Juanne Pili
New Member
Hello everyone, and happy 2025!
Epidemiologist Nicholas Hulscher claims in a recent Substack post that Covid vaccines should be withdrawn from the market. He argues that other drugs in the past, such as the 1955 Cut Polio vaccine, were withdrawn for being associated with fewer deaths. Source: https://archive.is/hdQ2Q
His primary source appears to be a review by Rhodes and Parry, published in the open-access journal International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine. Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/09246479241292008
First of all, it's worth noting that Hulscher works as an epidemiologist for Peter McCullough's foundation. Source: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolas-hulscher-mph-3683b1274
McCullough is well-known for his anti-vaccine stance, which has been repeatedly debunked, and for his potential conflict of interest, as he promotes a "detox protocol" for individuals vaccinated against Covid. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/2023110...-medical-journal-heres-how-you-can-get-better
Aside from Hulscher's potential bias, let's take a closer look at the study in question. The article analyzes publications related to the withdrawal of drugs from the market due to emerging adverse events. The researchers examine several historical cases and draw parallels with mRNA vaccines. They speculate about a supposed "data distortion" in clinical trials, the slow pace of regulatory actions, and the lack of transparency from pharmaceutical companies. The authors conclude by emphasizing the need for access to raw clinical trial data. They also criticize the imposition of mandatory vaccines, particularly for healthy young individuals, citing data on alleged excess mortality observed in various countries.
But what are the sources of the data? The authors credit the statistical support of the website Vaersanalysis.info and reference pharmacovigilance data from the VAERS system. Source: https://vaersanalysis.info/
VAERS is a system that collects spontaneous reports of any adverse events occurring after vaccination, without verifying causality. However, the Vaers Analysis website isn't even recognized by VAERS itself, as can be seen from the description of its "mysterious" author. Source: https://archive.is/pJsme
I'm curious to see what others might uncover. For example, I haven't delved into the claims regarding the Cut Polio vaccine or the specific context of its withdrawal. Nor do I have detailed knowledge about the open-access journal involved—whether it has previously published reviews aligned with critical narratives about Covid vaccines.
Epidemiologist Nicholas Hulscher claims in a recent Substack post that Covid vaccines should be withdrawn from the market. He argues that other drugs in the past, such as the 1955 Cut Polio vaccine, were withdrawn for being associated with fewer deaths. Source: https://archive.is/hdQ2Q
His primary source appears to be a review by Rhodes and Parry, published in the open-access journal International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine. Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/09246479241292008
Background: Of many pharmaceutical products launched for the benefit of humanity, a significant number have had to be recalled from the marketplace due to adverse events. A systematic review found market recalls for 462 pharmaceutical products between 1953 and 2013. In our current and remarkable period of medical history, excess mortality figures are high in many countries. Yet these statistics receive limited attention, often ignored or dismissed by mainstream news outlets. This excess mortality may include adverse effects caused by novel pharmaceutical agents that use gene-code technology.
Objective: To examine key pharmaceutical product withdrawals and derive lessons that inform the current use of gene-based COVID-19 vaccines.
Methods: Selective narrative review of historical pharmaceutical recalls and comparative issues with recent COVID-19 vaccines.
Results: Parallels with past drug withdrawals and gene-based vaccines include distortion of clinical trial data, with critical adverse event data absent from high-impact journal publications. Delayed regulatory action on pharmacovigilance data to trigger market withdrawal occurred with Vioxx (rofecoxib) and is apparent with the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines.
Conclusion: Public health requires access to raw clinical trial data, improved transparency from corporations and heightened, active pharmacovigilance worldwide.
First of all, it's worth noting that Hulscher works as an epidemiologist for Peter McCullough's foundation. Source: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolas-hulscher-mph-3683b1274
McCullough is well-known for his anti-vaccine stance, which has been repeatedly debunked, and for his potential conflict of interest, as he promotes a "detox protocol" for individuals vaccinated against Covid. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/2023110...-medical-journal-heres-how-you-can-get-better
Aside from Hulscher's potential bias, let's take a closer look at the study in question. The article analyzes publications related to the withdrawal of drugs from the market due to emerging adverse events. The researchers examine several historical cases and draw parallels with mRNA vaccines. They speculate about a supposed "data distortion" in clinical trials, the slow pace of regulatory actions, and the lack of transparency from pharmaceutical companies. The authors conclude by emphasizing the need for access to raw clinical trial data. They also criticize the imposition of mandatory vaccines, particularly for healthy young individuals, citing data on alleged excess mortality observed in various countries.
But what are the sources of the data? The authors credit the statistical support of the website Vaersanalysis.info and reference pharmacovigilance data from the VAERS system. Source: https://vaersanalysis.info/
VAERS is a system that collects spontaneous reports of any adverse events occurring after vaccination, without verifying causality. However, the Vaers Analysis website isn't even recognized by VAERS itself, as can be seen from the description of its "mysterious" author. Source: https://archive.is/pJsme
I am just a concerned citizen reporting on often overlooked public data regarding adverse events related to the new Covid-19 vaccines. I work with data for a living and have been in the technology field for over two decades.
Ironic fact about me: I spent the better part of a decade building websites for big Pharma. There is likely not a single big Pharma company I have not built a website for.
I'm curious to see what others might uncover. For example, I haven't delved into the claims regarding the Cut Polio vaccine or the specific context of its withdrawal. Nor do I have detailed knowledge about the open-access journal involved—whether it has previously published reviews aligned with critical narratives about Covid vaccines.