Analysis by WorldTribune Staff, June 6, 2022
Three outrageously unreliable Covid-19 statistics — number of deaths, number of cases, and number of adverse reactions to the vaccines — created major polarization throughout the world, the co-director of Alliance for Health International said.
Rob Verkerk, Ph.D., in a June 3 analysis for The Defender, called out health authorities for an “orchestrated, global deception and broad mismanagement” of the Covid pandemic.
The analysis noted that official figures on Covid deaths, cases, and adverse reactions to the jab, all “tend to be unreliable, spurious or are widely misrepresented or misinterpreted, and cannot be relied upon to understand the real impacts of C19 disease, as distinguished from the impacts of the human response, statistical noise or statistical manipulation.”
Reported Covid-19 deaths “were always conflated with other causes, as, in the majority of countries, they always represented deaths reported from any cause that occurred within specified time frames (e.g. 28 days, 60 days) of a positive C19 antigen (usually Polymerase Chain Reaction, or PCR) test,” Verkerk noted.
“Many of these reported deaths were in hospitals where the sickest people tend to go, and hospitals were also among the most likely places to contract an infection, and certainly, the most likely place to test for C19 status using a flawed diagnostic technique, based on the various C19 RT-PCR (real time-PCR) platforms,” Verkerk added. “So we’re left with no accurate way of measuring C19 disease impact accurately, just a proxy for C19 disease impact: a comparison of all-cause mortality against the expected average mortality, in other words so-called ‘excess mortality.’ ”
Official data from Our World in Data shows that the countries with the highest excess mortality rates also tended to have among the highest rates of “full vaccination.”
“We’ve got to try to unpack why there is increased excess mortality across all 28 EuroMOMO (European mortality monitoring) partner countries in 2021, compared with 2020, in all age groups between 15 and 74,” Verkerk wrote. “How much of this was mortality induced by C19, and how much was caused by the breakdown of primary and secondary healthcare services during the ‘pandemic’? Could the vaccines have played a part as well? It would be foolish to ignore this possibility given that the excess mortality in progressively younger age groups is delayed, as was the roll-out of C19 ‘vaccines.’ ”
In the U.S., data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) shows that deaths did not decrease following vaccination “despite successive variants losing pathogenic strength and authorities claiming the vaccines were protecting people from severe disease and death,” Verkerk noted.
“We’re a long way from authorities withdrawing the intense coercion to force people, especially those who have consistently resisted, into using genetic vaccines that have delivered marginal benefit and extensive, yet greatly under-reported, harms.”
The data for reporting Covid cases “are afflicted with several important methodological problems,” Verkerk wrote.
The problems include:
1. RT-PCR tests were rolled out globally with no gold standard meaning there was no accurate way of determining the positive predictive value of the many different testing platforms used as the primary diagnostic method.
2. Initial case data were based on PCR tests that were classified as positive sometimes with well over 30 amplification cycles (cycle threshold, CT). Such tests with high CT values (>28) typically measure RNA fragments that are not from a “live” virus that can replicate and cause C19 disease. Different testing authorities and countries imposed limits on CTs at different times so evaluating case data throughout the two-plus years of the “pandemic” period is like comparing apples with oranges. Given CT is inversely proportional to viral load, a much better and more accurate picture of disease status in space and time could have been revealed had CT data also been shared widely where these data were available.
3. PCR and related CT data should never be used in isolation from the clinical picture and history. Yet PCR was used as the primary diagnostic for C19 disease (while often ignoring other respiratory or other diseases) — for the first time in history, in the absence of assessments of clinical disease or pathology. Eliminating the gathering of information that helps the clinician build a picture of an individual’s clinical history and replacing it with genetic sequencing techniques for diagnosis could one day be seen as one of the gravest errors in medicine. It focuses people on a genetic pathogen or risk factor and ignores the importance of the environment, the terrain (“constitution”) and epigenetics, that ultimately controls our genetic expression and phenotypic vehicle we’re gifted with during our lifetimes.
4. Any diagnostic disease yields more false positives when prevalence declines. This is a statistical artifact described by Bayes’ theorem and it is recognized by all health authorities (e.g. World Health Organization), yet it is rarely discussed or publicized. This artifact means that you can effectively have a never-ending pandemic because as the prevalence drops close to zero, false positives increase giving the impression of increased disease prevalence.
Vaccine adverse events
The statistics from the officially reported U.S. adverse event data (VAERS), as they stand currently, “should be enough to make front-page news,” Verkerk wrote. “Instead, we continue to hear health authorities parrot the deception that C19 injections are ‘safe.’ ”
“In the recent climate of coercion and brainwashing, many cases go unreported,” Verkerk wrote. “This might mean that reporting is even lower, potentially much lower, than the 1% underreporting for vaccines suggested by Harvard researchers investigating the VAERS system.”
What the adverse events reports are able to take into account, Verkerk added, “is that adverse reactions triggered by one or chronic exposure to the injections might take months or even years to manifest or be recognized. Such as fertility issues, the triggering of autoimmune conditions, heart tissue scarring, or damage to the brain and other parts of the neurological system.”
Verkerk continued: “And rather than castigating those doctors and other health practitioners that are awake to the seriousness of these C19 jab injuries, how about some gratitude, respect and support for this marginalized group who continue to be true to the Hippocratic oath that they’ve committed to. Whilst often facing witch-hunts, risking or losing their previous careers and sometimes even risking their personal safety.”
Given what we have all experienced over the past two-plus years, who would trust healthy authorities or the major corporate media to provide accurate scientific or medical reporting?
What has happened, Verkerk noted, is that, when it comes to news, “supply and demand being what it is, is already driving the creation of better, more objective, more balanced new media, with a plethora of actors. A new media that understands that paid-for science and conflicted scientists with vested interests are hardly going to provide a representative picture of what’s really going on or what we should do to protect ourselves and our communities.”
Additionally, cheap natural treatments, such as vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc and quercetin, as well as a product originating from a humble soil-dwelling bacterium — ivermectin — “were the clear winners over the billions spent on novel genetic injections,” Verkerk wrote.
Most of all, Verkerk concluded, “we’ve learned that many of us will stand shoulder to shoulder and find ways, regardless of the scale of the Goliath we face, to maintain sufficient frequency within our minds and bodies to not onboard approaches being thrust on us by the ruling authoritarians that simply don’t make sense to our own and unique systems of values, principles and beliefs. That’s going to be a prerequisite for what’s in store for us — because if you think we’re now able to stroll through the post-covid plains into the sunset, think again.”