A Treatise for our Health Officials Who Appear to be Either Ignorant or Averting Their Eyes
In part six of our eight part series we explore causality – or how to determine that one event has caused or contributed to another event. In this case, has the covid-19 jab caused symptoms or problems?
Bradford Hill Criteria for Causality
As mentioned in a previous section, it is not clear what our regulatory authorities are doing or how they are assessing potential harm from vaccines. We are not sure what criteria they are using to assess whether the covid ‘vaccine’ is causing the medical events that follow its administration.
In the absence of that information, we can do our own assessment. One internationally recognised set of criteria is the Bradford Hill Criteria for determining causality. According to the WHO only 5 of these criteria have to be met in order to determine that an effect or event is very likely to be caused by the medical product, thus indicating causality or that A has caused B.
These criteria can be used to assess the plethora of medical events that appear to be following vaccination, medical events such as Bell’s palsy, sudden unexpected death, strokes, heart attacks, anaphylaxis, myocarditis, shingles etc.
The following is a summary of a 42-minute presentation that goes through the Bradford Hill criteria for assessing causality in relation to medical events following covid-19 ‘vaccines’ very comprehensively. Dr Jessica Rose is scientist with a master’s degree in immunology and a PhD in computational biology as well as other post-doctoral qualifications.
Jessica Rose addresses each of the 10 criteria that make up the Bradford Hill Criteria to determine causality.
1. Strength (effect size) ~ Is A strongly associated with B?
Yes, the more vaccine doses administered worldwide, the increased number of deaths and adverse events that are occurring. The larger the association the more likely that it is causal. The reported adverse events following this vaccine eclipse the numbers reported from other vaccines combined.
2. Consistency (reproducibility) ~ Do all the existing data indicate that A causes B?
Yes, worldwide databases and the public are witnessing the same thing, large numbers of unexpected deaths and injuries following covid ‘vaccination’ programs and record numbers of reports to monitoring databases all over the world: CARM (NZ), VAERS (US), Yellow Card (UK), EudraVigilance (EU).
3. Specificity ~ Is A causing B in specific populations?
Yes, athletes are collapsing and dying worldwide in unprecedented numbers and children and teens are experiencing unusually high rates of myocarditis in highly ‘vaccinated’ populations.
4. Temporality ~ Does A come before B?
Yes, and approximately 50% of events are occurring within 48 hours of ‘vaccination’, 80% within a week. The shorter the time frame the greater the correlation.
5. Biological gradient (dose response) ~ Does more of A cause more of B?
Yes, increased deaths following ‘vaccine’ rollout, more adverse events following second or third dose, also the shorter duration between doses, the increased number of adverse effects.
6. Plausibility ~ Is it biological plausible that A can cause B
Yes, spike protein is harmful during infection so likely harmful post ‘vaccination’ as well, lipid nanoparticles which optimise deliverability of mRNA are a mix of 4 different fats, one cationic lipid is highly toxic to cells, also PEG is known to cause anaphylaxis; it is also plausible that Pfizer could make an unsafe product as it has done this before and has paid out billions of dollars in fines for previous medical products.
7. Coherence ~ Does it make sense that A can cause B?
Yes, there is coherence between epidemiological, clinical and laboratory findings – e.g. for myocarditis, epidemiology shows a large increase in this in young males particularly. Clinical symptoms consistent with this (chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, palpitations), and pathology findings have shown spike protein is associated with inflammation and scarring in myocardial and vascular tissue.
8. Experiment ~ Is A causing B disease aetiology?
Yes, increasing scientific papers are documenting adverse effects and possible mechanisms of harm following covid-19 ‘vaccination’. The rollout of the ‘vaccines’ has been followed by many studies signalling danger e.g. thrombotic conditions, immune deficiencies, autoimmune conditions.
9. Analogy ~ Has A caused B before?
Yes, vaccines have caused harm before – e.g. Guillain Barre syndrome following influenza vaccine in 1976, intussusception following the 1999 Rotashield (rotavirus) vaccine, narcolepsy after Pandemrix (influenza) in 2009, vaccine-enhanced disease following Dengvaxia (dengue fever) in the Philippines in 2016. Vaccines have previously been withdrawn with much smaller signals of harm than is currently being seen. The vaccination program against swine flu in 1976 was halted after only 10 weeks due to adverse effects.
10. If A stops, does B stop?
Maybe, maybe not. We are concerned that the adverse effects of this ‘vaccine’ are unlikely to stop immediately if it is withdrawn, due to the nature of the product and the potential mechanisms of harm. It may be that auto-immune conditions, clotting disorders and cancers continue to increase due to persistent spike protein and immune dysregulation.
Although we at NZDSOS consider the reported adverse events following immunisation documented in Medsafe’s Safety Reports, to be significant in number and severity, our regulators seem to be happy to ‘continue to monitor’ without any apparent thought to causality. In our experience, vaccine rollouts or drug approvals would usually be paused or halted completely with this number of reported events.
As demonstrated in Part 2, Medsafe can’t even answer the simple question “What is an acceptable number of side effects?”. Are they going to ‘continue to monitor’ until we are all harmed?
If causation of harm is suspected, we state the public must be informed and causality assessed. Withholding and/or manipulating safety data while continuing to push a product on the population appears criminal.