COVID-19 Vaccines and Adverse Events of Special Interest: Our Review of the World’s Largest Study

Helen Petousis-Harris Brushstrokes of Fraud
Photo Credit - © Canva Pro Content License


Since the publication of this website post on March 2nd, 2024, Prof Vinay Prasad MD, MPH has reviewed the study which we referenced below titled ‘COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals’. We consider this recent analysis to be a valuable addition.

YouTube video
New Study Documents C-19 Vaccine Harms

A recent study, COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals, was published in the journal Vaccine and has reached the attention of news outlets in the mainstream media. This seems like a move in the right direction, but is it?

Initial Red Flags

GVDN, co-directed by New Zealand vaccinologist Dr Helen Petousis-Harris, were awarded over US $10.1 million to conduct the Global Covid Vaccine Safety (GCoVS) Project, to “facilitate comprehensive assessment of vaccine safety“. The money was awarded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Health & Human Services, who are known to receive significant financial benefits via royalties and licensing agreements with large pharmaceutical companies.

The GVDN website is also a member of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Vaccine Safety Net (VSN) which aims to “help internet users find reliable vaccine safety information tailored to their needs.” This seems remarkably similar to the Trusted News Initiative, (TNI) who “work together to build audience trust and to find solutions to tackle challenges of disinformation.” See more about the propagandist nature and purpose of the Trusted News Initiative in this short video.

Both VSN and TNI are beneficiaries of pharmaceutical industry funding with a view to minimising the reach of so-called “anti vaccination” views. This is a clear demonstration of the interconnections between the pharmaceutical industry, global health, mainstream media and research institutions. When considered in tandem with the WHO’s most recent Pandemic Agreement draft, these information control systems have a very clear intent to drown out and forcibly silence information which questions, challenges or opposes claims being made by WHO.​​​​​​​

Adverse Events of Special Interest Pandemic Agreement Information Control
Image captured for criticism/review and reporting current events under Fair Dealing – The Copyright Act 1994

Skilled critical analysis of medical literature involves the ability to identify and understand the many types of research bias which can affect study results. Bias occurs when “systematic error [is] introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others“. One of the sponsored activities of the GCoVS Project is to “develop communications to support vaccine confidence“. Combined with massive funding interests, this is an immediate red flag that their work is likely steeped in confirmation bias, defined asseeking or interpreting evidence in ways that are preferential to existing beliefs, expectations, or hypotheses.

Study Summary

GVDN researchers conducted an observational cohort study of over 99 million vaccinated individuals using data taken from a range of institutional and national databases from 10 sites in eight different countries. They looked for 13 adverse events of special interest (AESIs) with haematological (blood), neurological (brain and nerve) and cardiac (heart) outcomes occurring up to (and only) 42 days after administration of three vaccine products –  Pfizer, Moderna and Astra-Zeneca. These were compared to ‘historic background rates’ of the same adverse events of special interest experienced in the same geographic regions, which were calculated and published by the GCoVS Project in October 2023.

The study periods differed across sites, depending on the dates of vaccine rollout commencement and data availability coming to an end. The periods spanned from December 2020 to August 2023.

The adverse events of special interest were selected from a pharmacovigilance compilation published by the Brighton Collaboration in 2020 and classified using standardised ICD10 codes. The thirteen AESIs studied were as follows. Neurological: Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), Transverse Myelitis, Facial (Bell’s) Palsy, Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM), Convulsions (generalised seizures) and
Convulsions (febrile seizures). Haematological: Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis (CVST), Splanchnic Vein Thrombosis (SVT), Pulmonary Embolism (PE), Thrombocytopenia, Immune Thrombocytopenia (ITP). Cardiac: Myocarditis and Pericarditis.

The observed vs expected rates (OE ratio) of each event were compared across the three different genetic injections (both mRNA and DNA based). The OE ratio represents how many times higher the rate of an observed condition occurs compared to the expected background rate. The results are summarised in this table.

Adverse Events of Special Interest Table
Summary of data taken from COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals

The authors concluded that their research “confirmed previously identified rare safety signals following COVID-19 vaccination and contributed evidence on several other important outcomes…” They also claimed that the risks of Covid-19 infection were far higher than the risks of vaccination.

What is Wrong With This Study?

In the discussion section of the paper, the authors identify some limitations to their study such as inconsistencies between data collection, quality and reporting between the 10 different sites. They also mention the potential for underreporting of adverse events of special interest.

There is a discrepancy in the New Zealand data. Te Whatu Ora data states 4,042,448 first doses had been administered by 16 February 2024. Yet the GVDN study indicates a vaccinated population of 4,151,269 by September 2022.

Adverse events of special interest NZ vaccinations
Image captured for criticism/review and reporting current events under Fair Dealing – The Copyright Act 1994

The New Zealand data only includes hospitalised patients.  Many Bell’s palsy cases will not have been hospitalised.  Due to lockdowns, inability to receive medical care within the 42 day window and misdiagnosis, some cases of all adverse events of special interest will not have been diagnosed within the study’s 42 day window, which is arbitrarily short for late presenting AEFIs.

The authors do not connect any underreporting with the truncated timeframe in their study of 42 days. This erroneously assumes that beyond six weeks post-vaccination, adverse events of special interest do not occur. One of the biggest risks associated with these genetic injections is the widespread and long lasting expression of the toxic spike protein. Both mRNA coding for spike protein and spike protein itself have been detected in samples six months after vaccination. This is one explanation for the ongoing, delayed adverse events being experienced by people whose last vaccination was a significant time ago.

The thirteen adverse events of special interest in the study are a small sample of the possible range of harms which are associated with the genetic injections. The multiple ways in which these products can damage the human body depend on where the mRNA travels to, and which cells in which organs express the spike protein. Also see mRNA Toxicity to learn more on the mechanisms of harm specific to the disclosed contents in the vials.

Studying a small sample of “rare” adverse events in isolation from the full scope of potential harms ignores the totality of evidence. There were 9 pages of adverse effects in the Pfizer data release.  Many were serious, and occurred far more frequently than myocarditis. With almost a hundred million patients the GCoVS Adverse Events of Special Interest study is powered to look at many more than just 13 AESIs. 

In their discussion of myocarditis, Petousis-Harris et al repeat the oft-mentioned lie that it is mild and worse after the actual infection. They ignore the significantly worrying studies from Japan, Hong Kong, Thailand, Italy and Switzerland that speak to the widespread and protracted incidence of cardiac inflammation, and the many ways that the injections can cause a whole spectrum of cardiac diseases. 

The authors make no mention of the concerns about expression of aberrant proteins. See our article on Frameshifting to learn more. They also ignore the concerns about DNA contamination  in the vials, and subsequent integration into host DNA,  which have the potential for long term and inter-generational harms. The phenomenon of death following vaccination, estimated to be up to 17 million worldwide, is completely absent from the study. Surely this is the most important AESI of all?

Perhaps the biggest issue of all with this study is the fact that the data is unavailable for independent evaluation. As explained by Dr Peter Doshi, Associate Editor of the British Medical Journal, discussing the absence of data transparency at an expert hearing in November 2021, “without data it’s not science.” This must be especially true when the science is produced by teams embedded in intricate networks of pharmaceutical industry profits and power.

Adverse Events of Special Interest Data Unavailable
Image captured for criticism/review and reporting current events under Fair Dealing – The Copyright Act 1994

With covid being the leading cause of ‘coincidences’ AND fake studies, it is reasonable to question the integrity of the data presented, especially given the vast disconnect with what is happening on the ground in our heavily vaccinated countries.

The Study That Is Needed

We know Dr Petousis-Harris has access to all the New Zealand data and our former Covid Immunisation Register (where everyone is recorded, vaccinated or not). She has been paid to provide our personal health data to a private consortium. Presumably anonymised, that information should be released for scrutiny.

Further, she could very easily do a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study, even with just NZ data alone – we are sure everyone would give permission, for a truthful result –  and tell us how many people have had common adverse events of special interest, such as blood clots, new autoimmune conditions, heart attacks, strokes, stillbirths, sudden death etc, in each group.

And where are the results of the post vaccine symptom check study conducted on jabbed Kiwis in 2021, and the MoH myocarditis study that seems to have died suddenly?

Our Conclusion

Whilst it is refreshing to see the topic of vaccine injuries reach mainstream news, it is simultaneously disappointing to see that harms with delayed onset are ignored; harms continue to be claimed as “very rare”; and of less concern than the minimal risks associated with COVID-19 disease to most people. Our sense is that allowing the release of this paper for mainstream consumption merely programs audiences to believe these falsehoods against a burgeoning realisation amongst the populace, that our collective health has deteriorated significantly in the past three years.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 196 Average: 4.9]
Share this post

Similar Posts


  1. It is of note that my GP did not wish to record an adverse outcome in my case. I went onto the website page to do this, and was asked for a great deal of personal information, and had to consent for my personal information to be used or released in any way they chose, in order to report an adverse outcome. I chose to log out without doing so.
    This is how they have manipulated the stats, so they can say very few adverse responses have been recorded.

  2. Paid shills. Anyone doing an assessment of injury and/or death from the experimental injection must have absolutely no financial aid or assistance from the pharmaceutical cartel.
    According to the above, it seems there was just a six-week window post-jab they were looking at with, as you say, without including the most serious side effect of death. I also seem to recall at one stage that the NZ government was excluding any alleged adverse events for the first two weeks post-jab. So that would be only a four-week window if the first two weeks wasn’t included in this study.
    I don’t know how these corrupt individuals can sleep at night.

    1. “I don’t know how these corrupt individuals can sleep at night.”
      Like over paid babies? The political and bureaucratic instigators and the medical perpetrators are having just the finest time for the moment.

  3. I had a Pfizer jab on the 3rd of September 2021, I was rushed to ED on the 6th of September 2021 with excessive heart rate up to 200 bpm and feeling extremely ill.
    Sent home later that day with beta blockers and blood thinners. After 2 years of AF I managed to get to see a cardiologist and shortly after had a cardioversion which settled my AF and now have a regular pulse as long as I continue on the medication.
    But because I had this issue and thought I would die if I did die I would be counted as un vaccinated as it would have been before the 2 weeks it takes before I would have been counted as being vaccinated. How many people who have died within those 2 weeks are wrongly said to be un-vaccinated although killed by the vaccine.

  4. This “study” appears predictably appalling in multiple ways. To begin with, it artfully dodges the 1200 listed adverse events of special interest recoded by Pfizer in the, 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) received through 28-FEB-2021. The rank absurdity seen in the, “13 conditions” claimed in the paper to represent an AESI of specific relevance to the current landscape of real-world vaccine pharmacovigilance that were selected from the list compiled by the Brighton Collaboration SPEAC Project,” is beyond belief.

    For those unaware, the SPEAC (SAFETY PLATFORM FOR EMERGENCY VACCINES) is funded by the vaccine developer (CEPI) ie. Gates Foundation and WEF, plus investing countries including NZ. (Helen Petousis-Harris was a member of this group until 2020). The chief goal in the scientifically rigorous, many paged SPEAC protocol is to exclude a causal association of a serious adverse event or death to an experimental “vaccine.” This appears to be implemented by demanding a rigorous reporting regime (as seen in an experimental study with controls) BUT instead of this it couples it to USUAL clinical practice (without ‘controls’). It must therefore lead to massive under-reporting by manufacturing a clear and obvious reporting disincentive to clinicians. While seemingly “scientifically” justified by cruel and inhumane individuals such a dichotomy of standard remains horribly and despicably unethical. SPEAC is designed to exclude the risk of a causal association by scrupulously and methodically identifying the presence of the tiniest slither of chance, bias or confounding in any given case of injury or death. In this paradoxical manner then, a routine clinical practice (actually a running ad hoc uncontrolled experiment) evades close scrutiny while claiming rigorous scrutiny.

    We can see through the disgusting bathos of “safe and effective” all the way through to the ludicrous conniving occlusion and devastating consequences of a monstrous attempt to jab the entire world. The paper is a red-flag exemplar of the attempt to re-write history; and the ridiculous title gives it away. People who sell stuff know only too well that $1-99 is very persuasive metric. While keen to avoid circling the drain (aka. nothing new to be seen there), it becomes irresistible to take took a closer look at “COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals” ~ Faksova, K. et al.). Several “concerns” immediately manifested themselves.

    First, the paper was received by Vaccine on 29 January 2024 and astonishingly accepted the following day, 30 January 2024. No revisions were required. For a complex paper with an author line of of 35 named contributors claiming a data base of 99 million vaccinated individuals and a $10.15M price tag, one can only say that whatever masqueraded as ‘peer’ review could not have reasonably extended beyond a ticked box? Such, it seems, is ‘pal’ review.

    Second, the funding sources of the paper reveal an unbelievable concentration of vested interests harbouring a potential mountain of bias. Indeed, as declared by the paper the chief funding source rests with the US CDC and HHS. The Global COVID Vaccine Safety (GCoVS) project is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award totalling US$10,108,491 with 100 % per cent funded by CDC/HHS.

    Third, the 35 study authors make an interesting list as does their ‘Declaration of competing interest.’ … meaning, ‘conflicts of interest’. Helen Petousis-Harris from the School of Population Health, University of Auckland, and Global Vaccine Data Network, Global Coordinating Centre (GVDN®), Auckland numbers among them. She is listed as a GVDN site lead. She also features in the line-up of the ‘Observed vs. Expected methodological development Work Group’ seminal to the methodology of this paper. She reported that financial support was provided by New Zealand Ministry of Health and that she has served on expert advisory boards (for example, the Brighton Collaboration that constructed the SPEAC protocol itself) and had speaking engagements for Pfizer and GSK. She has also received research funding from GSK.

    Fourth, the Global Vaccine Data Network, Global Coordinating Centre (GVDN®), Auckland NZ is an ensemble that derived its “seed” funding from none other than the Gates Foundation, and they benefit from research grants hosted by UniServices, a corporation owned by University of Auckland, just thrilled to declare that it was able to train 29,592 COVID-19 vaccinators. Conflicts of interest anyone? https://www.uniservices.co.nz/ The Gates Foundation funds the WHO in large part, and launched CEPI with the WEF. These interests funded the SPEAC (“safety platform”).

    Fifth; in April 2021, the GVDN® received significant funding from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for project over three years, entitled Global Covid Vaccine Safety (GCoVS). In August 2022, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention granted additional funding to extend the GCoVS project by two years and expand the number of sites participating globally. Moreover, funding for New Zealand focused research has also been received from the New Zealand government, in the well clad guise of the “Ministry of Health.”

    Sixth, this uncontrolled retrospective observational study makes no attempt to use a matched control population, (ie. unjabbed people). One could speculate that in the recruitment of unjabbed controls it would perhaps have been construed as an open concession by the NZ government in general, and PM Ardern and her institutionalised WEF sponsors in particular, that they had failed in their brutal and coercive attempt to jab the entire NZ population? …failure is likely a well lit bridge too far for BigPharma and Gates funded academics, and certainly the MSM State propaganda.

    Seventh, anticipating the results of a properly controlled and methodologically sound study designed to capture death, sickness and injury from the jabs, which was founded on an unequivocal and blinded differentiation between jab recipients and unjabbed controls would quite reasonably and predictably have been utterly damning. Whether prospective or retrospective, such a study would have lent irrefutable causal wind to the mountain of recorded injuries and deaths, to the litany of predictive physiological, immunological and genetic studies, and all of the deleterious emergent and circumstantially consequential data. So instead, “expected” AESI rates were obtained from participating sites using pre-COVID-19 vaccination healthcare data stratified by age and sex, while “observed” rates were (under ~ see previous SPEAC remarks) reported from the same healthcare datasets since COVID-19 vaccination program rollout.

    Eighth, the statistical dodge is in, purporting to compare apples with apples but instead engineering statistical justification of making an ‘apples with lemons’ comparison. It is in other words, a statistical contrivance. For God’s sake, the recipients of the novel synthetic polynucleotide and lipid nanoparticled shots were de novo recipients of de novo shots for something so thoroughly ill-tested and malevolently imposed no amount of usual AESI “expectation” could possibly predict or reveal the carnage that had and will continue to occur. If you didn’t make the 42 day cut-off after a shot, too bad. The majority of people with ‘turbo’ cancers, more slowly developing autoimmune conditions, or neurodegenerative conditions will be omitted, not to mention the legion of bafflement who simply dropped in their boots or in their bed on day 43 or sometime after that, day 60 or day 100.

    And finally, ninth…..the authors have had to concede in print that: “The results from our study should, however, be interpreted considering multiple limitations.”
    Indeed, the under reporting would seem truly colossal. I think in this deeply contrived instance, one could safely start at 100%. The Harvard Vaccine Injury Study revealed a fewer that 1% report rate in VAERS (Principal Investigator: Lazarus, Ross: Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc.); commentary: ‘A Harvard Vaccine Injury Study conducted from 2007 to 2010, reveals on page 6 a fewer than 1 % report rate in VAERS’.

    So, Faksova, K. et al., the authors of this study, are again forced to concede that,
    ‘Potential under reporting across countries may have led to an underestimation of the significance of potential safety signals’. They are however, careful to downplay the ‘under reporting’ by using the adjective “potential” when they will likely know exactly the opposite. Still, with the US CDC/HHS paymasters to satisfy the fix seems in for the moment.

    It’s now down to the punters and their innate sense of survival.

  5. As long as their are scum like Bloomfield, Baker, Wiles et al who lie for a shekel totally devoiud of consequence for their actioins their will be no relevant change.
    Take a look at who is advising government, their views and their entrenched positions.
    Truyy talking to a politician, their views is ”My officials inform me….”. Say no more.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *