Journalists and the Elephant in the Room

What was once perceived as a reliable and impartial media has increasingly been transformed into entities that often resemble mere mouthpieces for corporations.

On May 4th, Morgunblaðið, a longstanding bastion of respectful journalism in Iceland over the past 110 years, released a news piece titled "Unlikely that vaccination causes menstrual problems." The article is centered on a research paper published in BMJ the previous day. Delving into the piece, I couldn't help but feel a sense of alarm, as it became apparent that the public was being misled, and the thousands of Icelandic women who had endured severe side effects of this nature were being egregiously disregarded. The article epitomized a form of gaslighting at its worst. Even a journalist possessing a modicum of critical thinking would have discerned the flaws in this paper, which we will now examine in greater detail.

The essential prerequisite for the media to rightfully exist in a free market is the trust of its readers. Hence, it becomes imperative to inquire into the reasons behind Morgunblaðið's decision to undermine its credibility in such a manner. Around 2 million papers are published annually by roughly 30,000 peer-reviewed journals in medicine and physiology. There are gold nuggets hidden in this sea of papers, but almost none of them get the attention of the major international news sources (Reuters, AP, and AFP) or the world's mainstream media. Therefore, when a relatively insignificant article gets the attention of these parties the day after publication in a professional journal, it can be assumed that it was prepared and sponsored by unspecified interested parties. Probably not illegal, but definitely unethical in most people's opinion.

The Swedish menstruation study

Publication bias has always been a problem in the science of medicine, as John P. A. Ioannidis described so well in his groundbreaking essay “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” in 2005. Since the start of the pandemic, this problem has intensified significantly. That is why it is imperative to get to know who the authors are, their interests, and, not least, who is funding the research to be able to put on the correct glasses before reading. This is not always simple because pharmaceutical companies are known to try to deceive readers if they want to hide their affiliation for some reason, e.g., by using ghostwriting, i.e., the papers are written by their employees or close affiliates but published under the author's names of people who did not come anywhere close.

No attempt is made to hide the conflict of interests in the paper that the news piece covered.  The primary funder is the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, an organization belonging to one of the wealthiest dynasties in the world, which has long been a prominent shareholder in AstraZeneca, but Marcus Wallenberg has been on the board of the pharmaceutical giant since 1989.

The authors listed for the article are 11, of which 6 work at the Swedish Medical Products Agency (Läkemedelsverket), an organization responsible for granting the mentioned experimental substances conditional marketing authorization in Sweden, including the leading author, Rickard Ljung. One of the authors is on the payroll of AstraZeneca and owns shares in the company, while the rest comes from the University of Gothenburg. All but two of the authors have received payments for consultancy, grants, and/or personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies, e.g., AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Sanofi, Janssen, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Roche, Novo Nordisk, etc. None of the authors have expertise in the field studied, none are practicing physicians, and most of them are pharmacists.

However, if the journalist who wrote the story had only spent a small amount of time reading the competing interest section of the paper that his story covered, he could have quickly realized that a team structure like this could not produce unbiased results in the context. Otherwise, it would resemble an acknowledgment of a judicial ruling in which the defendants serve as their own judges. The evidence, in this regard, unequivocally suggests that external commissions undeniably influence this study.

When the paper is read in its entirety, it becomes clear that the connection between the injections and women's menstrual problems is quite strong, e.g., 41% relative risk increase with data adjustment (59% without adjustment) for postmenopausal women in the first seven days after the 3rd dose (Table 4). In fact, it has become a trend during the pandemic, especially in papers published in major medical journals, for the authors to downplay their own findings if they are inconsistent with the narrative.

Take for instance, a research letter penned by Icelandic physicians and published in the esteemed JAMA Network. It shed light on the matter of COVID-19 re-infection post the arrival of the seemingly harmless omicron variant. Astonishingly, the data revealed that those who had received a double dose were subjected to a staggering 42% higher likelihood of re-infection than those who had received either a single dose or none. However, the authors, in their peculiar fashion, downplayed the significance, referring to it as a mere "slight" association ("Surprisingly, 2 or more doses of vaccine were associated with a slightly higher probability of reinfection compared with 1 dose or less."). Another notable example involves an extensive study conducted at Cleveland Hospital in the US, which, surprisingly, has been largely ignored by the mainstream media thus far. The crux of the matter lies in the fact that the more vaccine doses one receives, the greater the likelihood of falling ill—up to an astonishing 338% for individuals subjected to three or more doses. Yet, in an attempt to maintain compliance with the narrative, they manage to squeeze in the claim that a bivalent booster dose boasts a 30% relative efficacy in preventing infection—a misleading and downright deceptive statistical maneuver. 

Let's return to the Swedish study. The method was to retrospectively review medical records regarding women's visits to doctors' offices or hospitals due to menstrual problems. Then, without a reasonable explanation, they use windows from vaccination, within seven days and 8-90 days, with no relation to the menstrual cycle or when they had a period before the injection. The results they manage to cram out are obtained by excluding a good portion of those seeking medical care and adjusting based on confounding covariates without adequate explanation. In other words, the researchers created a model apparently based on guesswork, which allows them to eliminate relationships mostly or, as the paper says: "Extensive adjustment for confounding attenuated most risk estimates." It is not certain how serious the recorded problems were, but it can be assumed that at least those who arrived within the 7-day window were an emergency and therefore went to the emergency room, and then most likely postmenstrual women.

The paper states that the results are at odds with most others published in the context, which is the most helpful information the reader receives from reading it.

Other studies

According to the US government's website, PubMed, which keeps track of published scientific papers in the health sector, several thousand peer-reviewed articles have been published that show serious side effects from the covid injections, including more than a thousand on how they can damage the heart, over 600 on blood clots and strokes, a number on immunosuppression, almost 300 on neurological issues, just as many on damage to the reproductive system and close to 100 looking specifically at women's menstrual cycle. Never in history have so many scientific papers on the harmfulness of individual drugs been published. However, Morgunblaðið and other mainstream news outlets have pretended they don't exist; at least not a single one has been covered. However, a good argument can be made that most of them would have been of more value to the readers than the one in question here, even if it were honest.

For instance, let us examine some remarkably alarming studies. In a prospective study conducted by Mansanguan et al., a cohort of 13-18-year-old adolescents was observed before and after receiving an injection. The findings revealed that approximately 30% of these kids suffered from heart-related symptoms, with 3.5% experiencing severe manifestations, i.e., myocarditis. Similarly, a study carried out in Switzerland by Mueller et al. involved 777 healthcare workers as participants, and astonishingly, every single individual (100%) experienced adverse cardiac symptoms, with 2.8% presenting myocarditis. It is worth pondering that readers, who are ultimately responsible for supporting journalists' livelihoods, would likely have appreciated being made aware of these critical findings before deciding whether to subject themselves or their children to vaccination.

Also, the mainstream news media have conveniently omitted any mention of the damning "Pfizer Documents" from its readers' purview. These documents lay bare the incontrovertible evidence of Pfizer's fraudulent practices during the clinical trial, exposing the complicity of both the company's management and public regulators. Well in advance, they were aware that the so-called vaccines were ineffectual in preventing infection or illness and, to add insult to injury posed a grave threat to people's health. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in its bid to keep these damning revelations under wraps for 75 years, faced a resounding defeat when the court intervened, compelling the FDA to gradually release 55,000 documents per month until every last one is brought to light.

A group of over 3,500 doctors and scientists led by Dr. Naomi Wolf have been analyzing the documents as soon as they were released and published reports on them. At the time of writing, 70 reports have been published by these experts and in the context of female fertility, e.g., report number 69 (see Naomi Wolf's review on it here), is both noteworthy and frightening. A sea of content for an aspiring journalist to sift through to deliver information that matters to the public that would undoubtedly establish trust and grow their readership significantly.

As mentioned earlier, many peer-reviewed articles have been published on menstrual problems, which confirm the connection. A study by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (Folkehelseinstituttet), published in January last year, examined 5,688 18-30-year-old women, concluded that the relative risk of heavy bleeding was 90% after the first injection and 84% after the second dose. There was also an increased risk of other types of menstrual disorders. 

In Andalucia, Spain, a notable initiative called The EVA Project ("The Effect of Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 on the Menstrual Cycle") has emerged, specifically focusing on investigating the very concerns at hand. The project has already published one peer-reviewed research paper in Women's Health. In contrast to the Swedish study that garnered attention from the mainstream media, the authors of this paper are esteemed experts in the field of gynecological diseases. Notably, they maintain financial independence from the pharmaceutical companies and government agencies responsible for the vaccination campaign. The primary finding reveals that out of the 14,153 women who participated, a substantial 78% (11,017 individuals) experienced changes in their menstrual cycle post-vaccination, with the likelihood of such changes increasing with age. The most commonly reported alterations included heightened fatigue (43%), abdominal bloating (37%), irritability (29%), feelings of sadness or depression (28%), and headaches (28%). Furthermore, major menstrual changes encompassed increased bleeding (43%), heightened pain (41%), delayed periods (38%), fewer days of menstruation (34.5%), and shorter intervals between periods (32%).

Corroborating the findings highlighted in the studies above, a closer examination of the reporting systems responsible for handling side effect data reveals a similar pattern. For instance, within the US VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) system, a staggering number exceeding sixty thousand reports have been documented explicitly concerning fertility and reproductive organs. It is important to note that this figure is merely a glimpse, as the true extent remains uncertain. As per a comprehensive million-dollar study coming out of Harvard, it has been historically established that less than one percent of vaccine-related adverse events are actually recorded within the VAERS system.

Dr. James A. Thorp, a well-known American gynecologist and obstetrician, is the principal author of a peer-reviewed research paper that discusses these reports and also reviews the effect of the mRNA jab on pregnancy, menstrual activity, miscarriage, chromosomal defects in fetuses, cardiac arrhythmias, placental thrombosis, etc. The paper also discusses how the toxic spike protein, which the injections cause the body's cells to produce in huge quantities, spreads throughout the body, accumulates in the organs, including the brain, heart, testicles, and ovaries, and how it passes from mother to child both through the placenta and breast milk and potentially causing severe harm and even death. A massive increase in stillbirths in hospitals in the US and Canada is also discussed in the paper.

Considering the presented evidence, the range of plausible explanations appears quite limited when attempting to comprehend how the Swedish pharmacists arrived at the conclusion that received significant coverage in the mainstream media. At this point, I defer to the readers' discernment, as I have faith in their ability to draw their own conclusions.

Icelandic women

In Iceland, a notable closed Facebook group titled "Menstrual cycle of vaccinated women against C19" has garnered the participation of over 2,800 women. What unites them is their firm conviction that the COVID-19 vaccination has disrupted their menstrual cycles, with many experiencing severe health issues as a result. According to a survey conducted within the group last year, most participants reported grappling with this issue for six months or longer following their vaccination. Regrettably, healthcare professionals are at a loss when it comes to providing effective solutions for these women. Furthermore, the Directorate of Health (Embætti Landlæknis) has disregarded their concerns, while the Medicines Agency has released an insensitive report authored by three purportedly "independent" experts. Disturbingly, this report dismissively concludes that these nearly three thousand women are merely delusional individuals, dismissing their experiences of menstrual disorders as nothing more than unfortunate coincidences. Unfortunately, such dismissive responses from medical professionals are common when vaccinations are implicated. Vaccination within the medical establishment seems to have taken on almost religious fervor, although the explanation must be different.

Let's take a look at an interview from March last year that Hallur Hallsson, an Icelandic journalist, gave to the founder of the group, Rebekka Ósk Sváfnisdóttir:

"I started a group after I started bleeding, I ended up bleeding for 53 days, hefty, heavy bleeding. When around 600 women had joined the group, I contacted the Directorate of Health,... then it was decided to start an investigation by the Medicines Agency, which hired three  "independent doctors" to do the job. On August 19 [2021], I got a phone call from a gynecologist who asked questions over the phone. Nothing else ... then came the conclusion: the causes of bleeding are very likely not vaccinations. We were just very likely to be stressed in a pandemic. Today, there are just under 2,700 women in the group.

Some women have not had a period for seven or eight months … some women have lost their hair … some women have rashes on their bodies … some with muscle aches, a lot of colds … and have been very sick since vaccination … women who have gone through a period of transition a long time ago have started menstruating again … 70 and over … some women have lost a fetus and consider vaccinations the cause of the miscarriage … some women have given birth to stillborn babies… women who struggle with depression and anxiety that they did not experience before … breast tension … pains that follow periods are on a par with cramping ... say all women who have had children and know cramping ... I thought it was a strange study not to take one woman for a physical examination ... very few women were called ... less than 30 women ... I don't understand how a trustworthy investigation can be performed when no woman is taken in for physical inspection.

Another thing I’ve noticed is that women don't go to the doctor until their lives are almost at an end... many of them struggle with side effects for 6-7 months without going to the doctor... From the doctors, women are told that it will probably get better, it has nothing to do with this. You just have to wait. Now, many women face problems after the third injection... it's hard for women to come forward... women's bleeding is a taboo, just like men's ED problems ..."

The birth rate collapsed in 2022

On May 9, the National Statistics Office finally released figures on the number of live births in Iceland in 2022. "Fertility has never been lower than in 2022" says the press release headline. It also states: "This is the largest decrease in live births that have occurred between years since 1838 or a decrease of 488 children." Also: "In 2022, the fertility rate of Icelandic women was 1.59, and it has never been lower since measurements began in 1853." Figures for stillbirths, perinatal deaths, and miscarriages have not yet been released.

This information was unsurprising for informed people because the same has been happening to all the other highly vaccinated nations, with precisely the same patterns, which has been covered by many truthtellers based on official data, such as here, here, and here. 

We are talking about an unprecedented decrease in the number of births in Iceland, similar to the unparalleled excess deaths last year. This is about the health and well-being of the nation and the lives of our loved ones, relatives, and friends, which must be considered the most important issue by far for each and every one of us, more important than inflation, economic crises, housing issues, etc. On a per capita basis, we are talking about many times more lives than Ukraine has lost since the Russian invasion of the country, if numbers from US intelligence agencies are anything to go by.

Although it is hardly disputed that this is the most crucial issue, there has been almost complete silence in the Icelandic mainstream media. The media avoids asking critical questions, pretending the big elephant in the room doesn't exist, and allowing officials and health officials to come up with answers that don't stand up to scrutiny. A simple change analysis tells us that the only thing that changed between the years that could explain this is the injections, not climate change, particulate pollution, or anything else absurd, as has been seen in the mainstream media.

When faced with apparent correlations, those who hold the accused's position point out that correlation does not prove causation, even if nothing else can explain the correlation. In medicine, a standard is used in this regard, attributed to the author Sir Austin Bradford Hill, an epidemiologist and statistician who gained fame for laying the foundations of modern clinical research and proving the causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer. In short, according to the Bradford Hill criterion, the probability of causality is very high if the following conditions are met:

1. Consistency / Reproducibility

Consistent findings observed by different persons in different places, with different samples strengthen the likelihood of an effect

2. Temporality

The effect has to occur after the cause (often with delay)

3. Plausibility

A plausible mechanism between cause and effect is helpful

If the Bradford Hill criteria are applied to the collapse of births and the record of excess deaths, it becomes clear that all the conditions for the plausibility of a causality connection with the injections are more than fulfilled.

Conclusion

Critical thinking has faced significant challenges in recent times, yet it remains crucial to safeguard this vital intellectual process, particularly within the realm of professional journalism. What was once perceived as a reliable and impartial media disseminating important information and diverse perspectives, has increasingly been transformed into entities that often resemble mere mouthpieces for big corporations. Objective research is overshadowed by preconceived notions, resulting from selective manipulation of data and cherry-picked results sections, which journalists tend to focus on, oftentimes without fully grasping the entirety of the research. This article has highlighted numerous instances of questionable presentations, misleading messages, and examples of propaganda while emphasizing the presence of undeniable facts within the broader context. It is imperative for all of us to remain vigilant, scrutinize the orchestrated narratives, and pose critical questions. This is particularly pertinent for the media and government officials which have irrevocably lost their credibility throughout the pandemic, potentially tarnishing their reputation indefinitely.