COVID: JAPAN WAS NOT ALONE. EXCESS DEATHS, BLOOD CLOTS AND QUESTIONS STILL UNANSWERED

JAPAN STUDY: A 2025 paper published in the JMA Journal caught my attention because it raises questions I believe deserve far more serious investigation. The authors examined Japan's substantial excess mortality during 2022 and 2023 in the context of its exceptionally high COVID-19 mRNA vaccination coverage and called for further investigation into the possible factors contributing to the mortality increase. When a major medical intervention is followed by a substantial change in mortality patterns, I believe the relationship deserves rigorous, transparent and genuinely independent investigation rather than being dismissed or explained away without examining every plausible contributing factor.

JAPAN WAS NOT ALONE: This is important because Japan was certainly not the only country experiencing excess mortality. Significant excess mortality occurred across numerous countries, although the timing and scale varied considerably. A large European analysis covering 29 countries estimated approximately 1.64 million excess deaths between 2020 and 2023, with particularly high cumulative excess mortality in countries including Lithuania and Slovakia. For me, this makes international comparison essential. We should be examining vaccination programmes, vaccine types, infection waves, previous immunity, healthcare disruption, demographics, underlying illness and causes of death across countries rather than assuming that every excess death has one universal explanation.

MY DECISION WAS MADE VERY PUBLICLY: I chose not to be vaccinated, and I was very public about my decision at the time. I did not make that decision because I believed COVID did not exist or that nobody could become seriously ill. My concern was different. I did not believe there had been enough time to properly establish the long-term safety of these new vaccines before they were administered to millions of people. The speed at which they were developed, authorised and rolled out concerned me enormously. I believed long-term safety questions simply could not have been answered within such a short period, particularly when repeated doses were being recommended while the products were still new.

THE INGREDIENTS CONCERNED ME: I also did not believe that every ingredient was safe simply because it was incorporated into an authorised medical product. More importantly, I did not believe that the combined formulation and the biological consequences of repeatedly introducing those components into the human body were sufficiently understood. The body does not receive ingredients in isolation. It receives the complete formulation, and biological systems are extraordinarily complex. I wanted to know what happened after administration, what happened with repeated exposure, how the components interacted with biological systems and what consequences might emerge months or years later. At the time, I believed there simply had not been enough time to answer those questions properly or with honesty.

I DID NOT BELIEVE THE VACCINES COULD PROTECT US IN THE WAY WE WERE BEING LED TO BELIEVE: Another reason I refused vaccination was that I did not believe these products had the capability of protecting everyone in the way the public was being led to believe. I was concerned that people could develop a false sense of security while infection and transmission could still occur. I believed the potential for harm had to be taken seriously, particularly among people with underlying health problems or compromised immune systems. I was prepared to say that publicly when many people were frightened and when questioning the prevailing narrative was extremely unpopular.

COVID DEATH COUNTS ALSO DESERVED SCRUTINY: I questioned the reported COVID mortality figures at the time and I still believe they deserve careful examination. My view was that figures have been overly exaggerated because the presence of a positive COVID test did not necessarily establish that COVID was the primary cause of death. People with weakened immune systems die every year from influenza, pneumonia and other respiratory infections, and elderly and medically vulnerable people have always been disproportionately affected by infectious disease. I believe many deaths that might previously have been attributed to influenza, pneumonia, underlying disease or other causes were instead recorded as COVID deaths during the pandemic. That distinction matters enormously when mortality statistics are subsequently used to justify major medical interventions and public-health policies.

BLOOD CLOTS CANNOT SIMPLY BE IGNORED: There is also a documented history of serious clotting events associated with some COVID-19 vaccines. With the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen adenovirus-vector vaccine, the CDC and FDA ultimately recognised a relationship between the vaccine and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, a potentially fatal condition involving blood clots and low platelet counts. By August 2021, TTS deaths had been identified among people who had received the Janssen vaccine. I believe this is important because it demonstrates that serious safety signals were not merely theoretical. They occurred in the real world and were subsequently recognised by the institutions responsible for vaccine safety monitoring, Yet the vaccine program continued.

THE PEOPLE WERE THE REAL-WORLD TRIAL: This is where I believe we need to be completely honest. Millions upon millions of people received these products while long-term safety information was still developing. We were told to trust the science, but much of the safety information was necessarily being generated while the vaccination programme was already underway. In practical terms, the population became part of an enormous real-world safety experiment. These were not laboratory numbers. They were human beings. They were mothers, fathers, grandparents, children, friends and families. They were people making decisions based on the information available to them at the time, under extraordinary social and political pressure.

I ALSO QUESTION WHAT HAPPENS TO VACCINE COMPONENTS OVER TIME: I believe there needs to be much more long-term research into what happens to vaccine components after administration, particularly with repeated exposure. I believe it is reasonable to investigate whether substances introduced into the body can be metabolised, modified, transported or otherwise change within the body's biological environment. I am particularly interested in the possibility that repeated exposure alters the biological consequences of components over time. Vaccine ingredient accumulate indefinitely. I am saying that the human body is not a static container and that we should have comprehensive long-term evidence showing exactly what happens to the components and their biological effects after repeated administration.

WHO IS PAYING FOR THE SCIENCE?: This is another issue I believe people have every right to discuss. In my view, science surrounding vaccines can become dependent on who is paying for the research. That means often scientist is dishonest and it means that industry-funded study is often wrong. It means funding matters. Who pays for the study? Who designs it? Who controls the data? Who analyses it? Who owns the intellectual property? Who benefits financially from widespread adoption? Who is responsible for monitoring safety? These are legitimate true scientific questions, and I believe transparency about financial and institutional relationships should be mandatory when research concerns products administered to millions or billions of people.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THE FDA OR CDC ARE SUFFICIENTLY INDEPENDENT: I have never believed that people should simply accept FDA or CDC conclusions as the final word without examining the evidence behind them. I do not consider either organisation independent for me to suspend my critical thinking. They are powerful institutions with enormous influence over public-health policy, but authority does not automatically equal independence or infallibility. I believe pharmaceutical companies, regulators, government agencies, universities, researchers and public-health organisations should all be subjected to scrutiny when enormous financial, political and institutional interests are involved.

INDEPENDENT SCIENCE MATTERS: If we genuinely believe in science, then we should welcome independent investigation, including investigations that produce uncomfortable conclusions. I want to see researchers with no financial stake in the outcome examining complete mortality and safety data, including vaccination history, vaccine type, timing, age, underlying conditions, previous infection, cause of death and reported adverse events. I want countries compared properly rather than selected individually to support a predetermined narrative. I want the data made available so independent scientists can examine the same evidence and reach their own conclusions.

I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT EVERY EXCESS DEATH WAS CAUSED BY VACCINATION, ALTHOUGH MANY WERE: Excess mortality is a measurement, not an explanation. There are multiple potential contributors to mortality, including, influenza and other respiratory infections, delayed medical care, changes in healthcare access, underlying disease, medical negligence, ageing populations and many other factors. My argument is that vaccination should not automatically be excluded from the investigation simply because it is politically uncomfortable to discuss. Likewise, COVID should not automatically be assumed to be the explanation for every death simply because a person had a positive test, the test was not reliable. The only responsible approach is to examine the evidence comprehensively.

WHAT I BELIEVED THEN IS WHAT I STILL BELIEVE NOW: I believed there had not been enough time for proper long-term trials. I did not believe all of the ingredients or their combined effects had been adequately understood. I did not believe the vaccines had the capability of protecting everyone in the way people were being led to believe. I believed they could potentially cause more harm than good. I questioned the COVID death figures. I questioned the independence of the organisations providing reassurance. I questioned the funding behind vaccine science. I questioned what would happen after repeated exposure. I spoke publicly about those concerns when doing so was extremely unpopular, and I stand by my decision to ask those questions.

SCIENCE SHOULD NEVER BE ABOVE QUESTIONING: For me, this has never been about being labelled "pro-vaccine" or "anti-vaccine". It is about evidence, transparency and the freedom to question medical interventions that affect millions of human beings. If we are told to trust the science, then I believe we have every right to ask who produced the science, who funded it, what was known at the time, what was not known, what has subsequently been discovered and what questions remain unanswered.

And perhaps the most uncomfortable question of all remains the simplest: IF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE RECEIVED A NEW MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY WHILE ITS LONG-TERM SAFETY WAS STILL BEING ESTABLISHED, WERE THE PEOPLE NOT, IN EFFECT, THE REAL-WORLD TRIAL?

I believe we have every right to ask that question.