Vaccines are likely to account for the alarmingly high rate of fatalities – Medsafe admitted

In New Zealand, an official drug safety regulator called Medsafe has just admitted that the nation’s vaccines are far more likely to account for the country’s alarmingly high rate of excess fatalities.

However, the organization recommends that people in New Zealand keep getting vaccinated and not fret about the hazards associated with it.

The current number of fatalities in New Zealand, regardless of reason, is now 15 percent greater than what the country typically sees for that particular statistic. Despite the growing body of evidence suggesting that messenger RNA (mRNA) injections may be the most likely source of the problem, there has been little action taken to safeguard the population.

According to the 46th fact sheet from Medsafe on the safety of covid vaccines, titled “Adverse events following immunization with COVID-19 vaccines,” it was found that ” some individuals will develop new illnesses or end up dying from a pre-existing ailment shortly after vaccination, particularly if they are elderly.” This was revealed in the report. “Especially if they are elderly.”

“Therefore, as part of our evaluation process, we compare the mortality rates that occur naturally with the death rates that occur post-vaccination, in order to identify whether there are any particular trends or patterns that would signal a vaccine safety risk.”

Do you remember that in the summer of 2020, New Zealand Minister Jacinda Ardern issued an order to quarantine everybody in the country who came back positive for covid?

How does the government of New Zealand make such baseless assertions when it doesn’t even adequately document the adverse events that occur after vaccination?

Following the publication of its research, Medsafe issued a disclaimer in which it effectively implied that the injections are not nearly as harmful as they appear to be. As “evidence” that vaccinations are still safe enough to rely on, the organization pointed to a comparison of the data that is revealed by CARM (Centre for Adverse Reactions Tracking), which is New Zealand’s rendition of VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting), inside of 21 days of receiving a shot, with the background rate of deaths caused by natural causes. This was cited as “proof” that people can continue to rely on vaccinations.

The fact that reporting is optional, as it is with CARM and VAERS, results in a significant amount of information not being provided, which is a concern with both systems. CARM is considered to have an even worse underreporting problem than VAERS does, with an approximate factor of twenty times larger.

Concerning the results of its investigation, The Exposé writes that “as a consequence, there is not the slightest bit of reassurance to be found in this safety assessment.”

Autopsies are not frequently performed on fatalities that take place in close vicinity to covid vaccinations in New Zealand, thus begs the question: why is this not done? This is one of the problems with the reporting done by the New Zealand government.

According to further information provided by The Exposé, “The Health Ministry has persistently refused/neglected to record immunization status the death certificates and make CARM reporting necessary.” Because of this, conducting a scientifically sound and trustworthy investigation of any possible causal association between mRNA immunization and disease or death is extremely challenging.

It would appear that absolutely no attempts are being taken in New Zealand to track anything linked to injuries and deaths. This is troubling. How is it possible for Medsafe to assert that there is absolutely nothing to be concerned about in relation to receiving vaccinations when this is clearly not the case?

According to The Exposé, “despite having multiple information sources or methods of evaluation accessible to it, Medsafe has depended for 2 years on a solitary incredibly flawed procedure of comparing CARM statistics to reference rates, despite admitting that CARM data is underreported.” This is despite the fact that Medsafe has a variety of information sources or analysis methods available to it. “Isn’t it just so strange? This shortcoming renders Medsafe’s assurances of safety completely meaningless.

“Therefore cannot be justified on a scientific level, and it does not fit the requirements for publishing.

There is no plausible defense for not utilizing more dependable methods of research. Medsafe has evaded real accountability in refusing to discuss the problems in a public setting, omitting the publishing of critical health data, altering data that has been provided, and making unforgivable accusations that opponents are spreading misinformation. These methods are appropriate for a dictatorship, but they have no place in contemporary democracy.

We would be grateful if you could donate a few $$ to help us keep operating https://gogetfunding.com/realnewscast/

Share This Post With A Friend!