I was deceived about COVID vaccine safety (Introduction): Why did I write this article?

Updated: Jan 20

[Note: This excellent and comprehensive article is so long that I'm separating it into multiple blog posts. The full article is here: - PR]

Covid vaccine injuries are being grossly underreported and censored: evidence from multiple, independent sources

Joomi Kim Jan 15, 2022

In May of 2021, I took the second dose of the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine. At the time, I was led to believe that everybody knows the vaccines are safe and effective. I kept hearing that anybody who believed in science should want to get vaccinated.

I used to be a biologist, so of course I believed in science. So I took the vaccine. If I had known what I know now, I would not have taken it.

At the time, I had no idea of the level of censorship that hides Covid vaccine injuries from the public. At the time, I thought we could trust our health institutions, more or less.

But not all vaccines are the same, and not all vaccines are equally safe. And criticizing the Covid vaccines, does not make one “anti-vax.”

When it comes to the Covid vaccines, there is overwhelming evidence that they lead to much higher rates of injury and death, than what our health institutions, like the CDC, acknowledge and report to the public.

I wrote this article in order to take some of the evidence for this and compile it into one, shareable article.

If you’re a subscriber to this newsletter, some of what I will cover in this article won’t be news to you.

But most people don’t know anything about what’s been going on, because it’s being actively censored.

This article is for them. Please share it with them.


On consilience

Let’s first define “consilience,” because we’ll be using it.

Consilience is when evidence from multiple, independent sources “converge,” or are in agreement, to support a conclusion.

In such a case, one would be justified in strongly believing a conclusion even when each piece of evidence is not a “slam dunk” on its own.

An example of consilience in action

Here’s an example. Suppose you host a large party at your house. Some of the guests are people you don’t know.

At the end of the party you go upstairs to your bedroom, and start to take off your earrings. You open up your jewelry box and notice that an expensive diamond necklace is missing.

You do some digging, and eventually evidence converges onto one particular friend of a friend being the culprit. Here’s what you learn:

  • This person has been arrested in the past for theft and fraud.

  • A few eyewitnesses saw a man of his description go upstairs at some point during the evening.

  • He was behind on alimony payments.

  • You obtain his phone number, and the one time he picked up the phone, as soon as he heard who you were, he hung up. After that, he stopped picking up the phone whenever you called.

Perhaps each of these pieces of evidence by themselves is not a slam dunk, but taken together, you’d be justified in having a strong suspicion that this person stole your necklace.

How consilience applies to this vaccine case

I will argue that if we look at the various pieces of evidence surrounding adverse events from the COVID vaccines, we are in a similar situation.

I’ve compiled multiple pieces of evidence to argue that injuries from the COVID vaccines are grossly underreported.

These include:

  • 1. Testimonies from doctors and nurses

  • 2. Testimonies from the vaccine injured

  • 3. Evidence from medical records or official databases of adverse events

  • 4. Evidence from the vaccine trials themselves

  • 5. Plausible mechanisms of action

  • 6. Evidence from animal studies

  • 7. Evidence of past wrongdoing by Pharma

  • 8. Evidence of corruption or undue influence in our health institutions

  • Bonus: Explanations for why we are not hearing about this in the media

Each section of this article could be its own book.

There is much to be curious about when it comes to the pandemic

Before we get into each type of evidence, I’ll just say that if you haven’t been paying much attention to these topics, I suspect that some of what I will cover in this article will be shocking or unbelievable to you.

But you’ve probably noticed that some of what’s been going on during the pandemic hasn’t made much sense.

You may have experienced some cognitive dissonance, or perhaps felt curious about what’s been going on, but set it aside for one reason or another. Life gets in the way.

We should all tap into that inner curiosity.

To foster that, I encourage you listen to this clip from Dr. Peter Doshi, a senior editor at The British Medical Journal, a highly prestigious medical journal:

Some excerpts:

I’m saddened that we are super saturated right now in the attitude of “Everybody knows.”

That has shut down intellectual curiosity. And led to self censorship.

So let me start with a few “Everybody knows” examples that I’m not sure we should be so certain about.

Everybody knows that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But if hospitalizations and deaths were almost exclusively occurring in the unvaccinated, why would booster shots be necessary?

Or why would the statistics be so different in the UK? Where most COVID hospitalizations and deaths are among the fully vaccinated?

There’s a disconnect there. There’s something to be curious about. There’s something not adding up.

He continues by talking about the vaccine trials:

Then there’s this. Everybody knows that Covid vaccines save lives. In fact, we‘ve known this from early 2021. The clinical trials proved that to be the case, as you can see here in the quote of a Feb article in the Journal of the American Medical Association. But is it true?

When that statement by prominent public health official was penned, there had been just one death - one death, across the 70,000 Pfizer and Moderna trial participants.

Today we have more data, and you can see that there were similar number of deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups.

The trials did not show a reduction in death, even for Covid deaths, as opposed to other causes… My point is not that I know what the vaccine can and cannot do.

My point is that those who claim the trials showed the vaccines were highly effective in saving lives were wrong.

The trials did not demonstrate this.

By the way, we now have updated numbers from the Pfizer trial. I’ll discuss that later.

Back to Dr. Doshi:

I am one of the academics that argues that these mRNA products which everybody calls vaccines, are qualitatively different than standard vaccines.

So I found it fascinating to learn that Mirriam-Webster changed its definition of “vaccine” early this year.

mRNA products did not meet the definition of “vaccine” that has been in place for fifteen years at Mirriam-Webster… but the definition was expanded such that mRNA products are now vaccines.

I highlight this to ask a question. How would you feel about mandating Covid vaccines if we didn’t call them vaccines? What if these injections were called drugs instead?

So here’s the scenario. We have this drug. And we have evidence that it doesn’t prevent infection. Nor does it stop viral transmission. But the drug is understood to reduce your risk of becoming very sick and dying of Covid.

Would you take a dose of this drug every six months or so, for possibly the rest of your life? If that’s what it took for the drug to stay effective?

By the way, the CDC also changed the definition of “vaccine” on its website. See before and after.

The point is, just because we call it a vaccine doesn’t mean we should assume these new products are just like all other products that get mandated.

Each product is a different product, and if people are ok with mandating something simply because: It’s a vaccine and we mandate other vaccines, so why shouldn’t we mandate this?

I think it’s time we inject some critical thinking into that conversation, and that is what I hope we’re doing today.

Now let’s get into the evidence.

[Continued in 1/22/2022 blog post, "I was deceived about COVID vaccine safety: 1. Testimonies from doctors and nurses]

10 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

We're weren't As of October 7, the Florida Surgeon General recommends against the mRNA vaccines for males aged 18-39 years old. The Florida Health Department still recommends against their use in heal

The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are likely killing people. And, likely killing people who were least likely to die, or to get very sick, from a COVID-19 infection. But, with the wind in big pharma's sail

Is the FDA panel using their brains. Maybe increasing scrutiny has forced their brains to work. “All the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) could agree about o