[SPCI-9] "We were told... a story of a lethal virus, a story that only vaccines could save us, a story where vaccines were safe and effective and rigorously tested. But what if that story was wrong?"
Diagnostic pathologist Dr Clare Craig on the reality of the harm caused by the so-called covid vaccines
Dear Church Leaders (and everyone else)
This is the final post (#9) in a series featuring presentations at the recent Scottish People’s Covid Inquiry (SPCI, as distinct from the official Scottish Covid Inquiry).
This one is from Dr Clare Craig, a diagnostic pathologist and Co-Chair of the Health Advisory & Recovery Team (HART), on the reality of vaccine harm.
I have added occasional additional material in the transcript below.
Introduction
I’m quite glad that I came after Liz [Evans] because I think the ethics is so fundamental. When we’re going through talking about the harms from the vaccine, it’s worth remembering that people were harmed… when they hadn’t been given any kind of informed consent, when they hadn’t been told the risks, when they hadn’t been told the unknowns.
We were told a brand new safety system would protect us, and it was tested, proven and would keep us safe. But it wasn’t true. People at minimal risk ended up harmed. Instead of protection, they suffered severe illness, disability and even death, only to be told it was a “coincidence”.
The vaccine-injured were promised safety but were harmed. When they sought care, they were dismissed, and their symptoms were blamed on anxiety. I can’t tell you the reality of living with those problems, but I can back them up with evidence.
Good science is based on precise measurements. Without that, we are not scientists. We are just storytellers. And we were told a story, a story of a lethal virus, a story that only vaccines could save us, a story where vaccines were safe and effective and rigorously tested. But what if that story was wrong?
Today I want to discuss the delusions that shaped public perception. These delusions were based on exaggerated fear, flawed measurement and statistical manipulation. We were told again and again without question [that] the vaccines worked, the vaccines were safe, and the system that measured harm was reliable.
But when we step away from the messaging and look at what actually happened, a very different picture emerges.
In 2020, governments warned that a tsunami of infection and death was coming. Computer models predicted a catastrophe. Almost every person would be infected, and 1% of the population would die. In reality, only around 10% of people are susceptible to infection in any one wave. The waves continue to rise… and peak… and fall to this day, peaking at predictable times of year. They always would have, and they continue to.
Natural immunity, standard treatments and safe new potential therapies were all denied. Instead [the authorities] declared the only hope was lockdowns followed by mass vaccination.
To prepare for the crisis, authorities restricted access to normal medical care. People were led to believe that seeking medical care might increase their risk. Some medical care did. The result was that people did die more.
Delusion 1: The whole world will burn
It was like being told the whole world was going to ignite… an unprecedented inferno. Government models claimed every house was going to catch fire and 1% of homes would burn to the ground. Then, some fire brigades were shut down entirely, and people [were] told that fire extinguishers won’t work, at least not on this fire. And then protocols were applied1 which applied fuel to the fire.
The fires caused more harm than they otherwise would have, reinforcing the belief that the crisis was unusual, and that a better fire protection system was absolutely necessary.
When the vaccines were introduced, something strange happened. The vaccines hammered the immune system, and the consequence was that in the first two weeks after vaccination people were more likely to get infected. This effect wasn’t acknowledged.
Delusion 2: Congratulations… you are now UNVACCINATED
Worse, anyone infected in the first two weeks was counted as “unvaccinated”. And this statistical trick inflated infection rates in the “unvaccinated” group while keeping the early vaccinated infections off the books. This simple statistical slight of hand created the illusion of vaccine effectiveness when none actually existed. Later, when vaccinated individuals fell ill in future waves, they called it “waning immunity”. But it wasn’t waning. It was the washing out of a statistical illusion.
This period of immune suppression did not just cause earlier infections in the susceptible. It had real consequences. It caused people to die.
Peter Rossiter was a healthy 39-year-old, a pianist, a son, a life ahead of him. Four days after his second dose he fell ill with covid. His immune system was obliterated. His mother testified, “His white blood count was almost zero. He fell very seriously ill very quickly”. And Pfizer’s response to this was, “He wasn’t fully protected yet.” They knew this period was dangerous, but instead of admitting it they used cases like Peter’s to prop up the illusion of vaccine benefit.
The extra deaths in young people — some still labelled as “unvaccinated” — were used to claim that the virus had become more deadly, and that the vaccines were therefore working. And this was coupled with fantasy models which assumed vaccines prevented 90% of deaths. So of course they “proved” that millions of lives were saved.
Let’s think back to the fire protection system. The homeowners install it, believing it will protect them. But instead, some houses catch fire due to faulty wiring in the system itself. Some homes burn down, and the… neighbours who didn’t install the system at all are affected. The officials don’t admit the flaw. Instead they say it’s too soon for the fire protection system to have an effect. They blame the fires on bad luck, old buildings, or even the way homeowners behaved.
In early 2022, a mutated virus — Omicron — changed the story. It stayed in the upper airway and had half the mortality in the unvaccinated compared to earlier variants. Instead of acknowledging this, the vaccines were credited with reducing the severity, and this was a fundamental misrepresentation.
Delusion 3: vaccines made Omicron less deadly
Imagine that, instead of flamethrowers presenting the risk, there is just a sparkler. The risk of burning a building down is much reduced, but officials insist the dodgy fire protection system is responsible for preventing disaster, even though the source of the fire was much less likely to cause serious damage in the first place.
Delusion 4: the trials proved the vaccines were safe
Let’s confront the bigger question: the delusion of safety. The trials showed they were safe, right? Wrong. The trials were big, but not big enough to prove safety. So if, hypothetically, the vaccines had killed at a rate of one in 4,000 or less, the trials would not have been able to show that. So that was just remaining as an unknown.
The best clinical trials are blinded such that the participant and the researchers do not know who had the vaccine and who had the placebo. The Pfizer trial was described as “observer-blinded”, and that meant company staff knew, and bias could creep in. Safety signals were ignored, hidden or reclassified.
An honest trial would show a reduction in all symptoms and deaths, not just those with a certain label. However, these trials grouped covid and non-covid separately, and that created a gap where new conditions could disappear. Symptoms that could be blamed on a pre-existing illness or on covid did not appear in the safety data. If there was a negative covid test, they would not appear in the efficacy data either.
Independent German researcher Jacob Hauser has exposed manipulation in how the data was recorded in the Pfizer trial.
A 73-year-old man suffered a life-threatening arrhythmia and pulmonary embolism. Pfizer tried to classify it as a pre-existing condition so it wouldn’t be included in the safety data despite [the fact that] there was clear documentation that it was in fact new.
An Argentinian trial participant developed pulmonary fibrosis post-vaccination, and Pfizer’s monitors pressured the trial site to classify it as part of a pre-existing history, again excluding it from safety data.
There was a 54-year-old woman who was given the placebo and then had an asthma attack. It was initially recorded as an adverse event in the safety data. She later had the vaccine and another asthma attack, but that was recorded as a test-negative covid episode, keeping it out of the safety data.
A 60-year-old man developed acute respiratory failure after his first dose and ended up on intensive care. It was months later when Pfizer reclassified it as a suspected covid case, even though there had been no mention of covid prior to that point.
In Argentina there were 200 participants who mysteriously disappeared from the trial records. That happened on the day Augusto Roux had his second dose. He suffered pericarditis and severe chest pain afterwards. His records were changed multiple times, first falsely labelling his condition as a bilateral pneumonia, but then [later] a suspected covid illness despite a negative test.
Augusto Roux tells his story here:
There are other similar examples, and it wasn’t just Pfizer. There was Brianne Dressen in the AstraZeneca trial, whose injury was not properly recorded. And Olivia Teseniar’s injuries in the Moderna trial.
Delusion 5: the Pfizer covid vaccine used on the population was the one tested in the trials
Despite hiding these injuries, the trial showed an overall risk with mRNA of significant adverse events of 1 in 800.
However, the vaccines used in the trials were not the same as the ones given to the public. The trial product was made precisely in a laboratory, and part of the public product was made in huge vats of E. coli bacteria. Trial data shows that the public’s product had a 13-fold higher risk of swollen lymph nodes compared to the trial formulation. This is a massive difference, indicating an inflammatory response, and was ignored by regulators, officials and the media.
The difference between the so-called Process 1 and Process 2 batches is described e.g. here:
The matter was discussed in November 2020 at the UK Vaccine Benefit Risk Expert Working Group.
This meant that even the already concerning risks in the trial were underestimations of the harm in the real world. Safety monitoring then failed. There was no official medical code for a vaccine injury, meaning doctors had no standardised way to report cases. They were coded as lots of different conditions, and that diluted the effect. The doctors were waiting for the regulators to confirm harm while the regulators waited for the doctors to report it, creating a circular system that guaranteed harm would be ignored. Even when harms were admitted, they were underestimated, due to impossible statistical thresholds.
To prove vaccines increased heart attacks the system would require hundreds of thousands of extra cases to be statistically significant. To prove vaccines increased deaths you’d need tens of thousands of excess deaths. This system might as well have been built to deny, to dismiss and to delay accountability.
Now there is a requirement of 95% confidence before declaring a safety concern, and the Associate Director for Science and Medicine at the FDA’s Office of Drug Safety, Dr David Graham, said in 2004 about this requirement, “That is an incredibly high, almost insurmountable barrier to overcome. It’s the equivalent of ‘beyond a shadow of a doubt’”. The same threshold did not apply to claims of a reduction in hospitalisations and deaths in the trial data.
Now, back to the fire analogy…
The system had in-built sprinklers which caused widespread water damage, but when people reported the damage, officials dismissed it, claiming the water must have come from elsewhere: coincidental condensation, a leaky pipe, the rain, or even the fires themselves. The problem wasn’t just the fires or the water damage. It was a system that did not measure the total impact.
In the meantime, the medical literature is now full of evidence of harm, including specific mechanisms.
And by Spring 2021, hospitals were overwhelmed, not by covid but by non-covid illness. From the same time, 800,000 working age adults in the UK, which is 2% of the workforce, became unable to work due to long-term sickness. And this dwarfed the estimates of numbers with “long covid”.
And the same happened in the USA at the same time.
Related:
Many of these people were coded as having anxiety or musculoskeletal problems, but when you speak to vaccine-injured people, that is exactly how their problems get recorded. At the same time, ambulance calls for cardiac issues rocketed, particularly in young people, and including in places like Australia before covid had an impact. There were excess cardiac deaths across the vaccinated world.
The big picture story was clear: that there was significant medical harm which lasted years.
Delusion 6: Injuries were very rare
There was manipulation, cover-ups and a refusal to properly measure harm. The data was deliberately skewed to create a false impression of success. The harms were hidden from the trial data, and the monitoring system could not see the massive signals.
Now, back to our novel fire protection system… It was meant to prevent fires but instead it caused them in the early days… flooded homes afterwards… and then took credit for stopping fires that were never going to burn the house down. Anyone who was anti-damage was smeared as anti-fire protection.
These novel so-called vaccines were sold as effective, but it was a delusion. They were sold as safe, and that was a lie. And now the same flawed system is being rolled out for future vaccines with Moderna contracted to provide up to 250 million doses a year in the UK alone. The same faulty wiring. The same water damage. The same broken system.
If we allow bad science to masquerade as truth, we have to ask… What happens when we are presented with a new story of a crisis? Do we let the same authorities control the narrative, dismiss the evidence, and silence those who ask questions. Or do we finally demand accountability?
Clare Craig is Co-Chair of HART and author of Expired: Covid the untold story. I have read several good books on the covid era, but Expired is the one I would most recommend — it’s quite an education.
Related:
![[I] Exposing the UK Covid-19 Inquiry (Module 4)](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8388da85-e410-4fb8-8058-3b7d2f0bde3a_748x730.png)
Links to the other posts in this series:
#1 Alan Mordue | #2 Diane Rasmussen McAdie | #3 Richard Ennos | #4 Alison Walker
#5 Pam Thomas | #6 Bill Jolly | #7 Martin Neil | #8 Liz Evans
Dear Church Leaders homepage
Some posts, including a version of this one, can also be found on Unexpected Turns
The Big Reveal: Christianity carefully considered as the solution to a problem
Such as the document NG163, COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing symptoms (including at the end of life) in the community, which is no longer available on the NICE website, but can be viewed e.g. here (archived version) or here (pdf, c/o this related article)