an average of 11.38 days after receiving a Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca COVID-19 injection. Biomarkers were consistent with this diagnosis, but unfortunately, histological analysis was never performed.

Cognitive deficits and the onset of psychiatric illnesses have also been reported after the COVID-19 vaccines.

The purpose of this investigation is to query the CDC/FDA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to determine whether COVID-19 vaccines, compared to other vaccines, are associated with neuropsychiatric conditions.

The point here is that residues from mRNA can penetrate any barrier in the body and can cause harm to different organs. The article shows how different neuropsychiatric conditions have been associated with the vaccine.[1]

[1]. Association between COVID-19 Vaccination and Neuropsychiatric Conditions. James Thorpe, Claire Rogers, Kirstin Cosgrove, Steven Hatfill, Peter Breggin, Drew Pinsky, and Peter McCullough. Preprints 14 April 2025

THE DANGERS OF THE mRNA VACCINE — A POLISH STUDY

I use the article by Michael Allen Thoene, “Changing views toward mRNA based covid vaccines in the scientific literature: 2020-2024” in Polish Annals of Medicine 2024; 31 (2): 152-157.

On December 11, 2020, the mRNA vaccine received an emergency authorization in the USA for use on humans. As more people were vaccinated, adverse side effects started to occur. I quote from page 154:

For most of 2022, the literature acknowledges the existence of SAEs [severe adverse effects], but universally claims they are ‘rare’ and that the only relevant issue is ‘vaccine hesitancy.’ During this time, the overall mentality was that mRNA vaccines are wonder drugs and that only irrational conspiracy theorists would be against the mRNA Covid vaccine. This cultural stereotype definitely made its way into the scientific literature. Some articles from this time acknowledge the SAEs, but claim that a connection between mRNA vaccines may be coincidental and not causal.

Throughout 2021 and 2022, the vaccine was viewed as a wonder drug. But now articles with serious adverse side effects started to occur. Dr. Thoene used the PubMed database in search for articles, using the search terms ‘adverse events,’ “Covid vaccination.” There were 4,130 articles: 2020: 75 articles, 2021:799 articles; 2022:1718 articles, 2023: 1188 articles, and January to April 2024: 350 articles. All these articles referred to the adverse effects of the Covid-19 vaccine.

Regarding the number of adverse effects, I make the following quote from page 154:

One of the most recent articles concerning mRNA based vaccines is from April 2024. They used a database covering 8 countries to do an observational cohort study that compared observed with expected rates (OE rates) of several SAEs [severe adverse effects]. It was a very large study of over 99 million vaccinated individuals. Significant OE ratios were found for Guillain–Barré syndrome [the immune system attacks the peripheral nerves], cerebral venous sinus thrombosis [a blood clot forms in the brain’s venous sinuses], acute disseminated encephalomyelitis [a brief but intense attack of inflammation (swelling) in the brain and spinal cord that damages the brain’s myelin], myocarditis [inflammation of the heart muscle], and pericarditis [inflammation of the thin tissue covering the heart muscle].

 Another study from March 2024 also used a database from the WHO and examined the rate of SAEs in adolescents. This is quite relevant, since adolescents have the lowest risk of Covid morbidity. There were over 99 thousand reports of adverse events with 76.1% of them being SAEs. Myocarditis and pericarditis were especially prevalent.

 During the first eight months of 2022, even if proper statistical research was performed that showed very high rates of SAEs occurring after mRNA vaccination, the recommendation was always that ‘the benefits outweigh the risks.’ We know this is not true and mRNA vaccinations carry far more risk for healthy persons under 65 than the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus. This was confirmed in 2020 by research from Stanford University.Therefore, almost 2 years after research showing that Covid morbidity is very rare among the young and healthy, why does nearly every research article endorse the vaccine for most of 2022?

The letters SAE mean “serious adverse event.” The letters OE mean that the frequency of a particular illnesses is higher than the normal expected ratio.[5] Young persons developing from being childs into an adults have the lowest ratio of deaths from Covid-19. The study found 99,000 reports among this group, with 76.1% (75.335) serious events. Both this study and the study of Hatfill show that receiving a mRNA vaccination for healthy persons has a greater risk than getting affected by the Covid-19 virus. This means that healthy people, except high-risk groups, should not have been vaccinated. The slogan of so many studies has been “the benefits outweigh the risks.” But the truth is the very opposite that “the risks outweigh the benefits.

I list the conclusions of the article:

(1) A drastic shift in the medical literature occurred concerning mRNA based vaccines between 2020 and 2024.

(2) The early literature seems to have been heavily biased in favor of promoting an experimental vaccine, without any previously completed human clinical trials, for both monetary and political purposes.

(3) Even as reports of SAEs became too numerous to dismiss in 2022, the literature at the time simply downplayed SAEs as extremely rare.

(4) Even though there were blatantly obvious conflicts of interest, such as vaccine producers publishing manuscripts promoting their own vaccine, articles were published in very prestigious journals.

(5) It wasn’t until late 2022 that the first criticisms of mRNA vaccines began to appear and, as time goes by, more articles are becoming more vocal about completely banning all mRNA vaccines until they can be thoroughly tested for safety concerns.

(6) The drastic shift in attitude towards mRNA vaccines in only about three years shows serious vulnerabilities in Western medical research.

 

[1]. I have taken six shots of the mRNA vaccine. But when I was informed about the dangers of the vaccine, I refused the offer of another shot. If I had known about the dangers of the vaccine, I would not have taken any shot.

[2]. Are there Next-Generation Costs for the Covid-19 mRNA Mass-Vaccination Campaign? Jounral of American Psysichians and Surgeons. Volume 30 Number 1 Spring 2025 (https://jpands.org/vol30no1/hatfill.pdf).

[3]. The two highly effective and safe drugs that could have been used against Covid-19 are hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin.

[4] The letters FDA refers to The Food and Drug Administration, and EUA refers to An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), which is and authorization granted to the Food and Drug Administration. Hatfills point is that the rules of FDA and of the Emergency Use authorization were violated when the emergency authorization were given to the mRNA vaccines. The abbreviation NVD refers to the National Vulnerability Database.

[5]. The article discussing 99 million vaccinated persons is: Faksova K, Walsh D, Jiang Y, et al. COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: “A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals.” Vaccine. 2024;42(9): 2200–2211.

 EXCESS DEATHS LARGELY CAUSED BY THE mRNA VACCINE

The expression “all-cause excess deaths” refers to greater numbers of deaths than the numbers that are expected. In the years of the pandemic, there were excess deaths in most countries of the world. One study says:

Excess mortality has remained high in the Western World for three consecutive years [2020-2022], despite the implementation of containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines. This raises serious concerns. Government leaders and policymakers need to thoroughly investigate underlying causes of persistent excess mortality.[1]

This study calculates that there were 3 098 456 excess deaths in 47 countries in the Western World from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2022. The Dutch Professor  Bruijning-Verhagen calculated an excess death in the world during the pandemic to 15 million[2]

[1]. “Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the COVID-19 pandemic: ‘Our World in Data’ estimates of January 2020 to December 2022.” Mostert, Saskia, Marcel Hoogland, Minke Huibers, Gertjan Kaspers. BMJ Public Health 6 May 2024.

[2]. Patricia Bruijning-Verhagen. “Covid-19 vaccinations do not explain excess mortality during the pandemic.” UMC Utrecht, December 12, 2024.

 

In the beginning, I showed that there are two ways to find a robust link between the vaccines and the excess deaths:

1) Showing an excess number of deaths among vaccinated persons.

2) Showing peaks of excess deaths in connection with rollouts of vaccines and boosters.

There is one way to prove a direct link between the vaccines and excess deaths.

3) By doing autopsies, finding residues of vaccines in the dead people.

It is good to have these three points in mind when you read this section. Several quotations will show that there is a robust link between the COVID-19 vaccine and excess deaths. And the American study proves there is a direct link between the COVID-19 vaccine and excess deaths by referring to autopsies that havefound mRNA residues in many dead people.

A Dutch study: No connection with vaccines and deaths

Professor Bruijning-Verhagen says regarding the possible causes:

This so-called excess mortality can be explained by the direct effects of the infection as well as indirect effects, such as disruptions in healthcare systems and economic instability.

According to her studies in the Netherlands, the mRNA vaccine has proven highly effective in preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths. Therefore, she does not list vaccines as a possible cause of the excess deaths in her article from December 2024.

A Norwegian study: Lower mortality among corona vaccinated people

The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (Folkehelseinstituttet, FHI) published an article entitled “Lover mortality among corona vaccinated people” on December 18, 2024.[1] The article said:

Previous studies from, among others, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health have shownlower overall mortality in those who have taken the corona vaccine compared to those who have not taken the vaccine, but these studies have been short-lived. Now, researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health have conducted a comprehensive registry study in which overall mortality has been examined for the adult population in Norway, over 4.6 million people. In total, there were almost 133,000 deaths among these in the years 2021-2023. The study has not yet been peer-reviewed, and can be read in its entirety as a preprint.

This is a big study, and therefore, it would naturally, at the outset, to  trust its results. However, when we look at different variables, the conclusion of the study can be questioned. In his study of English deaths among vaccinated and unvaccinated people, Professor Jarle Aarstad wrote:

According to the UK Office for National Statistics, rates for COVID-19 unvaccinated adults in England “were higher for Black Caribbean, Black African and White Other ethnic groups. Rates were also higher for those living in deprived areas, who have never worked or are long-term unemployed, who are limited a lot by a disability, … or who are male.” The statement aligns with vaccine hesitancy research and further indicates that unvaccinated have inferior health at the outset compared to vaccinated, inducing biased comparisons as the groups are not randomly assigned.

Therefore, matching, balancing, or controlling for potential confounders, e.g., ethnicity, employment-, disability-, socioeconomic status, and gender, may debias the results.  However, variables accounting for potentially confounding effects are often unavailable or unknown, and including those available but unknowingly improper can increase bias.[2]

The authors of the article are aware that different variables can alter the results of the study, just as Aarstad pointed out. We read:

Strengths and weaknesses of the study

A strength of the study is that it covers virtually the entire adult population of Norway, and that there is a long follow-up period for both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. The study was conducted by linking individual data from Norwegian health registries.

A weakness of the study is that we cannot rule out that there are systematic biases between those who choose to get vaccinated compared to those who do not get vaccinated.Those who choose to get vaccinated may generally be more aware of their own health than those who do not get vaccinated, and may thus have different risks of illness and death regardless of vaccination. At the same time, there are groups in society, such as refugees, who may have reduced access to vaccination and, for various reasons, an increased risk of death. This also applies to older people who are in the final stages of life and who are considered too weak to get vaccinated. There are also several groups in society who are less likely to contact the health care system for diagnosis and treatment, and thus their medical risk conditions are not registered.

This quotation shows that the authors followed a balanced scientific approach. The following quotation shows the results of this approach:

When we controlled for the different distribution among vaccinated and unvaccinated people by gender, county of residence, time of vaccination and whether the person had a medical risk condition, the differences between age groups disappeared. Mortality among those who had taken at least three doses compared to those who had not taken the corona vaccine was also further reduced.

This means that by applying variables, the numbers were altered and “differences between the age groups disappeared.” Did the authors apply the right variables? We do not know. Professor Jarle Aarstad has commented on this study, and he questions its conclusion, saying that they are  premature.[3] He wrote:

If then Covid deaths cannot explain the inequality in mortality among young people, what is the explanation? I think the answer lies in the knowledge we have from England where the UK Office for National Statistics reports that the proportion of unvaccinated people “were higher for Black Caribbean, Black African and White Other ethnic groups. Rates were also higher for those living in deprived areas, who have never worked or are long-term unemployed, [or] who are limited a lot by a disability…”. The quote indicates that a high proportion of unvaccinated people tend to have low socio-economic status with low self-care which affects the conditions for taking care of one’s own health. I am not aware of data that has directly revealed the same situation in Norway, but I have little reason to believe that there are marked differences.

The reason for 30% fewer deaths in the age group 18-44 among vaccinated people can therefore be attributed to the fact that they initially have relatively good conditions for taking care of their own health compared to the unvaccinated. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health also indirectly admits this as an alternative explanation when they write that one “cannot rule out that there are systematic biases between those who choose to get vaccinated compared to those who do not get vaccinated. Those who choose to get vaccinated may be generally more aware of their own health than those who do not get vaccinated, and may thus have different risks of illness and death regardless of vaccination. … There are also groups in society who are less likely to contact the health care system for diagnosis and treatment, and thus their medical risk conditions are not registered.”

He points out that when the authors controlled the study for factors that take into account inequalities between the unvaccinated and the vaccinated, it shows that a full 58% fewer vaccinated people died compared to the unvaccinated in the 18-44 age group. It is obvious that this percentage is far too high, so, something must be wrong with these numbers. And this could question the conclusion of the study.There may be different important variables that have not been taken into account, such as that young vaccinated people generally have good health. But as long as we do not know exactly what is wrong with the mentioned 58% fewer deaths of vaccinated people, and we cannot point to particular variables that are not applied to the study material, we must conclude that the numbers are correct.

This means that the Norwegian numbers of deaths among vaccinated and unvaccinated persons show the very opposite of the English numbers and of the numbers of many other countries.  (see below)

I would like to add that until March 18, 2025, 63 100 adverse effects of the vaccines were reported to Norwegian Medical Products Agency. Of these, were 8 531 serious adverse effects. The Danish Medicine Agency received reports of 73 436 adverse effects.[1]

[1]. https://www.dmp.no/nyheter/bivirkningsovervaking-av-pandemivaksiner–hva-har-vi-lart;https://laegemiddelstyrelsen.dk/da/nyheder/temaer/indberettede-formodede-bivirkninger-ved-covid-19-vacciner/

[1]. https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2024/lavere-dodelighet-blant-koronavaksinerte/; https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.12.15.24319058v1

[2]. “Mortality involving and not involving COVID-19 among vaccinated vs. unvaccinated in England between Apr 21 and May 23.” Jarle Aarstad. F100Research 3 April 2025; https://tidsskriftet.no/2023/02/debatt/maler-folkehelseinstituttet-overdodelighet-riktig

[3]. https://jarle.substack.com/p/konkurrerende-hendelser-i-lys-av?r=24v2v1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

A Japanese study: The vaccine a possible cause of excess deaths

A Japanese study from May 2024 points out that Japan has the highest rate of mRNA vaccines per capita, yet deaths have exploded after the Omicron variant “with a significant increase in excess deaths in 2022 and 2023.” This study mentions the vaccine as a possible cause for excess deaths.[1]

A Study of 31 countries in Europe: A strong link between vaccines and excess deaths

In early 2023, Professor Jarle Aarstad, Professor in innovation and entrepreneurship at the Western Norway University of Applied Sciences and entrepreneurship and Professor Olav Andreas Kvitastein, Professor emeritus made an analysis of excess deaths in Europe. They found a clear link between excess deaths and the COVID-19 vaccine. Their conclusion on page 29 is:

Analyses of 31 countries weighted by population size show that all-cause mortality during the first nine months of 2022 increased more the higher the 2021 vaccination uptake; a one percentage point increase in 2021 vaccination uptake was associated with a monthly mortality increase in 2022 by 0.105 percent (95% CI 0.075-0.134). When controlling for alternative explanations, the association remained robust…[1]

Conclusion: Despite a possible preventive effect in 2021, we cannot rule out that COVID-19 vaccination uptake in Europe has led to increasing 2022 all-cause mortality between January and September.

[1]. “Is there a Link between the 2021 COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake in Europe and 2022 Excess All-Cause Mortality? Asian Pacific Journal of Health Sciences Volume 10, Issue I, January-March 2023, pages 25-31.

An English study: The vaccine may give temporary protection but increased mortality

Professor Jarle Aarstad has written several articles on the COVID-19 vaccine. A recent article discusses mortality related to vaccinated and unvaccinated persons in England.

Odds ratios[1] and mortality rate analyses indicate declining health among vaccinated

Figure 3 shows that while mortality not involving COVID-19 decreased among unvaccinated compared to the first observation month, it was high among vaccinated… Hence, the data show a relatively high and relative increase in mortality not involving COVID-19 among vaccinated. An interpretation is that vaccination, despite temporary protection, increased mortality. Strengthening the interpretation was relatively high mortality among vaccinated not involving COVID-19 counterintuitively following periods of excess mortality. Further strengthening the interpretation was the relatively high mortality not involving COVID-19 among the vaccinated, corresponding with excess mortality during much of the same period (ibid.)[2]

The big study of Rancourt et al. argued that there is no example of a country where rollouts of vaccines have reduced the number of all-cause deaths. (see below) This is a collective expression, and it does not contradict all the studies showing that vaccines may have saved the lives of many persons.

Aarstad’s point that the vaccines may only give temporary protection and that they may increase mortality accords with all the studies showing that the vaccines have taken lives. I will quote one important observation of Aarstad:

According to the UK Office for National Statistics, rates for COVID-19 unvaccinated adults in England “were higher for Black Caribbean, Black African and White Other ethnic groups. Rates were also higher for those living in deprived areas, who have never worked or are long-term unemployed, who are limited a lot by a disability, … or who are male.” The statement aligns with vaccine hesitancy research and further indicates that unvaccinated have inferior health at the outset compared to vaccinated, inducing biased comparisons as the groups are not randomly assigned.

Therefore, matching, balancing, or controlling for potential confounders, e.g., ethnicity, employment-, disability-, socioeconomic status, and gender, may debias the results.  However, variables accounting for potentially confounding effects are often unavailable or unknown, and including those available but unknowingly improper can increase bias.

When the statistics of some, particularly unvaccinated ones, do not add up with other statistics or other interpretations, the reason may be what what the Office of National Statistics has pointed out. However, in most countries, this kind of statistics is not available.

[1]. The expression «Odds ratios» (OR) is a statistical measure used to assess the strength of association between two events or conditions.

[2]. “Mortality involving and not involving COVID-19 among vaccinated vs. unvaccinated in England between Apr 21 and May 23.” Jarle Aarstad. F100Research 3 April 2025.

An Arabian study: Vaccinated pregnant women experienced a great number of serious side effectcs

A Study of 438 pregnant women was performed in Jedda in Saudi Arabia. Group A did not get COVID-19 vaccine, but group B got the vaccine. The result was that several severe events occurred among the vaccinated women:

Most participants were aged 25 to less than 35 (58.8%), and 287 (61.3%) were university graduates. There was no statistically signifcant difference among the studied groups regarding demographics. However, women in Group B had a significantly higher rate of abortions, oligohydramnios (24.4%) [lack of amniotic fluid], abnormal placentas (size and location), 103 (42.7%) abnormal fetal growth, 122 (53.7%) problems breastfeeding, blood pressure problems, and more cases of malaise [feeling of discomfort], headaches, chest pain, breathing problems, and sleep problems than women in Group A. After the second and third doses, the confirmed post-vaccination COVID-19 rates in Group B were lower than those in Group A.[4]

An American study: A strong link between the vaccine and excess deaths

King County in the State of Washington includes the Cities Seattle and Tacoma, and it has 2.2 million inhabitants. A study of excess heart disease and deaths was published May 27, 2024.The Abstract says:

Conclusions: Approximately 98% of the King County population received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 2023. Our analysis revealed a 25.7% increase in total cardiopulmonary arrests and a 25.4% increase in cardiopulmonary arrest mortality from 2020 to 2023 in King County, WA…

We identified a very strong ecological and temporal association between excess cardiopulmonary arrest mortality and the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, which resulted in high vaccination rates.

Discussion. We found that both the total number of cardiopulmonary arrests and fatal events increased more than expected coinciding with the rollout of the COVID-19 mass vaccination program in King County, WA. Our study estimated a 1,236% rise in excess cardiopulmonary arrest deaths following the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines, which have regulatory warnings for myocarditis and thromboembolism. Both of these conditions have been proven to likely be fatal in autopsy studies of death after COVID-19 vaccination. A very strong correlation between higher vaccination rates and excess cardiopulmonary arrest mortality was observed in the quadratic model.

The biological plausibility of COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis and thromboembolism leading to sudden cardiac death has been previously demonstrated and is concerning given our findings using real-world data. Among all published autopsy reports with COVID-19 vaccines as a previous exposure, 35.9% of deaths were attributed to sudden cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and myocarditis, while 15.3% were linked to pulmonary embolism and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia.

Hulscher et al found that COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis can most likely result in sudden cardiac death using post-mortem analysis in 28 autopsy cases.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines systemically distribute mRNA via LNPs that encodes for the Spike protein, which has been shown to incite deleterious effects in multiple organ systems and cause fibrinolysis-resistant blood clots. Baumeier et al found Spike protein and no nucleocapsid in the myocardium of 15 individuals with COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis. Schrekenberg et al found that in isolated cardiomyocytes, both mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 induce cardiac dysfunctions that are seen in cardiomyopathies. Krauson et al identified the presence of COVID-19 vaccine mRNA in the hearts of individuals who died within 30 days after vaccination, along with histologically confirmed myocardial injury. De Michele et al found isolated Spike protein without SARS-CoV-2 RNA or nucleocapsid in the blood clots of patients with myocardial infarction and acute ischemic stroke. Thus, the likely occurrence of excess cardiopulmonary deaths associated with COVID-19 vaccination among over 2 million vaccinated individuals living in King County, WA, is not surprising. Moreover, COVID-19 infection and pandemic-related emergency care disruptions may have also contributed to the increase in excess cardiopulmonary arrest deaths. However, the sharp increase in excess cardiopulmonary arrest deaths began in 2021, which was one year after the COVID-19 pandemic began and coincides with the onset of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns.[5]

Kings County has 2.2 million inhabitants, and 98% of these were vaccinated. The rate of excess deaths increased by cardiopulmonary arrests increased by 25.4% during vaccine rollouts. The strengths of this study are the references to autopsies that connect deaths with the vaccine and to studies that have found residues of the COVID-19 vaccines in patients that died.

A Swedish study: The vaccine may be the cause of 2 million excess deaths in Europe

Peter Hegarty, Professor at the Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Gothenburg, wrote an article where he calculates that as many as 2 million people have died from vaccines across Europe during 2-plus years. He wrote:

The possibility of there being negative effects of the novel, genetic Covid-19 vaccines has so far been largely downplayed in the mainstream, whether that be the formal academic discussion (scientific journals and conferences) or the various institutions through which this discussion is disseminated to the wider public (mainstream media, government and public health authorities etc.).

Nevertheless, concern has been voiced by many people, both of the short- and long-term adverse effects of these products on the individuals who take them [6–10,13], as well as the population-level effects of mass-vaccinating in the midst of a pandemic [2]. Recently, much attention has been given to the persistence of all-cause excess mortality (henceforth abbreviated to EM) in highly vaccinated first-world countries [1,3,5]…

A robust finding is that since April 2022, rates of EM have been positively correlated with vaccination rates. In absolute terms, EM has tended to remain positive in more highly vaccinated countries and, in many cases, was higher in 2022 than in 2021. A robust finding is that since April 2022, rates of EM have been positively correlated with vaccination rates. In absolute terms, EM has tended to remain positive in more highly vaccinated countries and, in many cases, was higher in 2022 than in 2021…

Given the extent to which the Covid vaccines were promoted, and in many cases mandated, even a reasonable doubt as to their effectiveness should be sufficient reason for urgent public debate. Note that our conclusions go beyond just raising a reasonable doubt. While the European EM data permits a wide range of possible interpretations, we find those which suggest the vaccines have caused net harm to be more persuasive. Quantifying the harm seems very difficult, but the stakes are definitely high. As we shall see below, at the outer limit of our analysis, if the entire shift in the correlation between EM rates and vaccination rates post-rollout can be laid at the door of the vaccines themselves, then they could have raised mortality across Europe by up to 20% which, over the 2-plus years since they were first administered, would yield approximately 2 million additional deaths.[6]

The studies in this section both demonstrate a robust link between mRNA vaccines and excess deaths and provide evidence of a direct link between mRNA vaccines and increased mortality. The next section will demonstrate how excess deaths are directly linked to the rollouts of vaccines and boosters.

[1] Hideki Kakeya, Takeshi Nitta), Yukari Kamijima), and Takayuki Miyazawa. Significant Increase in Excess Deaths after Repeated COVID-19 Vaccination in Japan.” JMA Journal. May 2024.

[2]. “Is there a Link between the 2021 COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake in Europe and 2022 Excess All-Cause Mortality? Asian Pacific Journal of Health Sciences Volume 10, Issue I, January-March 2023, pages 25-31.

[3]. Jarle Aarstad. “Deaths among young people in England aged 12-29 years increased significantly in 10 0f 11 weeks after Covid-19 vaccination and doubled in three.” EXCLI Journal Experimental and Clinical Sciences. July 4 (23) 2024, 908-911.

[4]. “Exploring COVID-19 vaccine adverse events among pregnant women: a cross-sectional study, 2022” by Ahmed A. Amer, Samar A. Amer, and Mohamed Sh. Ramadan, Therapeutic Advances in Vaccines and Immunotherapy, October 5, 2024.

[5]. “Excess Cardiopulmonary Arrest and Mortality after COVID-19 Vaccination in King County, Washington» Nicholas Huscher, Michael Cook, Raphael Stricker, Peter A McCullough. Prerints.org May 27, 2024.

[6]. Peter Hagerty «Excess Mortality Data and the Effect of the Covid-19 Vaccines Part 1: European Data” Preprints.org 15 September 2023.

PEAKS OF DEATHS CONNECTED WITH THE ROLLOUTS OF COVID-19 VACCINE AND BOOSTERS

I have discussed studies indicating a higher death rate among vaccinated persons than among unvaccinated ones. I will now discuss a study pointing to flares of deaths after vaccination and booster rollouts.

Denis G. Rancourt is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottava, Canada. He has published more than 100 articles in leading scientific journals, and he is probably the one researcher who has done the most work on the COVID-19 vaccines. Her I use his article on the Southern hemisphere.[5]

The article starts with saying that the risk of death after Covid-19 vaccination is 1,000-fold greater than reported in clinical trials.[6]

(Page 3)

We quantify the overall all-ages vDFR (The all-ages vaccine-dose fatality rate) for the 17 countries to be (0.126 ± 0.004) %, which would imply 17.0 ± 0.5 million COVID-19 vaccine deaths worldwide, from 13.50 billion injections up to 2 September 2023. This would correspond to a mass iatrogenic event that killed (0.213 ± 0.006) % of the world population (1 death per 470 living persons, in less than 3 years), and did not measurably prevent any deaths.

The overall risk of death induced by injection with the COVID-19 vaccines in actual populations, inferred from excess all-cause mortality and its synchronicity with rollouts, is globally pervasive and much larger than reported in clinical trials, adverse effect monitoring, and cause-of-death statistics from death certificates, by 3 orders of magnitude (1,000-fold greater).

(Page 113) Strong evidence for a causal association and vaccine lethal toxity.

First: Some of the strongest evidence for a causal association and vaccine lethal toxicity is the remarkable temporal associations between rapid first-doses and booster rollouts and immediate peaks in ACM (all-cause mortality), in specific elderly age groups, including peaks of mortality occurring at times in seasonal cycles when peaks virtually never occur. This was previously graphically illustrated for Israel (Rancourt et al., 2023; their Appendix 2: Figure A2 F1). In the present paper, there are multiple examples of this type of evidence, for Chile (Figure 12, Figure 11, Figure 13) and for Peru (Figure 15, Figure 16, Figure 14), in every case where age-stratified mortality and age-stratified (and dose-specific) vaccination data are available.

These findings are conclusive. The associations are numerous and systematic, and there are no counter examples. We have found no evidence in our extensive research on ACM that COVID-19 vaccines had any beneficial effect. If vaccines prevented transmission, infection or serious illness, then there should be decreases in mortality following vaccine rollouts, not increases, as in every observed elderly age group subjected to rapid booster rollouts. And, mortality would not increase solely when vaccines are rolled out, where no excess mortality occurs prior to vaccine rollouts, as we have documented here, in 9 countries across 3 continents.

(Page 115) 6.5 Causality in excess mortality is amply demonstrated

The above-described heads of evidence in support of a causal relation between COVID-19 vaccine administration and temporally associated excess ACM can be summarized as follows:

1. There is no evidence in ACM-by-time data of any beneficial effect of COVID-19 vaccines. There is no association in time between COVID-19 vaccination and any proportionate reduction in ACM.
2. On the contrary, there occurs an onset or increase of a large excess ACM on rolling out the COVID-19 vaccines, in every country and state or province, studied to date, on virtually all continents, including for initial rollouts occurring at significantly different times (by several months).

(Page 132) The measured all-ages vDFR [The all-ages vaccine-dose fatality rate] of (0.126 ± 0.004) % implies that 17.0 ± 0.5 million COVID-19 vaccine deaths would have occurred globally, up to 2 September 2023. It appears that the global COVID-19 vaccination campaign was in effect a mass iatrogenic event that killed (0.213 ± 0.006) % of the world population (1 death per 470 living persons, in less than 3 years), and did not measurably prevent any deaths.[7]

I present two graphs from the article, from Malaysia and Singapore. The yellow line shows the rollout of Covid-19 vaccines and boosters. It flares up in 2021 in both graphs. The blue line represents deaths. The deaths between 2015 and 2021 in both graphs are quite stable. But in Malaysia the death flares up (increases dramatically) parallel with the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccines, and in Singapore it flares up (increases rapidly) shortly after the vaccine rollout.

 

The important point of Rancourt et al is that if the death rate of the flares that are found on the southern hemisphere is the same all over the globe, the Covid-19 vaccine could have killed as many as 17 million persons.

I have searched the Internet for articles criticizing the studies of Rancourt et al., and I have read 10+ criticisms. But none of them question the data presented or present a scientific discussion pointing to errors in the studies. After discussing the deate among Jehovah’s Witnesses, I will now present a study that indirectly supports the conclusions of Rancourt et al. and calls for a retraction and removal of all COVID-19 vaccines.

 

[1]. Patricia Bruijning-Verhagen. “Covid-19 vaccinations do not explain excess mortality during the pandemic.” UMC Utrecht, December 12, 2024.

[2] Hideki Kakeya, Takeshi Nitta), Yukari Kamijima), and Takayuki Miyazawa. Significant Increase in Excess Deaths after Repeated COVID-19 Vaccination in Japan.” JMA Journal. May 2024

[3]. Peter Hagerty «Excess Mortality Data and the Effect of the Covid-19 Vaccines Part 1: European Data” Preprints.org 15 September 2023.

[4]. Jarle Aarstad. “Deaths among young people in England aged 12-29 years increased significantly in 10 0f 11 weeks after Covid-19 vaccination and doubled in three.” EXCLI Journal Experimental and Clinical Sciences. July 4 (23) 2024, 908-911.

[5]. Denis G. Rancourt,1, PhD ; Marine Baudin, PhD ; Joseph Hickey,1 PhD ;

Jérémie Mercier,2 PhD. “COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere” Correlation Research in the Public Interest 17. September 2023.

[6]. The expression «excess all-cause mortality” (ACM) means that the death ratio in a population group is higher than the normal expectation of number of deaths.

[7]. Denis G. Rancourt,1, PhD ; Marine Baudin, PhD ; Joseph Hickey,1 PhD ;

Jérémie Mercier,2 PhD. “COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere” Correlation Research in the Public Interest 17. September 2023.

THREE CAUSES FOR THE EXCESS DEATHS

In the previous section, I showed that there is a link between the great number of deaths in connection with rollouts of vaccines and the vaccines themselves. However, there are also other reasons for the excess deaths of possibly as much as 30 million people.

The study by Rancourt et al. from 19 July 2024 of 125 countries lists the following three causes:

(1) Biological (including psychological) stress from mandates such as lockdowns and associated socio-economic structural changes.

(2) Non-COVID-19-vaccine medical interventions such as mechanical ventilators and drugs (including denial of treatment with antibiotics).

(3) COVID-19 vaccine injection rollouts, including repeated rollouts on the same populations.

The authors use 521 pages to discuss all three causes, and the study shows that COVID-19 vaccines are the primary cause of all-cause excess deaths. The authors ask whether there is evidence that vaccine rollouts have reduced all-cause deaths. How can this be answered? We read on page 254:

Did the unprecedented global rollouts of COVID-19 vaccines have any measurable benefit regarding all-cause mortality? Does the data show evidence that all-cause mortality was reduced by vaccine rollouts? The best way to answer this question ― in the absence of vaccine-status-discriminated all-cause mortality data ― is to examine the temporal evolution of all-cause mortality, before, during and after vaccine rollouts.

There has been a claim that the vaccines saved millions of lives. But this claim is false, according to the authors. We continue reading:  

Watson et al. (2022) used hypothetical projections of all-cause mortality to claim that millions of lives were saved by the COVID-19 vaccines in 185 countries and territories, and their results were used to promote a Nobel Prize (see: Rancourt and Hickey, 2023). However, if the COVID-19 vaccines were effective at reducing the risk of severe illness, as is often claimed, then the impact of a known large-scale rollout during a presumed deadly pandemic should be detectable in measured all-cause mortality data directly, and its temporal dependence. 

Rancourt and Hickey (2023) thus argued that any purported COVID-19 vaccine efficacy is constrained by the measured mortality data itself, and demonstrated that the contrived projections of Watson et al. (2022) are necessarily false.

The authors claim that there is no example of a country where rollouts of vaccines have reduced the number of all-cause deaths. The authors challenge anyone who does not agree to prove that rollouts of vaccines have reduced the number of all-cause deaths in any country. I am not aware of anyone who have taken up this challenge. We read on page 254:

Appendix B shows all the available data in the present study of more than 100 countries, for all-cause mortality, excess all-cause mortality, and vaccine rollouts, by time 2018-2023, both by time interval (week or month) and as cumulative functions.

We find no example of a specific country for which all-cause mortality by time data shows a benefit attributable to vaccine rollouts. We would invite readers to identify such an example and to explain how they conclude a benefit attributable to COVID-19 vaccine rollouts. 

I bring one quotation from page 267 (above) and one from page 257 (below) showing that rollouts of COVID-19 vaccines are associated with all-cause deaths:

Rancourt (2022) and Rancourt et al. (2022a, 2023a, 2023b) have shown many examples of strong temporal associations between rapid COVID-19 vaccine rollouts and peaks in excess all-cause mortality, in more than 20 countries and states, including in age stratified data.

Therefore, despite the long (3-year) presumed period of opportunity during a declared pandemic, the extensive COVID-19 vaccination campaigns and repeated rollouts did not measurably prevent or reduce excess all-cause mortality. It would be unreasonable for anyone to conclude that COVID-19 vaccine rollouts decreased all-cause mortality, or saved any lives sufficiently to be detectable in national data and its temporal evolution. On the contrary, as indicated in the above numbered points and as discussed below, the COVID-19 vaccine rollout campaigns are significantly associated with excess all-cause mortality. 

This is a big study that includes data from 125 countries. It shows that biological stress from lockdowns and medical interventions, such as denial of treatment with antibiotics, may have contributed to a number of the all-cause excess deaths. But the primary cause are the vaccines themselves.

The reason why we can say that the vaccine takes lives is that large numbers of deaths occur in parallel with mass vaccination, and that substances caused by the mRNA vaccine can be found in the bodies of people who died after receiving the vaccine. But how can one prove that the vaccine saves lives? In Norway, 6,638 people have died from COVID-19. How can we know that many more would have died if there had been no vaccines? This could be made probable if the opposite of large numbers of deaths from mass vaccination occurred. That is, if the epidemic was greatly reduced or stopped after mass vaccination, then it would be made probable that the vaccine worked and prevented deaths. But the reality is that large numbers of deaths have occurred, and there was no strong limitation of the epidemic. A large number of vaccinated people have become ill and died. Therefore, the challenge from Rancourt et al. regarding the proof that the vaccine has saved many lives remains unchallenged.

THE EXCESS DEATHS AMONG JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES: 30 OUT OF 10.000 VERSUS 9 OF 10.000 IN THE WORLD POPULATION

The elders had been asked to report all Covid-19 deaths in their congregations. This refers to persons who had acquired the virus, had become sick, and had died. A  person who is an expert in statistics made the following calculations regarding the ratio of deaths among Jehovah’s Witnesses compared with the deaths in the world population. He presents the following study:

INTRODUCTION

POPULATIONS

On January 1, 2022, the total population of the world was  7.868.872.451, about 7.868 million) (1). On January 1, 2022, the number of deaths caused by Covid-19 was 5.515.558, about 5.5 million. (2). Adding these numbers would give us an adjusted total population of  7.874.388.009 (about 7,874 million). We thus assume that without Covid-19 they would still be alive. The percentage of total deaths from this adjusted population would be about 0.0700 percent.

The population of Jehovah’s Witnesses is somewhat more difficult to determine, but we can try this method. The peak number of publishers in 2021 was 8.686.980, about 8.69 million (3). The Governing Body reported that on January 21, 2022, the number of deaths from COVID-19 was 26,813 (4). Just as for the world’s total population, we adjust this population by adding the above-mentioned numbers to 8.713.793 (about 8.71 million). Dividing the number of deaths by the adjusted population, the percentage is 0.3077.

Comparing the percentages, it could seem that the percentage of deaths among Jehovah’s Witnesses would be 4 times higher than for the total population of the world. (0,3077 / 0,7000 = 4,4). A small but important adjustment:The assumption is that the population of Jehovah’s Witnesses consists of persons being 15 years of age or older. There is no age structure available, so this is an assumption. Globally, about 25 percent of the world’s population is below 15 years of age. (5). Therefore, to obtain a fairer comparison, we revise once more the world’s total population, now downwards by multiplying it by a factor of 0.75. This will give us a comparison population of 5.905.791.007 (about 5.905 million).  The adjusted percentage will now be 0.0933, somewhat higher than estimated earlier.

A new comparison of the percentages: 0,3077 / 0,0933, which is 3.3 times higher. It is not possible to find the accurate percentages, but an educated guess could be that the ratio of Jehovah’s Witnesses who died from Covid-19 is about 3 times higher than the ratio of the total population of the world. Visualizing the calculation for å better understanding: 9 out of 10.000 died from Covid-19 in the world population, and 30 out of 10.000 died among Jehovah’s Witnesses.

This does not tell us anything about the reason(s) for the difference. This is only an analysis of available data. We must also keep in mind that percentages could be higher for different populations.

SOURCES

(1) https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/12/happy-new-year-2022.html
(2) https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/worldwide-graphs/#total-deaths

(3) https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/2021-service-year-report/2021-grand-totals/

(4) https://www.jw.org/en/news/region/global/2022-Governing-Body-Update-1/

(5) https://www.statista.com/statistics/265759/world-population-by-age-and-region/

I have the following comment on these statistics: The COVID-19 vaccine became available in December 2020. The statistics cover the years 2020 and 2021. The deaths from COVID-19 in 2020, when there was no vaccine, were about 80% of the deaths in 2021, after the rollout of the vaccine. This means that about 60% (16.000) of the 26.813 Witnesses who died from Covid-19 in 2020 and 2021 were vaccinated (Almost all the Witnesses who died in 2021 were vaccinated).

We do not know why the number of deaths among Jehovah’s Witnesses is 3 to 4 times higher than the death rate in the world population. But what we see is the very opposite of what the Watchtower literature says. Those who followed the direction of the members of the Governing Body did not “avoid undue anxieties,” as the claim is. But some of them experienced harm and death.

About 62% of the world’s population is between 15 and 64 years of age. We must assume that the same is true among Jehovah’s Witnesses. Several experts have pointed out that the risks of adverse effects in this age group of taking the vaccine are greater than the benefits, except among persons with different sicknesses. Yet, the strong advice and even pressure from the Governing Body were that everyone should take the vaccine.

The Governing Body has only counted Witnesses who died from COVID-19. But we must assume that there is a number of Witnesses who are part of the excess numbers of deaths in the world. If we use the numbers of Rancourt et al. of one vaccine death out of 470 living persons, and if we do not count persons below 15 years, I present the following calculation: 6.500.000 Witnesses divided by 470 = 13.829. The normal death rate in the population is 1% per year, which means that about 178.000 Witnesses died during 2020 and 2021. In addition to these, there may have been 13.829 Witnesses that were killed by the COVID-19 vaccine in 2020 and 2021, and a similar number of Witnesses who were killed by the vaccine during 2022 and 2023. This means that there may have been 42.641 (28.813 + 13.828) Witnesses who were killed by the COVID-19 vaccine and related causes during the pandemic.

Because of the strong pressure that every Witness should take the COVID-19 vaccine by the members of the Governing Body, they have some responsibility for the deaths of so many vaccinated Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The number given by Rancourt et al., that the vaccine killed 17 million people worldwide is an assumption that at present cannot be proven. But in any case, different published studies show that several million were killed by the vaccine. The following discussion supports this.

CALLS FOR MARKET REMOVAL OF COVID-19 VACCINES

A recent article of particular importance is the following: Nicholas Hulscher, Mary T. Bowden, and Peter A. McCullough, Calls for Market Removal of COVID-19 Vaccines Intensify as Risks Far Outweigh Theoretical Benefits.” In Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law, Volume v6, January 2025, 2019-2025.

The article clearly demonstrates excess mortality, negative efficiency, and widespread DNA contamination associated with COVID-19 vaccines. I quote the abstract of the article and copy a table showing studies that have demonstrated the great problems with the vaccines.

COVID-19 vaccination campaigns around the globe have failed to meet fundamental standards of safety and efficacy, leading to mounting evidence of significant harm. More than 81,000 physicians,scientists, researchers, and concerned citizens, 240 elected government officials, 17 professionalpublic health and physician organizations, 2 State Republican Parties, 17 Republican Party CountyCommittees, and 6 scientific studies from across the world have called for the market withdrawal ofCOVID-19 vaccines. As of September 6, 2024, the CDC has documented 19,028 deaths in the UnitedStates reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) by healthcare professionals or pharmaceutical companies who believe the product is related to the death. The total number of COVID-19 vaccine deaths reported to VAERS (37,544 among all participating countries) have far exceeded the recall limits of past vaccine withdrawals by up to 375,340%. The criteria for an FDA Class I recall, which applies to products with a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences or death, have been far exceeded. Excess mortality, negative efficacy,widespread DNA contamination, and a lack of demonstrated reduction in transmission, hospitalization, or mortality have undermined the rationale for continued administration. These unified requests for regulatory action underscore substantial shortcomings in data safety monitoring and risk mitigation.

The article that I have quoted from above was published in January 2025, and it sums up the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccines. That the authors call for a removal of the COVID-19 vaccines from the markets shows how seriously they view the situation. The seriousness is that as long as the vaccines are used, many lives will be lost.

THE COVER-UP OF THE DANGERS OF THE mRNA VACCINES FOR ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL REASONS

The situation isparadoxical. On the one hand, two scientists who developed the basis for the mRNA vaccine received the Nobel Prize for their work. Scores upon scores of articles argued that the vaccine was safe and was a wonder drug, and it was claimed that the vaccine saved 20 million lives. On the other hand, there are a number of articles arguing that the vaccine is dangerous, and one article claims, as we have seen, that the vaccine has killed 17 million people. Another article gives the number 30 million. Several doctors and researchers have demanded that the vaccine be retracted because it is so dangerous.

How can highly educated scholars draw such diametrically opposed conclusions? The answer seems to be that great pressure from interest groups has been exerted on scholars to downplay the serious adverse effects and deaths connected with the COVID-19 vaccine and to praise its effects. Behind this pressure are economic and political interests that would be jeopardized if the bad effects of the vaccine were published.

The Polish scholar Dr. Michael Allen Thoene says in an article from July 2024:

While literature from the first eight months of 2022 was embarrassing due to researchers writing what they believed was expected of them regardless of the data, late 2020 and nearly all of 2021 was frightening. In many cases, it seems as if data was intentionally skewed in order to bias the results and show that mRNA was the safest vaccine in human history.

For example, a very large study of over 20,000 nursing home patients concluded that adverse events were not statistically significant and although they did report a suspiciously low number of venous thromboembolism cases, the article normalizes the findings. The most deceptive part of the study though is that all statistics were collected only after the first vaccination. Since most SAEs [serious adverse effecte] occur after the second inoculation, this article seriously under-reports the incidence of SAEs.[1]

In an article from spring 2025, American scholar Steven J. Hatfill shows how discussions behind the scenes for economic and political reasons were behind the mass vaccination campaigns, not medical data. In the USA, information regarding the pandemic and the vaccines was withheld:

(Page 20) Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], NIH [National Institutes of Health], and the vaccine manufacturers systematically ignored multiple FOIA [FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT], requests by numerous outside investigators trying to understand the ongoing pandemic debacle.

Hatfill shows that the authorities instituted a propaganda program hiding the problems with the vaccine:

(Page 20) At the same time, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would waste almost $1 billion to fund a sophisticated national propaganda program that promoted masking, social distancing, and mRNA vaccine compliance. Titled “We Can Do This,” the campaign was designed and operated by the Fors Marsh Group (FMG), and it ran until June 2023.46 FMG is a professional media research/consulting firm using advanced group psychological methods to modify humanbe havior. For the HHS campaign, FMG was forced to use the CDC’s [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]own false narratives concerning the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines. On May 6, 2024, HHS had the audacity to announce that its “We Can Do This” propaganda campaign had saved lives, prevented mass hospitalizations, and blocked millions of infections…

Left unexplained was how a vaccine with a proven and admitted inability to prevent infection and transmission, and with a conclusively documented negative benefit-to-harm ratio, could possibly comport with the figures quoted in this and other studies.

Hatfill also shows that American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) was paid to promote the COVID-19 vaccine in spite of the fact that this organization was skeptical to the use of the COVID-19 vaccination on pregnant woman:

(Page 21) From its initial cautious approach to mRNA vaccination, on Jul 21, 2021, ACOG made a sudden about-face and began to strongly promote it…

In 2023, documents obtained through a FOIA request by OB/GYN specialist James Thorp, M.D., and his associates indicate that the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] paid ACOG roughly $11 million to promote COVID-19. The award was contingent upon ACOG’s compliance with the vaccination as both “safe and effective” for pregnant women. The award was contigent upon ACOG’s compliance with the false CDC-directed “We Can Do This” propaganda campaign.

There can be no doubt that there has been much bias in connection with many articles dealing with the COVID-19 vaccines. And this is because of the strong pressure from pharmaceutical companies and political authorities. And authorities have hidden the dangers of the vaccine from scholars and the general public. Regarding Norway, professor Jarle Aarstad wrote:

For several weeks, the proportion of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was higher for vaccinated people than unvaccinated people….However, in its last weekly report, the NIPH [the Norwegian Institute for Public Health] stopped publishing data on COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and deaths among vaccinated people versus unvaccinated people…WHY? I have previously criticized the Norwegian Institute of Public Health for incorrect claims about vaccine effectiveness, but when I asked them for a response, the NIPH responded with: “Thank you for the offer, but we do not have the opportunity to prioritize it this time.”[2]

The situation was the same in Taiwan, and we read

While the number of deaths from the COVID-19 declined with the epidemic control on one side and the number of reported deaths after vaccination increased on the other side, fear triggered by news media seemed to slow down the speed of vaccination in Taiwan.[3]

A friend of mine who lived in Taiwan during the pandemic told me that he followed the weekly updates of increased deaths. But then the website was taaken down, and there were no more updates.

Regarding articles discussing the COVID-19 vaccine in 2021 and 2022, Dr Thoene wrote “it seems as if data was intentionally skewed in order to bias the results and show that mRNA was the safest vaccine in human history.”

The Journal Secrecy and Society is an interdisciplinary, peer reviewed open access journal that welcomes works written by scholars across fields and disciplines on the subject of secrecy as the intentional/nonintentional concealment of information. Its Number 2, Special Issue: Pandemic, of Volume 3 had the article “A Narrative Review of the COVID-19 Infodemic and Censorship in Healthcare” by Mitchell Liester et al. I highly recommend this article.

The abstract says:

Ideological and financial motivations have undermined science for decades. In this narrative review, we explore how organizations and governments used misinformation, disinformation, censorship, and secrecy to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Various rationales for employing censorship and secrecy during the COVID-19 pandemic are examined including how organizations and governments create confusion about the risks associated with their products and blame avoidance to shift responsibility and to avoid accountability for their actions.

The article abounds with examples of how information about the severe adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccines was suppressed, and how scholars who pointed out these bad effects were ridiculed, persecuted, and even lost their jobs.

I will use one example from this article. More than 30 scientists and professors at Yale, Harvard, UCLA, and other universities requested vaccine-related documents regarding the clinical trials that resulted in the FDA granting an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

The Food & Drug Administration held back this information and suggested that they would release 500 pages each month of the 450,000 pages, which would require 75 years to release all the documents. A court decided against this and demanded a release of 55,000 pages per month.  After the release of the record, a group of 3,250 doctors, scientists, and other volunteers reviewed the records, and the result was the book The Pfizer Papers  Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity (Reds Naomi Wolf and Amy Kelly). I quote the main point of the book from the article by M. Liester et al.:

• Nine months after the rollout of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, birth

rates dropped significantly in 13 of 19 European countries as well as

England, Wales, Australia, and Taiwan (p. 4). Pfizer originally

committed to following both the vaccinated and placebo cohorts for up

to 26 months. But 5 months after initiating the study, Pfizer unblinded

the placebo group and offered the mRNA injections to the original

placebo recipients. Within 8 months of starting the study, nearly 90%

of the original placebo group had received at least one Pfizer mRNA

injection, thus eliminating a control group (p. 119-120).

• Following vaccination, younger patients began presenting with cancers.

Their tumors were bigger and grew faster than cancers that existed

prior to the vaccine. Also, the onset of more than one cancer at a time

became more common (p. 128).

• Adverse events occurred in over 54 percent of cases of “maternal

exposure” to the vaccine and included 53 reports of spontaneous

abortion (p. 153).

• Premature labor and delivery cases occurred in vaccinated women, as

well as two newborn deaths (p. 154).

• 19% of babies who were exposed to Pfizer’s COVID mRNA vaccine via

their mothers’ breast milk experienced 48 different categories of

adverse events (p. 154).

• Autoimmunity case reports reported to VAERS increased 24-fold from

2020 to 2021, and annual autoimmunity-related fatalities increased

37-fold during the same period (p. 181).

• The spike protein and inflammation were still present in heart tissue

one year after receipt of the mRNA COVID vaccine (p. 270).

• Over a 3.7-fold increase in the number of deaths due to cardiovascular

events occurred in vaccinated subjects compared to placebo subjects

(p. 295).

• The vaccine Pfizer rolled out to the public was different than the

formulation used on the majority of clinical trial participants, and the

public was not informed of this (p. 343).

• The public vaccine is contaminated with high levels of DNA plasmid

fragments (p. 344).

• 2.5 months after Pfizer rolled out their COVID-19 vaccine, they

changed the criteria for “Vaccination Failure,” resulting in 99% of

reported cases not meeting criteria for Vaccination Failure (p. 364).

• Pfizer concealed deaths in the vaccinated cohort that occurred during

the clinical trial to make its results look more favorable when applying

for its emergency use authorization filing with the FDA (p. 368-371).

• There were twice as many cardiovascular adverse events in the

vaccinated arm of the clinical trial as the placebo arm (p. 371).

On the assumption that  these points are correct, we understand why the subtitle of the book is “Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity.” We also understand that the Emergency Use Authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine by the American Food and Drug Administration was based on an unsubstantiated basis.

One of the best examples of biased censorship that I am aware of is that the editor in chief of the Journal Cureus retracted one article with strong criticism of how the COVID-19 vaccines had been handled. Cureus is an open-access, online-only, multispecialty medical journal published by Springer Nature.

Because of his criticism of COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Peter McCullough, who was vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center, was fired. He was also a Professor at Texas A&M College of Medicine but lost his position for “spreading misinformation.”  He has also been threatened with removal of his board certification in internal medicine and cardiology by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) because of his testimony in Texas Senate subcommittee hearings about the risks of the COVID-19 vaccines.

McCullough was the co-outhor the article, “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign.” M. Nataniel Mead, Stphanie Seneff, Russ Wolfinger,Jessica Rose, Kris Denhaerynck, Steve Kirsch, and Peter A McCullough. Curetus 2024, February 26;16(2):r137. Doi: 10.7759/cureus. R137.

A few days after the article was published, the editor of the Journal Retraction Watch interviewed John Adler Jr., the editor in chief of Curetus. And the question was whether the track record of McCullough and other authors as critics of the COVID-19 vaccines concerned him. His answer was:

Yes I am aware that many of these authors are skeptical zealots when it comes to the dangers of vaccines. Our editorial response was extra vigilance during the peer review process with 8 different reviewers weighing in on publication or not, including a few with strong statistics knowledge. Therefore, a credible peer review process was followed and the chips fell where they may. That is all I can say.[4]

The main point of Adler Jr. was that eight scholars with knowledge of the issues had reviewed the article before its publication. And this would be a guarantee of the good quality of the article. Moreover, there are 295 references to scholarly articles The article has several strong conclusions regarding the handling of the vaccines and their adverse effects. This caused a reaction from several scholars.

On February 9, 2025, John P. Moore, a microbiologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, and Gregg Gonsalves, an epidemiologist at Yale School of Public Health, in New Haven, Conn., expressed their “serious concerns” about the article. The way they expressed their serious concerns is really interesting. We read:

The authors utterly lack relevant professional qualifications that would enable them to assess the scientific publications they draw on and/or attempt to criticize. The authors self-describe their affiliations under the rubric of “Independent Research”, or list private foundations, or in one case report an academic discipline unrelated to biology. In short, the authors cannot draw on years of training in biological science, but appear to be self-taught via the “University of Google”.

The point here is that the Cureus review merely regurgitates claims about mRNA vaccines that have circulated on the internet and been debunked over and over again, including by fact-checking organizations (e.g., Factcheck.org, and the USA Today and Politico factcheck teams).

By bringing this highly problematic review to your attention, we hope that you will conduct a thorough review of how it was accepted for publication in Cureus under the Springer Nature imprimatur. How appropriate was the peer review process? How did the editor act? Is the acceptance of this review symptomatic of a wider problem at the journal? Finally, if you share our views that this review is so flawed as to be dangerous to public health, you may well decide that it should be retracted.[5]

Firstly: An ad hominem argument: The authors are not qualified to write an article on COVID-19 vaccines. However, the eight scholars who reviewed the article decided the opposite.

Secondly: The conclusions of the article are “claims” that “have been debunked over and over again.” None of these “claims” are mentioned in the letter. So, what the authors of the letter say is that medical articles have shown that the mRNA vaccine is safe, and any argument for the opposite is false. The scientific approach would have been to point out in detail what is false. But this is not necessary because all scholars know that the vaccine has saved millions of lives.

Thirdly: Gag them by retracting the article; the article is not worth reading.

Naturally, the authors of the article wanted to know why the editor in chief of Curetus would retract the article. Tim Kerjses from Springer Nature listed eight points from the article that he claimed did not have a secure foundation. In this case, we need not use any ad hominem argument. According to his presentation on the Internet, he has a background in philosophy from the University of Groningen, Netherlands. But he has no listed scholarly degree either in philosophy or in the natural sciences.

The authors of the retracted article have published a letter in which they discuss in detail each point mentioned by Kerjses. They point out that before the article was submitted to Curetus, they had had three months of back-and-forth discussions with the eight reviewers, who were experts in the scientific issues discussed by the article. These eight points were discussed, and the reviewers were satisfied with these discussions to the point where they recommended that the article be published.[6]

By using the Conclusions of the retracted article, I will show the points that the critics were afraid that scholars and the general public would read:

Safety was never assessed according to scientific standards in the trials that led to the Emergency Use Authorization.

Our narrative review concerning the registrational trials and the aftermath of the Emergency Use Authorization offers evidence-informed insights into how the experimental gene therapy products were marketed. In the context of the pivotal trials by Pfizer and Moderna, safety was never assessed in a manner commensurate with previously established standards, not even for vaccines, much less for gene therapy products. To be accurate, the modmRNA [modified mRNA] products would need to be evaluated and regulated as gene therapy products, with long-term follow-up to properly assess the potential risks of cancers and autoimmune diseases.

Many trial findings were manipulated.

Many key trial findings were either misreported or omitted entirely from published.

Safety testing controls were bypassed.

The usual safety testing protocols and toxicology requirements were bypassed by the FDA and vaccine manufacturers, and the premature termination of the only trials undertaken obviated any unbiased assessment of potential serious adverse events due to an insufficient timeframe for proper trial evaluation.

The serious adverse effects of the vaccine were only discovered after the authorization was given.

It was only after the Emergency Use Authorization that the serious biological consequences of rushing the trials became evident, with numerous cardiovascular, neurological, reproductive, haematological, malignant, and autoimmune serious adverse events identified and published in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

The value of vaccine boosters are questioned.

We are questioning the government policy of recommending a continuous series of repeated boosters. We have shown the serious biological consequences associated with the modmRNA injections. Broadly speaking, the consequences may be divided into two categories: (1) diminishing returns following the injections due to various immune-suppressive effects along with extrinsic selective pressures that ultimately accelerate viral evolution and resistance; and (2) serious adverse events, notably the profound suffering and premature death resulting primarily from autoimmune, neurological, malignant and cardiovascular disorders. Consideration of both the potential immunological impacts of repeated booster doses on viral evolution and resistance alongside the risks of premature death and other serious adverse events is crucial for a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment of the modmRNA COVID-19 vaccinations.

Inadequate recording and reporting of vaccination status have complicated accurate death rates.

Inconsistencies in recording and reporting vaccination status have complicated the accurate categorization of COVID-19 deaths and can only have contributed to overestimation of deaths among the “unvaccinated”. The collective result is a spurious portrayal of the pandemic as predominantly impacting the unvaccinated. These issues underscore the importance of reliable data collection and analyses to understand the true impact of the modmRNA injections on COVID-19 mortality rates.

Studies have overstated the COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

Mainstream publications of “real-world observational studies” that used certain popular methodologies of 2021 and 2022 overstated COVID-19 vaccine efficacy while greatly underestimating the numerous cardiovascular, neurological, haematological, and immunologic harms associated with the modmRNA products.

Now when natural immunity exists, doses of COVID-19 vaccine do not benefit the recipients

Here in Part 1 of this review, we have shown that natural immunity after a coronavirus infection confers protection superior to the modmRNA injections. By now, the vast majority of Americans have been exposed to the coronavirus. There is currently no reliable evidence showing that a single modmRNA dose, or that any number of multiple doses, will confer any additional protection for individuals previously infected with any of the coronavirus variants.

There is no evidence that the vaccine benefits children, but there is evidence of harm.

Moreover, despite ongoing efforts by government agencies to get US children injected with these gene-based prodrugs, there is not a single reliable study showing a protective benefit in children. There is mounting evidence, however, of harm being done.

The more injections on get, the higher risk of acquiring COVID-19.

Finally, the three Cleveland Clinic studies and multiple real-world observational studies have shown, collectively, that the more injections one receives, the greater the risk of being diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection, and the greater the likelihood of adverse impacts downstream from any gene-therapy injection.

The vaccine saves one person from death and causes the death for 14 others.

Based on the Pfizer trial data, for every case of severe COVID-19 prevented, we estimated that there were at least 16 serious adverse events caused by the modmRNA products within a six-week period — a disparity that logically must increase over time; furthermore, for every life that was theoretically saved by these genetic vaccines, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the injections. These must be considered conservative estimates.

The theoretical benefits of the vaccine have been demonstrated to be wrong.

In short, the widely proclaimed theoretical benefits of the COVID-19 injectables — based largely on faulty simulations and computer models proclaiming “millions of lives saved” and so forth — are now known to have been illusory. The predicted results were never forthcoming. The truth is that any presumed benefit of the modmRNA boosters has been profoundly outweighed by their actual disabling and life-threatening harms.

Part 2 discussed the adverse effects of the vaccines.

An in-depth investigation of the long-term impact of COVID-19 modmRNA products is urgently needed. In Part 2 of this narrative review, we provide a concise explanation of how and why these products failed, along with an evidence-informed overview of the six major domains of modmRNA injury: cardiovascular, immunological, neurological, hematological, reproductive, and oncological.

The vaccines should be banned.

We also propose next steps for government agencies. Initially, to ban these experimental agents — with a caution concerning the further development of cancer “vaccines” based on the modmRNA platform. In the meantime, and over the coming weeks, months and years, the modmRNA-injured segment of the population is going to need treatments that are informed by the critical lessons learned from what increasingly appears to have been a “pandemic” promoted, if not caused, by the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex. Despite the many striking revelations discussed in this review, most developed countries continue to advocate the ongoing adoption of COVID-19 modmRNA boosters for the entire “eligible” population — now being extended to cover almost all living persons including very young children. US federal agencies still claim “safety and effectiveness” of these products to reduce severe illness and prevent deaths by the coronavirus in its many mutant forms.  All these boasts are made despite the absence of any randomized, double- blind, placebo-controlled trials to support them.

[1]. M.A. Thoene, page 154.

[2]. Dagens Medisin 13.6.2022.

[3]. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association 84(9) September 2021, 811-812.

[4]. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/19/paper-claiming-extensive-harms-of-covid-19-vaccines-to-be-retracted/

[5]. Ibid.

[6]. https://prd-tsn-main-api.s3.amazonaws.com/article/95e5609f-b48f-4646-b49e-f63a0b6bede1.pdf

THE HEARING IN THE US SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE: “THE CORRUPTION OF SCIENCE AND FEDERAL HEALTH AGENCIES”

On May 21, 2025, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Permanent Subcommittee held a hearing entitled: “The Corruption of Science and Federal Health Agencies: How Health Officials Downplayed and Hid Myocarditis and Other Adverse Events Associated with the COVID-19 Vaccines”

The hearing was not a one-sided attack on how COVID-19 had been treated and on politicians and health officials. But there were also voices that defended the treatment of the COVID-19 vaccine.

The chairman Ron Johnson said:

As chairman of the full committee, I held multiple hearings in the first year of the pandemic that opened my eyes to the capture and corruption of federal health agencies and scientific research. So much of our miserably failed response to COVID made no sense. Masking, devastating shutdowns, the sabotage of early treatment, rapid approval of Remdesivir, and the maniacal reliance on the COVID-19 injections as the only way to end the pandemic. As ranking member of this subcommittee, I was unable to interest the Subcommittee

The ranking member, Richard Blumenthal, said that he had not seen evidence that the authorities had purposefully concealed evidence.

I think we all agree that this hearing and our efforts in this Subcommittee ought to be nonpartisan and nonpolitical, and that we should de-politicize science, strictly adhere to the evidence, medical evidence, without ideological predilection. I looked at those documents, maybe not all of them, that the Majority alleges show that the Biden administration or those public health officials suppressed evidence of side effects. Let’s be clear, the allegation is that they purposely concealed evidence. I am unable to support that conclusion with this evidence.

Josh Green who both is a physician and Governor of Hawaii, defended the way the authorities had handled the COVID-19 pandemic.

I want to be very clear: the federal vaccine safety system [in the USA] is among the most robust in the world…

Despite this, some continue to promote misleading interpretations, unverified claims, or anecdotes to suggest that vaccines are broadly unsafe. These assertions are not supported by peer-reviewed research or the global scientific consensus. In fact, studies show that the risk of myocarditis is significantly higher after COVID-19 infection than after vaccination. When vaccine-related myocarditis does occur, it is generally mild and treatable. Vaccines have protected our most vulnerable: children, pregnant individuals, the elderly, and those with chronic illnesses. They have dramatically reduced hospitalizations and saved countless lives.

Dr. Peter A. McCculluogh started by giving an example of bias among politicians and doctors:

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to present my analysis, insights, and clinical experience on this topic. When I presented a peer-reviewed, published approach to treating high-risk patients with acute COVID-19 to the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental A airs on November 19, 2020, my comments were prefaced by minority chairman Senator Gary Peters who said “what America was about to hear was misinformation.” The next day the New York Times published and OPED from the minority witness Dr. Ashish Jha titled “Snake Oil Salesman of the Senate.” This dismissive and defamatory treatment of physicians working in the field has persisted now 5 years into the pandemic and four years into the vaccine campaign.

McCollough has actively worked with patients and studied extensive information regarding the vaccine throughout the pandemic. He mentioned a high number of deaths from the vaccine.

Death after vaccination has been reported by CDC [Center for Disease Control and Prevention] by doctors who have determined the vaccine is the cause of death in nearly 20,000 victims, and this is like under-reported 30-fold.

If the  claim a 30-fold under-reporting is correct , McCullough suggested that the COVID-19 vaccine may have cused to the deaths of 600,000 in the USA during the pandemic.  If we use the same percentage of excess deaths for Norway, the COVID-19 vaccine caused the death of 1,540 people. If there were 15 million excess deaths in the world during the pandemic, and we apply the same percentage, it would mean that the vaccine caused 3,750,000 deaths.

McCullough gives several examples of how the medical authorities in the USA downplayed the danger of the vaccine. Dr. James A. Thorp continued this line of information, concentrating especially on pregnant women.

Regarding persecution of doctors who pointed out the dangers of the vaccine, Thorpe writes:

Unlike the corrupt journal authors, many of these righteous researchers have faced persecution, censorship, and threats to their medical licenses and board certifications for presenting data that contradicts the prevailing government and pharmaceutical industry narratives.

A senior constituent and former ABOG examiner (James A. Thorp MD) personally raised concerns with ABOG’s Executive Director, Dr. George Wendel, regarding the organization’s unprecedented threats to 60,000 OB/GYN physicians. ABOG [The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology] had pressured physicians to recommend untested, experimental COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy, warning that failure to comply could result in the loss of medical licenses and board certifications.

Regarding dangers with the vaccine for pregnant women, Thorpe refers to “Pfizer’s 5.3.6 Post Market Surveillance Analysis Completed” of February 28, 2021:

The Pfizer 5.3.6 legally mandated post-market analysis documents the COVID-19 vaccines as the most injurious and lethal medical product ever released, reporting 42,086 adverse events (AEs)—including 1,223 deaths—within just 10 weeks (see page 7). This equates to an “injure-to-kill” ratio of 33.4.

Page 12 of Pfizer’s report [16] highlights multiple concerning pregnancy-related outcomes:

• A miscarriage rate of 81% (26 out of 32 cases, with 238 out of 270 cases lacking follow-up).
• A five-fold increase in stillbirth rates—from an expected 5.8 per 1,000 to 31 per 1,000 (1 in 32).
• An eight-fold increase in neonatal death rates—from an expected 3.9 per 1,000 to 31 per 1,000 (1 in 32).
• There is a 13% incidence (17 out of 133 cases) of breastfeeding complications among newborns whose mothers received the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy.

These numbers align with the findings from the Arabic study of pregnant women that I quoted above. Thorpe also gives an example of how the COVID-19 vaccine may cause cancer, which was noted by the World Health Organization:

Recent findings indicate substantial contamination of the degradation-resistant mRNA COVID-19 vaccines with plasmid DNA. In the case of the Pfizer product, this contamination includes the SV40 promoter-enhancer/origin of replication sequence—a known cancer-causing element. Several credible laboratories have independently replicated these findings.

Microbiologist Kevin McKernan was the first to identify DNA contamination in Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, including the presence of SV40—a cancer-promoting genetic sequence—in Pfizer’s formulation. This discovery prompted the World Council for Health (WCH) to convene an Urgent Expert Healing Conference on October 9, 2023 [35]. The following day, WCH released a press statement titled: “World Council for Health Expert Panel Finds Cancer-Promoting DNA Contamination in COVID-19 Vaccines: International expert panel concludes that COVID vaccines are contaminated with foreign DNA and that SV40, a cancer-promoting genetic sequence, has been found in the vaccines” [35]. On October 24, 2024,McKernan reported the presence of high levels of the SV40 sequence, along with other plasmid DNA, in biopsies taken from a vaccinated cancer patient [36,37]. The implications of this contamination for public health are profound. Both adults and children—particularly those whose mothers were vaccinated during pregnancy—could be at risk. Any integration of foreign DNA into the human genome carries the potential to cause cellular transformation, cancer, and genetic abnormalities in pregnant women, the unborn, and the newborn.

Dr Jordan Vaughn is a specialist in internal diseases. He particularly pointed out how the spike protein that is caused by mRNA may do damage to different parts of the body. We read:

The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, specifically its S1 subunit, is not a benign protein. It triggers inflammation, disrupts endothelial barriers, induces fibrin resistant to breakdown, and promotes amyloid-like aggregates. These effects impair oxygen delivery, damage blood vessels, and contribute to clotting pathologies that manifest as persistent symptoms of heart racing, brain fog, shortness of breath, and post-exertional malaise.

In my clinic, I use immunofluorescent microscopy to detect amyloid fibrin microclots in patients—some as young as teenagers unable to stand, others are previously active adults suffering small strokes without identifiable cause. These are not abstract theories; they are the lived realities of my patients in Alabama and beyond.

The mRNA vaccines, heralded as the solution, introduced a novel mechanism: lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) delivering modified mRNA that instructs cells to produce a stabilized Spike Protein. Unlike traditional vaccines, this approach results in uncontrolled production of the spike protein for an unknown duration and distributes it widely across organs, including the heart, brain, and vasculature

The European Medicines Agency’s assessment of Comirnaty noted biodistribution beyond the injection site, contradicting claims that the vaccine “stays in the arm.” A recent groundbreaking study using Single Cell Precision Nanocarrier Identification (SCP-Nano) revealed LNP accumulation in heart tissue of mice, with adverse proteomic changes in immune and vascular proteins, raising concerns about cardiac complications [37]. These findings align with clinical reports of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males, following mRNA vaccination.

Dr. Joel Wallskog is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon. He said that he received one injection of the COVID-19 vaccine, and within a week, he developed leg weakness, numbness, and substantial balance loss, leading to falls, including one while treating a patient. Diagnosed with transverse myelitis—a spinal cord lesion at T8-T9. He could not continue his work as a doctor and became disabled.

He said that today he is chairman of the organization React19, which is non-political, non-profit, and represents over 36,000 Americans seriously injured by COVID-19 vaccines.

The purpose of the hearing in the Congress Subcommittee was to find the truth about how political and medical authorities handled the COVID-19 vaccines. The doctors that I have quoted contributed with their knowledge and experience.

In his introductory speech, the chairman, Ron Johnson, mentioned that the committee has a large amount of information in printed form that it will study and draw its conclusions from.

 

Video of the proceedings of the committee: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb0kOsKYjXA

I will mention two books dealing with the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic that have recently been published:

The Pfizer Papers Pfizer’s Crime Against Humanity. Edited by Naomi Wolf With Amy Kelly.

Unmasked The Painful Truth Behind the COVID-19 Tragedy Edited by Steven Hatfill

 

CONCLUSION

At the beginning I showed there are two ways to find a robust link between the vaccines and the excess deaths:

1) Showing an excess number of deaths among vaccinated persons.

2) Showing peaks of excess deaths in connection with rollouts of vaccines and boosters.

There is one way to prove a direct link between the vaccines and deaths.

3) By doing autopsies, finding residues of vaccines in the dead people.

English data can be used in connection with point 1). I quote one example from Dataset Deaths by vaccination status, England Office of national Statistics for December 2022:[1]

Table 1 Death of vaccinated persons in England in December 2022

Unvaccinated	2 048
First dose, less than 21 days ago	2
First dose, at least 21 days ago	426
Second dose, less than 21 days ago	2
Second dose, between 21 days and six months ago	23
Second dose, at least six months ago	2 495
Third dose or booster, at least 21 days ago	1
Third dose or booster, at least 21 days ago	8 221
Fourth dose or booster, at least 21 days ago	425
Third dose or booster, at least 21 days ago	38 867
Ever vaccinated	50 462
Total number of deaths in December 2022	100 924

 In December 2022, about 92% of the inhabitants in England  had received at least one vaccination shot. The fact that 100,924 vaccinated persons died in that month, shows that the vaccine was not a secure protection against death. If the chances of dying during the pandemic were the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated persons at the time when 92% were vaccinated and 8% were unvaccinated, we would have expected about 8000 deaths among the unvaccinated population, but the number was one-fourth of the number that was expected.

This means that in December 2022, the chances of dying was higher for vaccinated people than for unvaccinated ones in England.

The study from Kings County in the USA also shows this tendency. Around 98% of the 2.2 million people were vaccinated, and yet, there was an increase of 25.4% in deaths from pulmonary disease deaths among these vaccinated people.

Regarding point 2, the study of Rancourt et al of 17 countries in the Southern Hemisphere dealing with excess deaths in the Southern hemisphere, shows a high number of deaths in connection with the rollouts of vaccines. This suggests that the vaccines are the primary cause of a great number of these deaths.

The fact that great numbers of vaccinated people die, and that unusually great numbers of deaths occur in connection with vaccine rollouts represent robust links between the COVID-19 vaccines and excess deaths. But these links are not proven. However, several of the studies I have referred to have shown a physical link between the vaccines and illness and death, which proves that the vaccines are the cause of these deaths.

Hatfill shows that the toxic S1fragment of the spike protein has been accumulating in the brains of mRNA-vaccinated humans, causing abnormal microglial/astroglial cell reactivity and a further tissue-damaging cytokine release. He refers to the 23 occurrences of the rare Creuzfelt-Jacob brain disease in France shortly after vaccination. He also points to mRNA nanoparticles that cause damage to the placenta in pregnant women. This accords with the high numbers of adverse side effects in vaccinated pregnant women that is shown in the study from Saudi Arabia.

In his study of King County in the USA, Hulscher et al. refer to a 25.4% increase in cardiopulmonary arrest mortality from 2020 to 2023. He refers to 28 autopsies of persons who died from myocarditis, showing that the vaccine caused the deaths. He also refers to one study where the spike protein was found in the myocardium [the muscular tissue of the heart], in persons with myocarditis [inflammation of the heart muscle]. Another study found residues of mRNA in the heart of individuals who died within 30 days after vaccination, with myocardial injury. A third study found the spike protein in the blood clots of patients with myocardial infarction and acute ischemic stroke.

The articles that are quoted show that there are robust links between the mRNA and all-cause excess deaths. It also shows that there are physical links proving that the vaccine is the cause of a number of deaths from brain diseases, heart diseases, and several other diseases.

The important point is that mRNA is not a vaccine but a genetic modifier. This means that the mRNA vaccine modifies genetic material in our body. The different articles demonstrate that various residues caused by mRNA migrate to different organs in the body, can modify specific parts of the organs, and lead to illness and death. This is even true of nanoparticles from mRNA. Such particles are so small that 10 million particles of a length of 1 nanometer equals 1 centimeter.

SOURCES

Aarstad, Jarle. “Deaths among young people in England aged 12-29 years increased significantly in 10 0f 11 weeks after Covid-19 vaccination and doubled in three.” EXCLI Journal Experimental and Clinical Sciences. July 4 (23) 2024, 908-911. (https://www.excli.de/index.php/excli/article/view/7498)

Aarstad, Jarle. “Mortality involving and not involving COVID-19 among vaccinated vs. unvaccinated in England between Apr 21 and May 23.”  F100Research 3 April 2025.

Jarle Aarstad. «Unge som avsto koronavaksinen, tok det beste valget.» Tidsskrift for den Norske Lægeforening 2024, Vol. 144. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.24.0158.

Aarstad, Jarle, Olav Andreas Kvitastein. “Is there a Link between the 2021 COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake in Europe and 2022 Excess All-Cause Mortality? Asian Pacific Journal of Health Sciences Volume 10, Issue I, January-March 2023, pages 25-31.

Bruijning-Verhagen, Patricia. “Covid-19 vaccinations do not explain excess mortality during the pandemic.” UMC Utrecht, December 12, 2024. Vaccine 2024 May 31;42(15):3397-3403. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.04.017. Epub 2024 Apr 29.

Hagerty, Peter, “Excess Mortality Data and the Effect of the Covid-19 Vaccines Part 1: European Data” Preprints.org 15. September 2023.

https://research.chalmers.se/publication/539029/file/539029_Fulltext.pdf

Hatfill, Steven J: “Are there Next-Generation Costs for the Covid-19 mRNA Mass-Vaccination Campaign?” Jounral of American Psysichians and Surgeons. Volume 30 Number 1 Spring 2025. (https://jpands.org/vol30no1/hatfill.pdf).

Hulscher, Nicolas, Michael Cook, Raphael Stricker, Peter A McCullough.  “Excess Cardiopulmonary Arrest and Mortality after COVID-19 Vaccination in King County, Washington» Preprints.org May 27, 2024.

Hulscher, Nicolas, Mary T Bowden, Peter A McCullough, “Calls for Market Removal of COVID-19 Vaccines Intensify as Risks Far Outweigh Theoretical Benefits.” Science, Public Health Policy and the Law Volume: v6.2019-2025, January 2025.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388452414_Review_Calls_for_Market_Removal_of_COVID-19_Vaccines_Intensify_as_Risks_Far_Outweigh_Theoretical_Benefits

Kakeya, Hideki, Takeshi Nitta, Yukari Kamijima, Takayuki Miyazawa. “Significant Increase in Excess Deaths after Repeated COVID-19 Vaccination in Japan.” JMA Journal. May 2024.

Liester, Mitchell, Sohaib Ashraf, Patricia Callisperis, Hector Carvallo, Shankara Chetty, Robert Enzenauer, Carlos Franco-Paredes, Raul Pineda, Panagis Polykretis, Rachel Wilkenson, and Peter McCullough A Narrative Review of the COVID-19 Infodemic and Censorship in Healthcare” Secrecy and Society Volume 3, Number 2 (2025) Special Issue: Pandemic Secrecy.

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/secrecyandsociety/vol3/iss2/3/

Mostert, Saskia, Marcel Hoogland, Minke Huibers, Gertjan Kaspers. “Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the COVID-19 pandemic: ‘Our World in Data’ estimates of January 2020 to December 2022.” BMJ Public Health 6 May 2024.

Mead, Nataniel, Stephanie Seneff, Russ Wolfinger, Jessica Rose, Kris Denhaerynck, Steve Kirsch, and Peter A McCullough. “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign.” Curetus 2024, February 26;16(2):r137. Doi: 10.7759/cureus. R137.

Rancourt, Denis G, Marine Baudin, Joseph Hickey, Jérémie Mercier, “COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere” Correlation Research in the Public Interest 17. September 2023.

Rancourt, Denis G, Joseph Hickey, Christian Linard.  “Spatiotemporal variation of excess all-cause mortality in the world (125 countries) during the Covid period 2020-2023 regarding socio-economic factors and public-health and medical interventions.”  Correlation Research in the Public Interest 19 July 2024.

Thoene, Michael Allen, “Changing views toward mRNA based covid vaccines in the scientific literature: 2020-2024” in Polish Annals of Medicine 2024; 31 (2): 152-157. http://www.paom.pl/Changing-views-toward-mRNA-based-covid-vaccines-in-the-scientific-literature-2020,189961,0,2.html.

Thorpe, James, Claire Rogers, Kirstin Cosgrove, Steven Hatfill, Peter Breggin, Drew Pinsky, and Peter McCullough. Association between COVID-19 Vaccination and Neuropsychiatric Conditions. Preprints 14 April 2025

[1]. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland