1

COVID Jab Is Far More Dangerous Than Advertised

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

  • According to a September 2021 analysis, based on conservative, best-case scenarios, the COVID shots have killed five times more seniors (65+) than the infection
  • In younger people and children, the risk associated with the COVID shot, compared to the risk of COVID-19, is bound to be even more pronounced
  • Data show higher vaccination rates do not translate into lower COVID-19 case rates
  • The COVID shots are an epic failure. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports having more than 30,000 spontaneous reports of either hospitalizations and/or deaths among the fully vaccinated; data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services show 300,000 vaccinated CMS recipients have been hospitalized with breakthrough infections; 60% of seniors over age 65 hospitalized for COVID-19 have been vaccinated
  • 50% of reported deaths after COVID-19 “vaccination” occur within 24 hours; 80% occur within the first week. According to one report, 86% of deaths have no other explanation aside from a vaccine adverse event. A Scandinavian study concluded about 40% of post-jab deaths among seniors in assisted living homes are directly due to the injection

October 26, 2021, Global Research published an interview with Dr. Peter McCullough, in which he reviews and explains the findings of a September 2021 study published in the journal Toxicology Reports, which states:1

“A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic.

The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.”

McCullough has impeccable academic credentials. He’s an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and a full professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas. He also has a master’s degree in public health and is known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the United States, in addition to being the editor of two medical journals.

Authors Defend Their Paper

Not surprisingly, the Toxicology Reports paper has received scathing critique from certain quarters. Still, the corresponding author Ronald Kostoff told Retraction Watch that the criticism has actually been “an extremely small fraction” of the overall response, which by and large has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive. Kostoff went on to say:2

“Given the blatant censorship of the mainstream media and social media, only one side of the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ narrative is reaching the public. Any questioning of the narrative is met with the harshest response …

I went into this with my eyes wide open, determined to identify the truth, irrespective of where it fell. I could not stand idly by while the least vulnerable to serious COVID-19 consequences were injected with substances of unknown mid and long-term safety.

We published a best-case scenario. The real-world situation is far worse than our best-case scenario, and could be the subject of a future paper.

What these results show is that we 1) instituted mass inoculations of an inadequately-tested toxic substance with 2) non-negligible attendant crippling and lethal results to 3) potentially prevent a relatively small number of true COVID-19 deaths. In other words, we used a howitzer where an accurate rifle would have sufficed!”

COVID Jab Campaign Has Had No Discernible Impact

Certainly, data very clearly show the mass “vaccination” campaign has not had a discernible impact on global death rates. On the contrary, in some cases the death toll shot up after the COVID shots became widely available. You can browse through covid19.healthdata.org3 to see this for yourself. Several examples are also included at the very beginning of the video.

This trend has also been confirmed in a September 2021 study4 published in the European Journal of Epidemiology. It found COVID-19 case rates are completely unrelated to vaccination rates.

Using data available as of September 3, 2021, from Our World in Data for cross-country analysis, and the White House COVID-19 Team data for U.S. counties, the researchers investigated the relationship between new COVID-19 cases and the percentage of the population that had been fully vaccinated.

Sixty-eight countries were included. Inclusion criteria included second dose vaccine data, COVID-19 case data, and population data as of September 3, 2021. They then computed the COVID-19 cases per 1 million people for each country and calculated the percentage of the population that was fully vaccinated.

According to the authors, there was “no discernable relationship between the percentage of the population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last seven days.” If anything, higher vaccination rates were associated with a slight increase in cases. According to the authors:5

“[T]he trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.”

The Kostoff Analysis

Getting back to the Toxicology Reports paper,6 which is being referred to as “the Kostoff analysis,” McCullough says the analysis is definitely making news in clinical medicine. The paper focuses on two factors: assumptions and determinism.

Determinism describes how likely something is. For example, if a person takes a COVID shot, it’s 100% certain they got the injection. It’s not 50% or 75%. It’s an absolute certainty. As a result, that person has a 100% chance of being exposed to whatever risk is associated with that shot.

On the other hand, if a person says no to the injection, it’s not a 100% chance they’ll get COVID-19, let alone die from it. You have a less than 1% chance of being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and getting sick. So, it’s 100% deterministic that taking the shot exposes you to the risks of the shot, and less than 1% deterministic that you’ll get COVID if you don’t take the shot.

The other part of the equation is the assumptions, which are based on calculations using available data, such as pre-COVID death statistics and death reports filed with the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reports System (VAERS).

Mortality Data

As noted by McCullough, two reports have detailed COVID jab death data, showing 50% of deaths occur within 24 hours and 80% occur within the first week. In one of these reports, 86% of deaths were found to have no other explanation aside from a vaccine adverse event. McCullough also cites a Scandinavian study that concluded about 40% of post-jab deaths among seniors in assisted living homes are directly due to the injection. He also cites other eye-opening figures:

  • The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports having more than 30,000 spontaneous reports of either hospitalizations and/or deaths among the fully vaccinated
  • Data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services show 300,000 vaccinated CMS recipients have been hospitalized with breakthrough infections
  • 60% of seniors over age 65 hospitalized for COVID-19 have been vaccinated

COVID Shots Are ‘Failing Wholesale’

“When we put all these data together, we have clear-cut science that the vaccines are failing wholesale,” McCullough says. The shots are particularly useless in seniors.

Again, based on a best-case conservative scenario, seniors are five times more likely to die from the shot than they are from the natural infection. This scenario includes the assumption that the PCR test is accurate and reported COVID deaths were in fact due to COVID-19, which we know is not the case and the assumption that the shots actually prevent death, which we have no proof of.

All things considered, you are FAR better off taking your chances with the natural infection, as McCullough says. The Kostoff analysis also does not take into account the fact that there are safe and effective treatments.

It bases its assumptions on the notion that there aren’t any. It also doesn’t factor in the fact that the COVID shots are utterly ineffective against the Delta and other variants. If you take into account vaccine failure against variants and alternative treatments, it skews the analysis even further toward natural infection being the safest alternative.

FDA and CDC Should Not Run Vaccine Programs

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the CDC claim not a single death following COVID inoculation was caused by the shot, they should not be the ones making that determination, as they are both sponsoring the vaccination campaign.

They have an inherent bias. When you conduct a trial, you would never allow the sponsor to tell you whether the product was the cause of death, because you know they’re biased.

What we need is an external group, a critical event committee, to analyze the deaths being reported, as well as a data safety monitoring board. These should have been in place from the start, but were not.

Had they been, the program would most likely have been halted in February, as by then the number of reported deaths, 186, already exceeded the tolerable threshold of about 150 (based on the number of injections given). Now, we’re well over 17,000.7 There’s no normal circumstance under which that would ever be allowed.

“The CDC and FDA are running the [vaccination] program. They are NOT the people who typically run vaccine programs,” McCullough says. “The drug companies run vaccine programs.

When Pfizer, Moderna, J&J ran their randomized trials, we didn’t have any problems. They had good safety oversight. They had data safety monitoring boards. The did OK. I mean I have to give the drug companies [credit].

But the drug companies are now just the suppliers of the vaccine. Our government agencies are now just running the program. There’s no external advisory committee. There’s no data safety monitoring board. There’s no human ethics committee. NO one is watching out for this!

And so, the CDC and FDA pretty clearly have their marching orders: ‘Execute this program; the vaccine is safe and effective.’ They’re giving no reports to Americans. No safety reports. We needed those once a month. They haven’t told doctors which is the best vaccine, which is the safest vaccine.

They haven’t told us what groups are to watch out for. How to mitigate risks. Maybe there are drug interactions. Maybe it’s people with prior blood clotting problems or diabetes. They’re not telling us anything!

They literally are blindsiding us, and with no transparency, and Americans now are scared to death. You can feel the tension in America. People are walking off the job. They don’t want to lose their jobs, but they don’t want to die of the vaccine! It’s very clear. They say, ‘Listen, I don’t want to die. That’s the reason I’m not taking the vaccine.’ It’s just that clear.”

Bradford Hill Criteria Are Met — COVID Jabs Cause Death

McCullough goes on to explain the Bradford Hill criterion for causation, which is one of the ways by which we can actually determine that, yes, the shots are indeed killing people. We’re not dealing with coincidence.

“The first question we’d ask is: ‘Does the vaccine have a mechanism of action, a biological mechanism of action, that can actually kill a human being?’ And the answer is yes! because the vaccines all use genetic mechanisms to trick the body into making the lethal spike protein of the virus.

It is very conceivable that some people take up too much messenger RNA; they produce a lethal spike protein in sensitive organs like the brain or the heart or elsewhere. The spike protein damages blood vessels, damages organs, causes blood clots. So, it’s well within the mechanism of action that the vaccine could be fatal.

Someone could have a fatal blood clot. They could have fatal myocarditis. The FDA has official warnings of myocarditis. They have warnings on blood clots. They have warnings on a fatal neurologic condition called Guillain-Barré syndrome. So, the FDA warnings, the mechanism of action, clearly say it’s possible.

The second criteria is: ‘Is it a large effect?’ And the answer is yes! This is not a subtle thing. It’s not 151 versus 149 deaths. This is 15,000 deaths. So, it’s a very large effect size, a large effect.

The third [criteria] is: ‘Is it internally consistent?’ Are you seeing other things that could potentially be fatal in VAERS? Yes! We’re seeing heart attacks. We’re seeing strokes. We’re seeing myocarditis. We’re seeing blood clots, and what have you. So, it’s internally consistent.

‘Is it externally consistent?’ That’s the next criteria. Well, if you look in the MHRA, the yellow card system in England, the exact same thing has been found. In the EudraVigilance system in [Europe] the exact same thing’s been found.

So, we have actually fulfilled all of the Bradford Hill criteria. I’ll tell you right now that COVID-19 vaccine is, from an epidemiological perspective, causing these deaths or a large fraction.”

Zero Tolerance for Elective Drugs Causing Death

There may be cases in which a high risk of death from a drug might be acceptable. If you have a terminal incurable disease, for example, you may be willing to experiment and take your chances. Under normal circumstances, however, lethal drugs are not tolerated.

After five suspected deaths, a drug will receive a black box warning. At 50 deaths, it will be removed from the market. Considering COVID-19 has a less than 1% risk of death across age groups, the tolerance for a deadly remedy is infinitesimal. At over 17,000 reported deaths, which in real numbers may exceed 212,000,8 the COVID shots far surpass any reasonable risk to protect against symptomatic COVID-19. As noted by McCullough:

“There is zero tolerance for electively taking a drug or a new vaccine and then dying! There’s zero tolerance for that. People don’t weigh it out and say, ‘Oh well, I’ll take my chances and die.’ And I can tell you, the word got out about vaccines causing death in early April [2021], and by mid-April the vaccination rates in the United States plummeted …

We hadn’t gotten anywhere near our goals. Remember, President Biden set a goal [of 70% vaccination rate] by July 1. We never got there because Americans were frightened by their relatives, people in their churches and their schools dying after the vaccine.

They had heard about it, they saw it. There was an informal internet survey done several months ago, where 12% of Americans knew somebody who had died after the vaccine.

I’m a doctor. I’m an internist and cardiologist. I just came from the hospital … I had a woman die of the COVID-19 vaccine … She had shot No. 1. She had shot No. 2. After shot No. 2, she developed blood clots throughout her body. She required hospitalization. She required intravenous blood thinners. She was ravaged. She had neurologic damage.

After that hospitalization, she was in a walker. She came to my office. I checked for more blood clots. I found more blood clots. I put her back on blood thinners. I saw her about a month later. She seemed like she was a little better. Family was really concerned. The next month I got called by the Dallas Coroner office saying she’s found dead at home.

Most of us don’t have any problem with vaccines; 98% of Americans take all the vaccines … I think most people who are still susceptible would take a COVID vaccine if they knew they weren’t going to die of it or be injured. And because of these giant safety concerns, and the lack of transparency, we’re at an impasse.

We’ve got a very labor-constrained market. We’ve got people walking off the job. We’ve got planes that aren’t going to fly, and it’s all because our agencies are not being transparent and honest with America about vaccine safety.”

Early Treatment Is Crucial, Vaxxed or Not

As noted by McCullough, the vast majority of patients require hospitalization for COVID-19 is because they’ve not received any treatment and the infection has been allowed free reign for days on end.

“To this day, the patients who get hospitalized are largely those who receive no early care at home,” he says. “They’re either denied care or they don’t know about it, and they end up dying.

The vast majority of people who die, die in the hospital; they don’t die at home. And the reason why they end up in the hospital, it’s typically two weeks of lack of treatment. You can’t let a fatal illness brew for two weeks at home with no treatment, and then start treatment very late in the hospital. It’s not going to work.

There’s been a very good set of analyses, one in the Journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases … that showed, day by day, one loses the opportunity of reducing the hospitalization when monoclonal antibodies are delayed … No doctor should be considered a renegade when they order FDA [emergency use authorized] monoclonal antibody. The monoclonal antibodies are just as approved as the vaccines.

I just had a patient over the weekend, fully vaccinated, took the booster. A month after the booster she went on a trip to Dubai. She just came back, and she got COVID-19! … I got her a monoclonal antibody infusion that day. [The following day] she started the sequence of multidrug therapy for COVID-19. I am telling you, she is going to get through this illness in a few days …

Podcaster Joe Rogan just went through this. Governor Abbott was also a vaccine failure. He went through it. Former President Trump went through it. Americans should see the use of monoclonal antibodies in high risk patients, followed by drugs in an oral sequenced approach. This is standard of care!

It is supported by the Association of Physicians and Surgeons, the Truth for Health Foundation, the American Front Line Doctors, and the Front Line Critical Care Consortium. This is not renegade medicine. This is what patients should have. This is the correct thing! …

If we can’t get the monoclonal antibodies, we certainly use hydroxychloroquine, supported by over 250 studies, ivermectin, supported by over 60 studies, combined with azithromycin or doxycycline, inhaled budesonide … full-dose aspirin … nutraceuticals including zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin, NAC … we do oral and nasal decontamination with povidone-iodine.

In acutely sick patients we do it every four hours, [and it] massively reduces the viral load … Fortunately, we have enough doctors now and enough patient awareness, patients who … understand that early treatment is viable, is necessary, and it should be executed.”

Sources and References



Fauci, Gates Admit COVID Vaccines Don’t Work as Advertised

In two recent interviews, pandemic thought leaders Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates drastically changed their opinions on COVID vaccine effectiveness — and used their newfound concerns to push booster shots for the general population.

Last week, in an interview with Jeremy Hunt at London’s Policy Exchange, Gates admitted what many, including the Lancet, have been saying for months — that the vaccines aren’t effective.

Gates, who previously referred to the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines as “magic,” told Hunt “we need a new way of doing the vaccines.”

Only days later, Fauci echoed similar sentiments during a New York Times podcast. Fauci said the COVID vaccine’s effectiveness against infection, hospitalization, and even death, for all age groups, is waning to the point where booster doses will become “essential” for everyone.

Fauci said: “I think the boosting is going to be an absolutely essential component of our response, not a bonus, not a luxury, but an absolutely essential part of the program.”

Fauci said authorities are observing vaccine waning “involving all age groups.”

Making his case for a wider booster program, he told The Times the vaccines are “waning to the point that you’re seeing more and more people getting breakthrough infections, and more and more of those people who are getting breakthrough infections are winding up in the hospital.”

Today in the UK, Prime Minister Boris Johnson similarly spoke of widening the UK’s COVID booster program.

“Getting three jabs or getting your booster will become an important fact … We will have to adjust our concept of what constitutes a full vaccination,” he told Britans.

The mainstream media also is priming the public for an unknown number of additional COVID shots. Sunday, Bloomberg reported: “It may turn out that the term ‘booster’ is a bit of a misnomer, and that the correct number of shots for maximum efficacy isn’t yet known.”

If Gates and Fauci coordinated their latest COVID vaccine messaging, to manufacture consent for wider uptake of COVID vaccines through booster programs, it wouldn’t be the first time the two have collaborated closely on vaccines.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s forthcoming book “The Real Anthony Fauci” explores the “carefully constructed Pharma-Fauci-Gates alliance,” and details how “Gates and Fauci engaged in almost daily communications throughout the lockdown, and coordinated virtually every decision about COVID-19 countermeasures with each other.”

Listen to Gates’ latest message about COVID vaccine ineffectiveness here (timestamp: 28:00):

Listen to Fauci’s latest interview with the New York Times about the waning immunity of COVID vaccines (timestamp: 6:45




Pfizer Whistleblower Sinks Vaccine Trial Integrity

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

  • According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial, data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections, and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind
  • Brook Jackson was the regional director of Ventavia Research Group, a research organization charged with testing Pfizer’s COVID jab at several sites in Texas. Jackson repeatedly “informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, patient safety concerns, and data integrity issues,” and when her concerns were ignored, she finally filed a complaint with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
  • The FDA did not follow up on her complaint. Ventavia was not one of the nine trial locations audited, and Pfizer did not bring any of those issues up when applying for emergency use authorization for its COVID shot
  • Documentation shared by Jackson shows a Ventavia executive had identified three site staff members who had falsified data
  • After being notified of Jackson’s complaints, Pfizer contracted Ventavia to conduct four additional trials — one for COVID shots in children and young adults, one for the COVID jab in pregnant women, a booster shot trial and an RSV vaccine trial

Yet again, mainstream media have completely ignored what should have been front-page news. According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, data were falsified, patients were unblinded, the company hired poorly trained people to administer the injections, and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind.

What makes the media’s silence all the more remarkable is that this revelation was published in The British Medical Journal. Paul Thacker, an investigative journalist for The BMJ, writes in his November 2, 2021, report:1

“Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight …

[F]or researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety … Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding.”

As noted by Bill Bruckner for transparimed.org:2

“Editors’ widespread failure to pick up on the story is deeply problematic. First and foremost, it lets the U.S. Food and Drug Administration off the hook for what appear to be severe lapses in regulatory oversight over this trial … Where are the media outlets questioning the FDA about its oversight processes? Where are the politicians calling for an enquiry? …

Second, it lets Pfizer off the hook for apparently failing to adequately oversee the operations of its subcontractor … Where are the media outlets questioning Pfizer about its oversight and quality assurance processes? …

Third, it undermines confidence in democratic institutions and public health bodies because it gives citizens … the impression that mainstream media are deliberately ignoring a big story in order to avoid fueling vaccine hesitancy.”

So far, this story has been largely confined to the alternative news media. You’ll find a selection of video reports covering the whistleblower’s testimony in the sections below.

Research Organization Falsified Data in Pfizer Trial

The whistleblower in question is Brook Jackson, a former regional director of Ventavia Research Group, a research organization charged with testing Pfizer’s COVID jab at several sites in Texas.

Jackson repeatedly “informed her superiors of poor laboratory management, patient safety concerns, and data integrity issues,” Thacker writes, and when her concerns were ignored, she finally called the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and filed a complaint via email.

Jackson was fired later that day after just two weeks on the job. According to her separation letter, management decided she was “not a good fit” for the company after all. She has provided The BMJ with “dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings and emails” proving her concerns were valid. According to Jackson, this was the first time she’d ever been fired in her 20-year career as a clinical research coordinator. Thacker explains:3

“Jackson was a trained clinical trial auditor who previously held a director of operations position and came to Ventavia with more than 15 years’ experience in clinical research coordination and management.

Exasperated that Ventavia was not dealing with the problems, Jackson documented several matters late one night, taking photos on her mobile phone. One photo, provided to The BMJ, showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box.

Another showed vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants … Jackson told The BMJ that drug assignment confirmation printouts were being left in participants’ charts, accessible to blinded personnel …

In a recording of a meeting in late September 2020 between Jackson and two directors a Ventavia executive can be heard explaining that the company wasn’t able to quantify the types and number of errors they were finding when examining the trial paperwork for quality control. ‘In my mind, it’s something new every day,’ a Ventavia executive says. ‘We know that it’s significant.’

Ventavia was not keeping up with data entry queries, shows an email sent by ICON, the contract research organization with which Pfizer partnered on the trial. ICON reminded Ventavia in a September 2020 email: ‘The expectation for this study is that all queries are addressed within 24hrs.’

ICON then highlighted over 100 outstanding queries older than three days in yellow. Examples included two individuals for which ‘Subject has reported with Severe symptoms/reactions … Per protocol, subjects experiencing Grade 3 local reactions should be contacted. Please confirm if an UNPLANNED CONTACT was made and update the corresponding form as appropriate.’

According to the trial protocol a telephone contact should have occurred ‘to ascertain further details and determine whether a site visit is clinically indicated.’ Documents show that problems had been going on for weeks.

In a list of ‘action items’ circulated among Ventavia leaders in early August 2020, shortly after the trial began and before Jackson’s hiring, a Ventavia executive identified three site staff members with whom to ‘Go over e-diary issue/falsifying data, etc.’ One of them was ‘verbally counseled for changing data and not noting late entry,’ a note indicates.”

FDA Ignored Whistleblower Concerns

In her complaint to the FDA, Jackson listed a dozen incidents of concern, including the following:

  • Participants were not monitored by clinical staff after receiving the shot
  • Patients who experienced adverse effects were not promptly evaluated
  • Protocol deviations were not being reported
  • The Pfizer injection vials were stored at improper temperatures
  • Laboratory specimens were mislabeled

Not a single one of the problems Jackson raised in her complaint to the FDA was noted or addressed in Pfizer’s briefing document submitted to the FDA’s advisory committee meeting on December 20, 2020, when its emergency use authorization application was reviewed.

The FDA went ahead, granting the Pfizer jab emergency use authorization the very next day, despite being in receipt of Jackson’s complaint, which ought to have put the brakes on the FDA’s authorization. At the bare minimum, they should have investigated the matter before proceeding.

What’s more, the FDA’s summary of its inspections of the Pfizer trial, published in August 2021, revealed the agency only inspected nine of the 153 trial sites, and Ventavia was not one of them. The complaint also appears to have been ignored when the FDA granted full approval to Comirnaty, Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID shot that is not yet available.

Pfizer is also in on the cover-up. Shortly after Jackson’s firing, Pfizer was notified of the problems she’d raised. Despite that, Pfizer has since then contracted Ventavia to conduct no less than four additional trials — one for COVID shots in children and young adults, one for the COVID jab in pregnant women, a booster shot trial, and an RSV vaccine trial.

So, clearly, Pfizer is not opposed to contractors falsifying data or otherwise undermining the integrity of the trials. That alone is a fiery indictment against Pfizer.

They can feign ignorance and proclaim to adhere to “the highest scientific, ethical and clinical standards”4 all they want. Those are just words that, unless backed by consistent action, are completely meaningless. Behind the scenes, they’re clearly well-aware that their trials are resting on fraudulent foundations.

Pfizer Trial Described as a ‘Crazy Mess’

Jackson wasn’t the only employee to get sacked from Ventavia after raising concerns about the integrity of the Pfizer trial. Thacker writes:5

“In recent months Jackson has reconnected with several former Ventavia employees who all left or were fired from the company. One of them was one of the officials who had taken part in the late September meeting. In a text message sent in June the former official apologized, saying that ‘everything that you complained about was spot on.’

Two former Ventavia employees spoke to The BMJ anonymously for fear of reprisal and loss of job prospects in the tightly knit research community. Both confirmed broad aspects of Jackson’s complaint.

One said that she had worked on over four dozen clinical trials in her career, including many large trials, but had never experienced such a ‘helter skelter’ work environment as with Ventavia on Pfizer’s trial. ‘I’ve never had to do what they were asking me to do, ever,’ she told The BMJ. ‘It just seemed like something a little different from normal — the things that were allowed and expected’ …

After Jackson left the company problems persisted at Ventavia, this employee said. In several cases Ventavia lacked enough employees to swab all trial participants who reported COVID-like symptoms, to test for infection. Laboratory confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 was the trial’s primary endpoint, the employee noted.

(An FDA review memorandum released in August this year states that across the full trial swabs were not taken from 477 people with suspected cases of symptomatic COVID-19.) ‘I don’t think it was good clean data,’ the employee said of the data Ventavia generated for the Pfizer trial. ‘It’s a crazy mess.’”

Such statements clearly fly in the face of statements made by world leaders, health authorities, and the mainstream media. Most, like federal health minister for Australia, Greg Hunt, have claimed the COVID shots have undergone “rigorous, independent testing” to ensure they’re “safe, effective and manufactured to a high standard.”6

Nothing we know so far supports such a conclusion. The testing has been far from rigorous and has not been independently verified.

Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data show they’re shockingly far from safe; real-world data show effectiveness wanes within a handful of months while leaving you more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 variants and other infections; and manufacturing standards have also been shown lacking, as a variety of foreign contaminants have been found in the vials.7

Media Are Manipulated by Pfizer

One of the reasons why English- and German-speaking legacy media have completely ignored this whistleblower testimony is probably because Pfizer has such a dominating influence over them. Thacker told blogger Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D.,8 “Pfizer has such a huge PR machine, they have basically captured the media, they’ve hypnotized the media.”

Pfizer’s PR department is also hard at work trying to hypnotize the public. The TV ad above is perhaps one of the most offensive. In it, Pfizer brainwashes young children into thinking that getting the COVID shot will make them superheroes. Never mind the fact that getting the shot could kill or permanently injure them.

You Cannot ‘Follow the Science’ if There Are No Data

The video at the top of this article is a short extract from November 2, 2021, meeting organized by Sen. Ron Johnson, during which associate editor of The BMJ, Peter Doshi, Ph.D., reviewed some of the many concerns experts have about the integrity of the COVID jab data.

He points out that Pfizer’s raw trial data will not be made available until May 2025. So far, Pfizer has refused to release any of its raw data to independent investigators and, without that, there’s no possible way to confirm that what Pfizer is claiming is actually true and correct.

In other words, we’re expected to simply take the word of a company that has earned a top spot on the list of white-collar criminals; a company that in 2009 was fined a record-breaking $2.3 billion in fines for fraudulent marketing and health care fraud.9 Press releases are not science. They’re marketing. Without the raw data, we have no science upon which to base our decisions about the COVID shot.

As noted by Dr. Robert Kaplan from Stanford’s School of Medicine Clinical Excellence Research Centre, who also spoke at the meeting:

“The evidence we have comes from highly curated, industry-controlled press releases and journal publications. We are making big decisions based on limited, highly selected evidence. A compromised scientific process will lead to poor decisions, and it may set a bad precedent.”

Doshi stresses how utterly unscientific a process we’re now following. He also points out that doctors have an ethical duty to not recommend a treatment for which they have no data. Quoting from a 2020 article he co-wrote:10

“Data transparency is not a ‘nice to have.’ Claims made without access to the data — whether appearing in peer reviewed publications or in preprints without peer review — are not scientific claims.

Products can be marketed without access to the data, but doctors and professional societies should publicly state that, without complete data transparency, they will refuse to endorse COVID-19 products as being based on science.”

“The point I am trying to make is very simple,” Doshi said. “The data from COVID vaccines are not available and won’t be available for years. Yet, we are not just ‘asking’ but ‘mandating’ millions of people to take these vaccines … Without data, it’s not science.”

Regulatory Agencies Are Designed to Fail

We’ve known the FDA is a captured agency for at least a decade. None of the issues we’re now seeing are exactly new. We’re now getting a close-up view of just how dangerous the incestuous relationship between the FDA and Big Pharma really is.

Americans are dying from COVID jab injuries at unprecedented record rates, and the FDA is completely ignoring it. Instead, it continues to push for more jabs, more injuries, and more deaths. It’s complicit in causing avoidable deaths rather than protecting public health. That’s the price we’re now paying for not cleaning up the agency and sealing the revolving door between regulators and industry earlier.

In “Designed to Fail: Why Regulatory Agencies Don’t Work,”11 published in May 2012 — nearly a decade ago — William Sanjour discussed the failures of regulatory reform. He points out that the reason reforms don’t work is because they keep reforming in the wrong direction:

“… as a result of the recent catastrophic failures of regulatory agencies, politicians and pundits are talking about the same old ‘Regulatory Reform’ again. ‘Fill the regulatory agencies with honest people who won’t cave in to special interests.’ ‘Give them more money, more authority and more people.’

But my experience has shown that by concentrating all legislative, executive and judiciary authority in one regulatory agency just makes it easier for it to be corrupted by the industries it regulates.

I worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection agency for 30 years and lived through many cycles of ‘Regulatory Reform,’ doing the same ‘reforms’ over and over again and expecting different results.

I’ve learned that the way to achieve true regulatory reform is to give regulatory agencies less money, less authority, fewer people but more intelligent regulations. The theme of this article is that by dispersing regulatory authority, rather than concentrating it, we would make corruption more difficult and facilitate more sensible regulation.”

Sanjour points out that regulators being captured by the parties they’re supposed to regulate is far more dangerous than having no regulatory agencies at all, because “capture gives industry the power of government.” Can there be any doubt that the FDA, as an agency captured by Big Pharma in general and Pfizer in particular, now wields power over the U.S. government?

“From my own experience with the U.S. EPA, even if an inspector finds a violation, this only triggers a lengthy complex process with many levels of warning, review, appeal, negotiation, and adjudication before any action is taken (or, more often, avoided),” Sanjour writes.12

“See the labyrinthine flow chart13 for an example of an agency enforcement procedure. It resembles a game of ‘chutes and ladders.’ Compare this with what happens when you park under a ‘No Parking’ sign. A policeman writes a ticket, and you can either pay the fine or tell it to the judge.

If the EPA wrote the rules for parking violations, the officer would first have to determine if there were sufficient legal parking available at a reasonable cost and at a reasonable distance, and would then have to stand by the car and wait until the owner showed up so that he could negotiate a settlement agreement.”

Regulatory Complexity Intentionally Hides Loopholes

Even more disturbing, Sanjour reveals that, when he was writing regulations for the EPA, he was “told on more than one occasion to make sure I put in enough loopholes. The purpose of the complexity is to hide the loopholes.” Sanjour went on to explain:

“Regulatory agencies are created by Congress in order to control some powerful forces in society (usually corporations), which benefit society but which are also prone to abuse their power. The purpose of a regulatory agency is to allow the flow of benefits while straining out the abuse.

In order to do this, Congress gives administrators of regulatory agencies broad discretionary power to write regulations for industries for which they are responsible. The flaw in the system is that the administrator is appointed by the president … Thus any discretionary authority given to a regulatory agency administrator is, in fact, given to the president of the United States to be used as the president sees fit …

[R]egulatory agencies, by their very nature, can do little that doesn’t adversely affect business, especially big and influential business, and this disturbs a president’s repose.

The EPA, for instance, cannot write regulations governing the petroleum industry without the oil companies going to the White House screaming ‘energy crisis!’ … When the FDA wants to thoroughly evaluate a new drug, the pharmaceutical company lets loose a public relations barrage about how the bureaucratic delays are costing lives.

Regulatory agency employees soon learn that drafting and implementing rules for big corporations means making enemies of powerful and influential people. They learn to be ‘team players,’ an ethic that permeates the entire agency without ever being transmitted through written or even oral instructions.

People who like to get things done, who need to see concrete results for their efforts, don’t last long. They don’t necessarily get fired, but they don’t advance either; their responsibilities are transferred to others, and they often leave the agency in disgust. The people who get ahead are those clever ones with a talent for procrastination, obfuscation, and coming up with superficially plausible reasons for accomplishing nothing.”

How Do We Fix It?

The question staring us in the face now is, how do we fix these regulatory agencies so that they can operate for the benefit of the public rather than private for-profit interests?

“The reason salaried government regulators can be corrupted is that writing and enforcing effective regulations is not their No. 1 priority,” Sanjour noted. “Their main objective is keeping their job and advancing their careers.” Industries, meanwhile, believe that pressuring corrupt officials is the only way to protect their business. The answer, Sanjour suggests, is:

“… to remove discretionary judgment from the hands of the regulatory bureaucracy and place it in hands less susceptible to industry influence. The first thing I would suggest is to make use of people or institutions who have a vested interest in effective regulation as strong or stronger than the regulated community.”

Sanjour cites research showing that, by far, whistleblowers — who risk their jobs by speaking out — are the No. 1 fraud detection group, responsible for 19% of frauds being brought to light. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, meanwhile, which exists to uncover corporate fraud, was responsible for just 7%.

So, one way we could improve the system is by issuing monetary rewards to corporate whistleblowers. “Monetary rewards for whistleblowers pay benefits far in excess of the cost when compared with hired regulatory bureaucrats,” Sanjour notes. Insurance companies can also play an important role, as they are far less likely to overlook safety shortcuts that can result in disaster. An example given by Sanjour is the BP oil spill:

“BP has admitted, between 2005 and 2010, to breaking U.S. environmental and safety laws and committing outright fraud and paid $373 million in fines. Between June 2007 and February 2010, BP refineries in Texas and Ohio accounted for 97% of the ‘egregious, willful’ violations handed out by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Yet none of this resulted in any oversight of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that blew up …

If BP had been required to carry a $10 billion insurance policy for an oil spill, I’m sure the insurance company would not have allowed the penny-pinching short cuts that the paid regulators allowed. If the laws are written intelligently, insurance companies can be a significant instrument for regulation.”

A third group that makes for a far better fraud detection system than federal regulators is the public. Organizations such as Citizens for Health and Environmental Justice teach citizens how to get involved in the enforcement of regulations, and even more, can be done in that regard.

For example, the EPA could sponsor civilian testing and equip citizens living in polluted areas with resources to conduct their own testing and report back if toxic exposures are found. Sanjour continues:14

“A second reform I would suggest for removing discretionary authority from the regulatory bureaucracy is to make the rules as simple as possible and to place all appellate functions and consent agreements into the hands of the law courts, just as in our traffic cop example.

This could be judicial courts or administrative law courts. Anything to take the discretionary authority away from the people who write and enforce the rules and provide one more barrier to industry influence.”

We Need to Return to the Constitution

To do any or all of that, we first need to reorganize our regulatory agencies in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. As explained by Sanjour, the U.S. has three branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. However, when regulatory agencies were formed, we diverted from this structure.

Regulations are a type of law, and as such, they should come from the legislative branch. But regulatory agencies are part of the executive branch. Judicial functions have also been usurped by regulatory agencies, and hence the executive branch.

“Thus, despite the wishes of the Founding Fathers, the executive branch now includes a great many regulatory agencies whose functions span all three branches of government. A large part of the corruption and inefficiency noted above flows from this fact,” Sanjour notes.

While making changes such as those proposed by Sanjour sounds simple enough, the political pushback would be enormous and would have to be broken through, somehow. Legally, however, it would be a reasonably simple affair.

All Congress would need to do is amend the law such that the agency administrator is stripped of its authority to write rules and implement the law. That authority would then be transferred to another agency, the administrator of which would be appointed by Congress, not the president.

“Note that these are all paper changes. They do not require any relocation, new buildings, new hires, etc. The functions all currently exist. They are merely rearranged,” Sanjour says.

At present, we can no longer overlook the FDA’s corruption. It’s costing too many lives. They have completely abandoned any semblance of working for the public good. How we get rid of them and fix the problem will become an increasingly pressing question as we move forward.

Sources and References



Reasons for Vaccine Refusal | Charles Eisenstein

By Charles Eisenstein 

Psychiatrist Norman Doidge, MD, has recently published a long, four-part article entitled Needle Points, in which he examines vaccine skepticism in America. The author, who got vaccinated “early and voluntarily,” is solidly pro-vaccine, yet he displays what is in these divisive times an unusual willingness to see the issue from the perspective of those with whom he disagrees.

I don’t want to default to critique in responding to the article, which I appreciate for its peaceful intentions, diligent historical research, lucid style, and willingness to bridge a steep ideological divide. Instead, I will meet in goodwill its implicit invitation into dialog around the core question enunciated in its tagline: “Why so many are hesitant to get the COVID vaccine, and what we can do about it.”

As that tagline suggests, an assumption runs quietly through Needle Points that Covid vaccines are by and large safe, necessary, and generally beneficial for personal and public health. Therefore, opposition to them must be explained in psychological or sociological terms, because we all know that, scientifically speaking, the opposition is baseless.

Dr. Doidge devotes a long section of the essay to cataloging the crimes and cover-ups that pharmaceutical companies have perpetrated over the last several decades. He also describes the “regulatory capture” of agencies like the FDA, CDC, and NIH, whose officials often rotate into lucrative positions in the very companies they had formerly regulated. As a result, he says, public trust in the pharmaceutical industry is extremely low:

As of a September 2019 Gallup poll, only a few months before the COVID-19 pandemic, Big Pharma was the least trusted of America’s 25 top industry sectors, No. 25 of 25. In the eyes of ordinary Americans, it had both the highest negatives and the lowest positives of all industries. At No. 24 was the federal government, and at No. 23 was the health care industry. These three industries form a neat troika (though at No. 22 was the advertising and public relations industry, which facilitates the work of the other three.)

Given the track record of the pharmaceutical companies and their regulators, no wonder a large percentage of the public is “hesitant” to get their Covid shots. Dr. Doidge seems to be saying, “The shots are safe and effective, and society would be better off if everyone got them, but many people are quite understandably reluctant because of past experience.”

The obvious question here is, Why does Doidge himself trust the science promoted by the very companies and regulators whose misdeeds he so compellingly enumerates? He seems to take for granted that the vaccines have a low rate of adverse reactions. Are the agencies saying that, and the data they utilize, reliable? The article’s tagline implies that he knows it is; otherwise, he wouldn’t wonder “what to do about [vaccine hesitancy]”. He would be wondering instead what to do about vaccine credulity or vaccine naivete.

The very term “vaccine-hesitant” normalizes vaccination by implying that it is the endpoint at which the unvaccinated will sooner or later arrive. Most unvaccinated people I know would not describe themselves as “hesitant.” At this point, most who have resisted the social and government pressure intend to remain unvaccinated permanently. As Raelle Kaia puts it,

We don’t call people who haven’t gone bungee jumping “bungee hesitant” nor do we call them “anti-bungee.” There is no need for a category. It’s just something some people decide to do, and some people don’t. So this Hegelian dialectic cleverly sets up a dynamic that implicitly assumes that the regular thing for people to do is to take a vaccine, but we need words to describe those who don’t, because they’re so peculiar. So just by having the words in the first place, an entire reality is created and reified about what people are supposed to do or are expected to do.

The term “vaccine hesitancy” is patronizing and presumptuous. It encodes a smug certainty that official messaging on the vaccines is reliable, that reigning medical paradigms are sound, that the knowledge medical science produces is trustworthy. Science is real! Duh.

In fact, there is increasing reason to believe that just as in the past, the pharmaceutical-regulatory complex is distorting, hiding, and manipulating data to support its narrative. To help Dr. Doidge and those heeding his message understand the mind of a vaccine skeptic, I will share a bit of why I believe that.

It took me some time to come to my current conviction that the Covid vaccines are unsafe. When the mRNA vaccines were first announced, I was hesitant to condemn them out of hand. In fact, I was disposed to think of them as more benign than conventional vaccines, since the mRNA technology doesn’t require toxic adjuvants to promote an immune response.1 While there was certainly reason for concern (see this paper from May 2021), there was no proof that any of the potential mechanisms of harm would be significant. While I was appalled that these minimally-tested vaccines would be imposed on a mass scale, I hoped that a public health catastrophe could be avoided.

Today I am convinced that this technology, never before used on humans let alone at this scale, is causing widespread harm. Here are some reasons why I think that:

1. First-hand reports from people who were harmed (or whose family members were harmed). To get a flavor for them, watch these testimonies of experts and patients, or the Testimonies Project out of Israel, or the No More Silence project. Or listen to the story of professional mountain biker Kyle Warner (and especially read the comments below the video.) Athletes have been collapsing on the field and dying with astonishing frequency (such as the two West Indies cricket players who died days after the whole team got vaccinated.) Here is a compilation of 41 such collapses (23 died) over the past four months (there are other lists with little overlap.) Well, maybe athletes have been collapsing and dying at such a rate all along, and we are only now noticing it because of heightened vigilance due to “anti-vax hysteria.” That could be. I haven’t gone into the statistics that might decide the issue—if such statistics even exist. Anyway, if you look for them you can find channels on Telegram with hundreds or thousands of stories. (Notice how many of the stories include things like, “The doctor said it was a coincidence.” “I’m sick of doctors telling me it’s all in my head.” “The ER doctor said I was having a panic attack.”)

2. Doctors and nurses who are speaking out about the alarming rise in blood clotting disorders, strokes in young people, heart attacks in young people, peripheral neuropathy, myocarditis, and other supposedly rare conditions. Here is a sample, a sworn statement on the part of 11 doctors with their stories. Remember that the whistleblowers have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by speaking out. Other practitioners have told me their stories in confidence.

3. An alarming rise in excess mortality among people under age 65 in 2021. In 29 countries in Europe, excess mortality in the last four months for people aged 15-44 is running at nearly double what it was in 2020. For age 45-65 it is more than 50% higher, and age 65-74 some 40% higher. This is despite (or because of?) vaccination rates of at least 70% across Europe. In the USA, all-cause excess mortality is about 50% higher (so far) than in 2020, but for people aged 25-44 and 45-64 it is about 85% higher; for people under 25 excess mortality is nearly double last year. The only age group that died in smaller numbers this year in the US were those 85 and older. These figures don’t prove a causal connection between vaccination and mortality, but they merit concern. See also this and this analysis of UK mortality data that seems to show all-cause mortality to be higher in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated. I haven’t examined the math closely, but given that the authors of the latter analysis are, respectively, a mathematician and a professor of statistics and computer science, it is not to be dismissed lightly.

4. Revelations of sloppiness and malfeasance in Covid vaccine trials. The British Medical Journal just published a report from an experienced clinical trial researcher describing how a Pfizer contractor running clinical trials “falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators and was slow to follow up on adverse events.” She reported her findings to the FDA, who never followed up. One wonders whether this was unique to that contractor or more widespread. In a separate revelation, a girl was dropped from the Pfizer study after having a severe reaction to the shot. Apparently, the study rules required a study doctor to evaluate adverse events. If someone went to the emergency room, they would be disqualified from the study and that data excluded. Given the unavailability of the raw data, we have no idea whether this girl was the only one to be excluded, but it certainly gives reason for alarm—especially because the study size was only about 1000 children. This is part of a pattern of manipulated studies throughout the Covid era.

5. Dubious vaccine effectiveness. The issue of safety is not absolute; risks must be evaluated in relation to benefits. Questionable benefits make the risks less acceptable. But it appears that the vaccines have not lived up to their promise of protecting recipients from infection or serious symptoms. Across nations and regions, there is no correlation between vaccination rates and Covid cases or deaths. Joe Mercola, named by the New York Times as America’s “uber quack,” gives a solid review of the argument.

As Dr. Doidge acknowledges, pharmaceutical companies have cheated in the past. Why are people so confident in the data this time, when the incentive to cheat is greater than ever? (Pfizer’s Covid vaccine sales now stand at $36 billion.) Doidge describes how a large proportion of studies published in medical journals are actually ghostwritten by the companies themselves. Why are we confident that this hasn’t happened with studies supporting the Covid policies that benefit those companies? When regulators have been largely captured by the regulated when the media relies heavily on pharmaceutical ad dollars and in some cases have interlocking boards of directors, can we really trust “the science”?

The willful manipulation, distortion, and suppression of research are the tip of the iceberg. The bulk of narrative maintenance is an organic function of the system, often unconscious or semi-conscious. The vaccine resistance movement needs to understand this, so it can understand the reasons for vaccine credulity. Too often people in the movement explain what is going on in terms of malice: evil politicians, perfidious scientists, greedy New-World-Order plutocrats. Such figures surely exist, but they play a role in a much larger social process.

“Evil” is a misdiagnosis that casts us into delusion. To effect positive change we have to be operating in reality. The reality is that most people, vaxxed and unvaxxed, doctors and patients, scientists and laypeople, politicians, and yes, even pharmaceutical company officials, are decent, caring, intelligent human beings. Let us follow Dr. Doidge in taking that as our starting point as we try to understand those we disagree with.

Collective Delusion

If vaccine casualties are much higher than publicly acknowledged, doesn’t that mean that some kind of willful cover-up is underway? Not necessarily. Imagine that you are a clinician seeing a rise in myocarditis, miscarriages, cancer recurrence, or some other ailment in vaccinated people. Are you going to make a fuss? Are you even going to talk about it? Maybe not.

Doctors who are noticing vaccine adverse events (or experiencing them themselves) are reluctant to say anything publicly for fear of ostracism, job loss, or license suspension. Those that speak out suffer consequences. Brook Jackson, the subject of the above-mentioned BMJ article, was fired shortly after she notified the FDA of irregularities in the vaccine trial. (One wonders whether someone in the FDA told her employer that she was making trouble.) Most are not so brave. The 11 doctors whose testimony I linked to earlier describing their injuries and those of their patients mostly chose to remain anonymous. Said one, “Due to my recognition that the vaccine has caused injury, I am scared to come forward to my fellow colleagues and peers.” “I have chosen to keep my identity redacted in order to prevent backlash as being anti-vax.” “With questioning of a vaccine adverse reaction, the physician who is questioning is immediately discounted, discredited, shamed, and aggressively bullied. I have watched this happen to other physicians who dared to speak out and have witnessed a coordinated effort among physicians to have this physician’s state license revoked as well as their board certification for spreading ‘misinformation.’ Vaccine skepticism strikes at a pillar of the medical profession, which is therefore loath to admit any information that could fuel it.”

This kind of self-censorship may take on an internal dimension where someone bullies and silences that part of herself that recognizes something is wrong. She may tell herself that she is seeing an epidemic of anxiety attacks. She may convince herself that myocarditis never was that rare. She may remind herself that “young people get strokes too.” She may read articles that reassure her that nothing alarming is happening. Doctors can do this. Public officials can do this. Regular citizens can do this. The psychological incentive may be strong to preserve an orderly reality in which I’ve been right all along. Most of us, vaccine advocates and skeptics alike, have this tendency. Left unchecked it becomes arrogance, and its antidote is a willingness to listen.

Does the foregoing prove that vaccine injuries are more widespread than official data shows? Not at all. What it tells us, though, is that if they were more widespread, we wouldn’t easily know about it. Nor would any given doctor. To her, it might look like her observations are unusual. If others were seeing the same thing, surely she would have heard of it. Surely it would show up in the safety studies. Surely she would have read about it in the journals. So she keeps her mouth shut, not just out of fear of repercussions.

What goes for doctors also goes for researchers, journalists, and government officials. To violate the narrative takes self-confidence and courage. When human beings see something unusual, they normally turn to others and ask, “Hey, did you see that too? Does that look to you like Santa’s sleigh being pulled across the sky by eight tiny reindeer?” If my companions say, “No, silly, that must be an airplane pulling an advertisement,” I will likely accept that. Under certain circumstances, it might happen that every member of the group actually thinks it is Santa, but as in The Emperor’s New Clothes, no one wishes to be thought a fool. No one wants to be the first one to say, “The emperor’s completely naked!”

Only fools think that vaccines are ineffective, unnecessary, or unsafe. That’s been drummed into us for years. The stereotype of the “hysterical anti-vaxxer,” the Trump-voting, science-denying, uneducated yahoo who puts everyone else at risk is firmly ingrained. Even I, already publicly known as a vaccine skeptic, am sometimes reluctant to be visible in my beliefs to friends or family. I don’t want them to think I’m an ignoramus, a bad person, unclean. I was just disinvited from a visit to the house of a dear relative because I was not vaccinated. Was the host actually afraid of infection? (I had Covid last March and have natural immunity.) Or is she uncomfortable associating with someone in the new pariah class? I relate this to illustrate how I myself participate in the conspiracy of silence that normalizes vaccine acceptance. I don’t lie about being unvaccinated, but I do try to slide by under the radar, not talk about it, and hope that people just won’t ask. In their eyes, I’m another data point confirming that intelligent, responsible people get vaccinated.

We might easily understand, then, why it can be so hard for a physician, journalist, or politician to voice or even entertain the possibility that the vaccine rollout is causing harm. The pressures that bear on private citizens are all the more intense for them. They have more incentive than most of us to keep quiet. If the vaccines are unsafe, it means they have been agents of harm. That’s a hard pill to swallow.

Recently, the Biden Administration announced that it would not back down on OSHA rules to mandate vaccines for government contractors and large employers. (Soon to be extended to smaller employers.) Those who are aware of vaccine damage find it incomprehensible that the administration could be so evil. But evil is not required as an explanation. With all these mechanisms of narrative maintenance, in which I myself participate, how would Joe Biden be aware that millions of people are suffering serious adverse events? He probably isn’t aware. The more deeply someone is embedded in the system, the more they rely on the information that the system produces, filters, and interprets, the harder it is for them to be aware of what lies outside the official numbers.

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE…




VAERS COVID Vaccine Data Show Surge in Reports of Serious Injuries, as 5-Year-Olds Start Getting Shots

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released new data showing a total of 875,653 adverse events following COVID vaccines were reported between Dec. 14, 2020, and Nov. 5, 2021, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The data included a total of 18,461 reports of deaths — an increase of 383 over the previous week, and 135,400 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 7,943 compared with the previous week.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 643,957 adverse events, including 8,456 deaths and 53,780 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Nov. 5, 2021.

Foreign reports are reports received by U.S. manufacturers from their foreign subsidiaries. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.

Of the 8,456 U.S. deaths reported as of Nov. 5, 10% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 15% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 26% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 427.6 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Nov. 5. This includes 250 million doses of Pfizer, 162 million doses of Moderna, and 16 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).From the 11/5/2021 release of VAERS data.

Every Friday, VAERS publicizes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

Numbers this week do not yet include reports from the authorization of Pfizer’s pediatric COVID vaccine for the 5 to 11 age group. Reports currently in VAERS for children under 12 are due to ”product administered to the patient of inappropriate age.”

During a meeting on Oct. 26, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine panel, Dr. Jessica Rose, a viral immunologist, and biologist said tens of thousands of reports have been submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System for children ages 0 to 18, and that 60 children have died — 23 of them were under  2 years old.

“It is disturbing to note that “product administered to patients of inappropriate age was filed 5,510 times in this age group,” Rose said. Two children were inappropriately injected, presumably by a trained medical professional, and subsequently died. This is malfeasance.”

This week’s U.S. data for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

The most recent death includes a 17-year-old female from Washington (VAERS ID 1828901) who reportedly died Oct. 29 from a heart condition after receiving her second dose of Pfizer. According to the VAERS report, the girl had COVID in August and fully recovered. She received her first dose of Pfizer on Sept. 3 and her second dose on Sept 15.

On Oct. 23, she presented to the ER with chest pain and elevated troponin. She had an abnormal echocardiogram, abnormal EKG and became increasingly tachycardic. She then suffered cardiac arrest.

“Unfortunately she was not able to be resuscitated and died,” the report states. “Cause of death possible acute myocarditis.”

Other deaths include a 12-year-old girl from South Carolina (VAERS I.D. 1784945) who hemorrhaged 22 days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, a 13-year-old girl from Maryland (VAERS I.D. 1815096) who died from a heart condition 15 days after receiving her first dose of Pfizer’s vaccine and a 17-year-old female from Texas (VAERS I.D. 1815295 who experienced an acute hyperglycemic crisis 33 days after being vaccinated.

  • 59 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment, or resulted in death — with 96% of cases
    attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 552 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) with 542 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 131 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.

This week’s U.S. VAERS data, from Dec. 14, 2020, to Nov. 5, 2021, for all age groups combined, show:

Teen diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome After COVID Vaccine

A 17-year-old girl was hospitalized for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) — a rare disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks its nerves — after receiving a COVID vaccine. Shelby Allen said she’s thankful she isn’t paralyzed and didn’t die.

Allen started experiencing back pain and tingling in her arms after getting vaccinated. Symptoms progressed until she found herself unable to feel her arms and legs while bowling with her school’s team. Allen’s parents took her to the doctor in Jackson, Tennessee, where she was diagnosed with GBS and admitted to the ICU.

Allen’s doctor “knew right off the bat” her reaction was caused by a COVID vaccine, but still recommended people get vaccinated. Allen is hoping she’ll be able to walk by March for her high school graduation.

Taiwan temporarily halts the second dose of Pfizer over myocarditis concerns

The Central Epidemic Command Center (CECC) said on Wednesday a panel of experts is suspending second doses of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID vaccine for children 12 to 17 years old amid concerns it may increase the risk of myocarditis.

Cases of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the outer lining of the heart) have been reported in children between 12 and 17 years old who received Pfizer’s vaccine.

CECC cited U.S. statistics which show the risk of experiencing heart inflammation after receiving a second dose is 10 times higher than after the first dose.

Chen Shih-Chung, who heads up the CECC, said the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices halted second doses of Pfizer for two weeks, during which time experts and CDC physicians will assess 16 cases of myocarditis among adolescents after Pfizer vaccination before making a decision on whether to go ahead with the second dose.

Hong Kong gives only a single dose to teens 12 to 17, while the UK recommends only one shot for children between ages 12 and 18.

More countries restrict Moderna vaccine over reports of myocarditis

France’s public health authority recommended people under 30 receive Pfizer’s COVID vaccine instead of Moderna, due to higher risks of heart problems in young adults, Reuters reported.

The Haute Autorite de Sante (HAS), an independent advisor to the French health sector, cited “very rare” risks linked to myocarditis, confirmed by a French study published Monday.

“Within the population aged under 30, this risk appears to be around five times lesser with Pfizer’s Comirnaty jab compared to Moderna’s Spikevax jab,” HAS said.

Germany’s advisory committee, known as STIKO, said on Wednesday people under age 30 should receive only Pfizer’s vaccine, as it causes fewer cases of heart inflammation in younger people. STIKO also recommended pregnant women receive only the Pfizer vaccine, regardless of their age.

The recommendations were based on new safety data from the Paul Ehrlich Institute — Germany’s authority in charge of vaccines, and new data.

The decision came after several other countries restricted the use of Moderna to older populations, including Canada, Finland, Denmark, and Sweden. France’s medical regulator on Oct. 15 recommended using only Pfizer’s vaccine for booster shots, despite the European Union’s drug regulator last month approving Moderna’s booster for all age groups over 18.

Pfizer asks FDA to authorize a third booster dose for all people 18 and older

As The Defender reported Nov. 10, Pfizer and BioNTech on Tuesday asked the FDA to authorize a third dose of their COVID vaccine for all people 18 and older, even though advisory panels to the FDA and CDC in September overwhelmingly rejected a similar request.

The companies said their new request is based on the results of a study, conducted by Pfizer and BioNTech, which has not been published or peer-reviewed. The companies said the study of more than 10,000 volunteers showed vaccine efficacy against symptomatic infection of 95% or greater for people receiving the booster.

Pfizer did not disclose how many participants experienced asymptomatic infection, or whether the clinical trial — as did Pfizer’s clinical trial for 5 to 11 years olds — included individuals with natural immunity acquired from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.




 “We Right NOW Are On the Precipice of the Mass Murder of 5-to-11-Year-Olds in This Country” ~ Dr. David Martin

Source: XANDREWX on BitChute (click HERE to watch in full screen)

Watch Dr. Jessica Rose and Dr. David Martin explain why we must focus our efforts to stop the mass murder of young children via vaccination. The transcript is below, and below that is Dr. Martin’s entire, MUST SEE, speech at the Red Pill Expo.

Dr. Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc, BSc, who co-authored “A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U’S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products” With Dr. Peter McCullough in 2021. It was accepted for publication in Current Problems in Cardiology, but the preprint was abruptly removed without explanation. Dr. Rose told Ivory the journal finally responded, saying essentially that they removed the paper “because they could.”

TRANSCRIPT:

Dr. Jessica Rose, Ph.D., MSc, BSc: What we found it was me and Dr. McCullough Peter McCullough, co-authors on this paper. The most prevalent finding was that 19 times above background rate myocarditis was seen in children, aged 12 to 15. And this is striking. I mean, if it was five times, it would still be crazy. But 19 times is that’s not something you can ignore. And the CDC and the FDA didn’t, but they underwrote it. They didn’t take it seriously enough and they’re still kind of brushing it aside as a non-issue…
Ivory Hecker: You’re saying there’s a bigger chance of getting myocarditis from the shot than from COVID?
Dr. Jessica RoseAbsolutely. And way more so if you are male and if you’re young.
Dr. David Martin, Ph.D.We right now are on the precipice of the mass murder of 5-11-year-olds in this country. And we’re pretending that that’s as important or less important as whether we have, you know, critical race theory in schools or whether we have something else. Ladies and gentlemen, let me just pause for a moment. CHILDREN ARE BEING MURDERED! And we’re pretending like it’s one of the issues.
I’m sorry, but for me, that’s not one of the issues. Right now, the emergency use authorization and illegality of the criminal conspiracy that gave rise to that emergency use authorization is THE issue! And if we aren’t focused on THE issue, we are going to watch young men and women who never get to live to see adulthood in our name because we were so damn concerned about the topic that was interesting to us.
I’m going to put my life energy where it belongs. I am going to put my life energy on a single focus, which is until we hold the criminal conspirators accountable and until we end the emergency use authorization, we’re not done. And there is no other topic, right now, there is no other topic that I’m concerning myself with, save the preservation of the next generation from a mass-murdering genocidal, psychopathic, group of criminals who have decided that they can look on a five-year-old with contempt. And it’s high time we start actually calling out what it is. This is a genocidal initiative and that is exactly what’s being done. And it’s been I’m done by a criminal conspiracy and we must address that issue.

Dr. David Martin FULL Speech at the Red Pill Expo (click HERE to watch in full screen)

Here are “The Names of the People Killing Humanity” compiled by Dr David Martin (it’s ONLY a list until he provides the evidence):

1.  Al Gore, Vice-President of the United States (1993-2001), Chairman and Co-Founder, Generation Investment Management LLP
2.  Andre Hoffmann, Vice- Chairman, Roche
3.  Angel Gurria, QECD
4.  Bill Gates, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
5.  Christine Lagarde,  President European Central Bank
6.  Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister & Minister of Finance, Office of the Deputy Prime minister of Canada
7.  David M. Rubenstein, Co-Founder and Co-Executive Chairman, Carlyle Group
8.  Dustin Moskovitz, Open Philanthropy
9.  Fabiola  Gianotti, Director-General, European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN)
10.  Feike Sybesma, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Royal Philips
11.  H.M. Queen Rania Al Abdullah of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Queen of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Office of H.M Queen Rania Al Abdullah
12.  Heizo Takenaka, Professor Emeritus, Keio University
13.  Herman Gref, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, Sberbank
14.  Jim Hagemann Snabe,Chairman Siemens
15.  Julie Sweet , Chief Executive Officer, Accenture
16.  Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum
17.  Kristalina Georgeva, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund (IMF)
18.  L. Rafael Reif, President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
19.  Larry Page, Google
20.  Laurence D Fink, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, BlackRock
21.  Luis Alberto Moreno, Member of the Board of Trustees World Economic Forum
22.  Marc Benioff, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Salesforce
23.  Mark Carney, United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, United Nations
24.  Mark Schneider, Chief Executive Officer, Nestle
25.  Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook
26.  Mukesh D Ambani, Chairman and Managing Director of Reliance Industries
27.  Orit Gadiesh, Chairman, Bain & Company
28.  Patrice Motsepe, Founder and Executive Chairman, African Rainbow Minerals
29.  Paula Ingabire, Minister of Information Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Information Communication Technology and Innovation of Rwanda
30.  Peter Brabeck-Latmathe, Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees, World Economic Forum
31.  Peter Maurer, President, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
32.  Robert Mercer, Renaissance Fund
33.  Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Senior Minister, Government of Singapore
34.  Thomas Buberi, Chief Executive Officer, AXA
35.  Yo-Yo Ma, Cellist
36.  Zhu Min, Chairman, National Institute of Financial Research




CDC Manipulated Studies In Order to Prop Up Official COVID Narrative

Story at-a-glance:

  • Recent data from the U.K. Office of National Statistics reveal people who have been double jabbed against COVID-19 are dying from all causes at a rate six times higher than the unvaccinated.
  • In the U.S., meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is propping up the official narrative with two manipulated studies — one suggesting the jab reduces all-cause mortality, and another claiming the shot is five times more protective than natural immunity.
  • Both studies are of questionable quality and have several problems, including a selection of time and date ranges that allow them to pretend that the COVID shots are safer and more effective than they really are.
  • According to all-cause mortality statistics, the number of Americans who died between January 2021 and August 2021 is 16% higher than in 2018 (the pre-COVID year with the highest all-cause mortality) and 18% higher than the average death rate between 2015 and 2019.

Did COVID-19 raise the death toll despite mass vaccination, or are people dying at increased rates because of the COVID jabs?

  • CDC data reveal that while the number of hospitalized patients with natural immunity fell sharply over the summer, when the delta variant took over, the number of vaccinated people being hospitalized soared, from three per month on average during the spring to more than 100 a month in late summer.

Since these vaccinated patients were less than six months from their second dose, they should have been at or near maximum immunity.

While recent data from the U.K. Office of National Statistics (ONS) reveal people who have been double jabbed against COVID-19 are dying from all causes at a rate six times higher than the unvaccinated, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is propping up the official narrative with a “study” that came to the remarkable conclusion that the COVID shot unbelievably reduces your risk of dying from all causes, which includes accidents (but excluding COVID-19-related deaths). As reported by CNN Health Oct. 22:

“The research team was trying to demonstrate that the three authorized Covid-19 vaccines are safe and they say their findings clearly demonstrate that. ‘Recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Janssen vaccines had lower non-COVID-19 mortality risk than did the unvaccinated comparison groups,’ the researchers wrote in the weekly report of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The team studied 6.4 million people who had been vaccinated against Covid-19 and compared them to 4.6 million people who had received flu shots in recent years but who had not been vaccinated against coronavirus.

“They filtered out anyone who had died from Covid-19 or after a recent positive coronavirus test … People who got two doses of Pfizer vaccines were 34% as likely to die of non-coronavirus causes in the following months as unvaccinated people, the study found.

“People who got two doses of Moderna vaccine were 31% as likely to die as unvaccinated people, and those who got Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine were 54% as likely to die …”

Two key takeaways from those paragraphs are:

  1. The researchers admit they intended to demonstrate that the shots are safe and effective, and stats can be manipulated to find what you want to find
  2. People who got the Janssen shot did in fact have a higher death rate than the unvaccinated (54% likelihood, compared to the unvaxxed).

Are the shots reducing all-cause mortality?

The researchers hypothesize that people who get the COVID jab may be healthier overall than those who abstain and have healthier lifestyles. In my view, this is classic Orwellian doublespeak, as most of the brainwashed don’t understand the fundamentals of healthy behavior.

I suspect their new propaganda has more to do with the fact that they only looked at data through May 31. By mid-April, an estimated 31% of American adults had received one or more shots. As of June 15, 48.7% were fully “vaccinated.”

So, we can assume that by the end of May, somewhere in the neighborhood of 45% of eligible Americans were double jabbed, give or take a couple of percentage points.

The reason I suspect statistical tomfoolery is because this is precisely how the CDC invented the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” myth, where they claimed 99% of COVID-19 deaths and 95% of COVID-related hospitalizations were occurring among the unvaccinated.

To achieve those statistics, the CDC included hospitalization and mortality data from January through June, a timeframe during which the vaccinated were still in a minority.

Here, we again see them use a seven-month span of time when vaccination rates were low.

More importantly, however, is that the chosen cutoff date also obscures a rapid rise in vaccine-related deaths reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

Look at the graph below, obtained from the OpenVAERS mortality reports page. As you can see, reports of deaths following the COVID jab peaked right at the beginning of April 2021, then dropped down again during the month of April. Interestingly enough, the study notes that the daily vaccination rate has declined by 78% since April 13.

However, while the daily vaccination rate has plummeted since April, reported deaths have remained high and relatively steady. Could this be a hint that people are dying from shots they received earlier in the year?

COVID vaccine rate of death

As of January 1, only 0.5% of the U.S. population had received a COVID shot, so comparing death rates of the vaxxed and unvaxxed in December 2020 and January 2021 may not be all that fruitful. Why not include July, August, and September in the analysis instead?

As you can see, reported deaths were significantly elevated during these months, compared to December and January. And, while not shown in that graph, between September 3 and October 22 the total cumulative reported death toll shot up from 7,6629 to 17,619. In other words, it more than doubled in about seven weeks — a timeframe that was not included in the CDC’s analysis.

What’s more, while the study was large and socio-demographically diverse, the authors admit that “the findings might not be applicable to the general population.”

Also, recall they changed the definition of “vaccinated” to include someone who is two weeks past their second dose (for two-dose regimens). This would obfuscate the truth as there were tens of millions that received one jab or more but were not considered “vaccinated.”

Why is all-cause mortality higher in 2021?

According to all-cause mortality statistics, the number of Americans who died between January 2021 and August 2021 is 16% higher than in 2018, the pre-COVID year with the highest all-cause mortality, and 18% higher than the average death rate between 2015 and 2019.

Adjusted for population growth of about 0.6% annually, the mortality rate in 2021 is 16% above the average and 14% above the 2018 rate.

The obvious question is, why did more people die in 2021 (January through August) despite the rollout of COVID shots in December 2020? Did COVID-19 raise the death toll despite mass vaccination, or are people dying at increased rates because of the COVID jabs?

In a two-part series, Matthew Crawford of the Rounding the Earth Newsletter examined mortality statistics before and after the rollout of the COVID shots. In Part 1, he revealed the shots killed an estimated 1,018 people per million doses administered (note, this is doses, not the number of individuals vaccinated) during the first 30 days of the European vaccination campaign.

After adjusting for deaths categorized as COVID-19 deaths, he came up with an estimate of 200 to 500 deaths per million doses administered. With 4 billion doses having been administered around the world, that means 800,000 to 2 million so-called “COVID-19 deaths” may in fact be vaccine-induced deaths. As explained by Crawford:

“This does not even include vaccine-induced deaths that have not been recorded as COVID cases, though I suspect that latter number is smaller since the only good way to hide the vaccine mortality signal is to smuggle deaths through the already-established COVID death toll.”

Corroborating Crawford’s calculations are data from Norway, where 23 deaths were reported following the COVID jab at a time when only 40,000 Norwegians had received the shot. That gives us a mortality rate of 575 deaths per million doses administered. What’s more, after conducting autopsies on 13 of those deaths, all 13 were determined to be linked to the COVID jab.

Is the COVID jab responsible for excess deaths?

Crawford goes on to look at data from countries that have substantial vaccine uptake while simultaneously having very low rates of COVID-19. This way, you can get a better idea as to whether the COVID jabs might be responsible for the excess deaths, as opposed to the infection itself.

He identified 23 countries that fit these criteria, accounting for 1.88 billion individuals, roughly one-quarter of the global population. Before the COVID jabs rolled out, these nations reported a total of 103.2 COVID-related deaths per million residents. Five nations had more than 200 COVID deaths per million while seven had fewer than 10 deaths per million.

As of Aug. 1, 25.35% of inhabitants in these 23 nations had received a COVID jab and 10.36% were considered fully vaccinated. In all, 673 million doses had been administered. Based on these data, Crawford estimates the excess death rate per million vaccine doses is 411, well within the window of the 200 to 500 range he calculated in Part 1.

Another interesting data dive was performed by Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. In the video “Vaccine Secrets: COVID Crisis,” he argues that VAERS can be used to determine causality, and shows how the VAERS data indicate more than 300,000 Americans have likely been killed by the COVID shots. Anywhere from 2 million to 5 million have also been injured by them in some way.

What do the VAERS data tell us?

In a Sept. 18 interview with The Covexit podcast, Jessica Rose, Ph.D., who holds degrees in applied mathematics, immunology, computational biology, molecular biology, and biochemistry, also discussed what the VAERS data tell us about the safety of the COVID shots.

Rose covers issues such as the magnitude of the side effects compared to other vaccination programs, the problem of under-reporting, and how causality can be assessed using the Bradford Hill Criteria. You can find a PDF of the slide show that Rose presents here. Here’s a summary of some of the key points made in this interview:

  • Between 2011 and 2020, the number of VAERS reports ranged between 25,408 and 49,412 for all vaccines. In 2021, with the rollout of the COVID shots, the number of VAERS reports shot up to 521,667, as of Sept. 3 for the COVID shots alone. (Fast-forward to Oct. 22 and the reported tally for COVID-related adverse events has ballooned to 837,593.)
  • Between 2011 and 2020, the total number of deaths reported to VAERS ranged between 120 and 183. In 2021, as of Sept. 3, the reported death toll had shot up to 7,662. As of Oct. 22, the death toll was 17,619.
  • Cardiovascular, neurological, and immunological adverse events are all being reported at rates never even remotely seen before.
  • The estimated under-reporting factor (URF) is 31. Using this URF, the death toll from COVID shots is calculated to be 205,809 as of Aug.27; Bell’s palsy 81,747; herpes zoster infection 149,017; paresthesia 305,660; breakthrough COVID 365,955; myalgia 528,457; life threatening events 230,113; permanent disabilities 212,691; birth defects 7,998.
  • The Bradford Hill Criteria for causation are all satisfied. This includes but is not limited to the strength of effect size, reproducibility, specificity, temporality, dose-response relationship, plausibility, coherence, and reversibility.

CDC claims COVID jab beats natural immunity

If you think the CDC’s claim that the COVID jab lowers all-cause mortality is a low point in its irrational vaccine push, prepare to let your expectations sink even lower, with even more egregious Orwellian doublespeak implementation. On Oct. 29 the CDC released yet another study, this one claiming the COVID jab actually offers five times better protection against COVID-19 than natural immunity. As reported by Alex Berenson in an Oct. 30 Substack article:

“Yesterday the Centers for Disease Control, America’s not-at-all-politicized public health agency, released a new study purporting to show that vaccination protects against COVID infection better than natural immunity. Of course, a wave of stories about the benefits of mRNA vaccination followed.

“To do this, the CDC used some magic statistical analysis to turn inside raw data that actually showed almost four times as many fully vaccinated people being hospitalized with Covid as those with natural immunity — and FIFTEEN TIMES as many over the summer. I kid you not.

“Further, the study runs contrary to a much larger paper from Israeli researchers in August. As my 2-year-old likes to say, How dey do dat? Well, the Israeli study drew on a meaningful dataset in a meaningful way to reach meaningful conclusions.

“It counted infections (and hospitalizations) in a large group of previously infected people against an equally large and balanced group of vaccinated people, then made moderate adjustments for clearly defined risk factors.

“It found that vaccinated people were 13 times as likely to be infected — and 7 times as likely to be hospitalized — as unvaccinated people with natural immunity. In contrast — how do I put this politely? — the CDC study is meaningless gibberish that would never have been published if the agency did not face huge political pressure to get people vaccinated.”

Data manipulation is apparently a CDC specialty

Berenson goes on to dissect the study in question, starting with its design, which he calls “bizarre.” The CDC analysts looked at data from 200,000 Americans hospitalized with “COVID-like” illness between January and August in nine states. Two groups were then compared:

  1. Those who had confirmed COVID at least 90 days before and received another COVID test at the time of their hospitalization.
  2. Those who had been fully vaccinated for at least 90 days, but not more than 180 days, before their admittance and received another COVID test at the time of their hospitalization.

Berenson points out what I stressed earlier, which is that choosing certain time or date ranges will allow you to make the shots appear a whole lot better than they actually are.

Here, by choosing a 90- to 180-day inclusion range, they’re looking at a best-case scenario, as we now know the shots quit working after a handful of months. So, they’re only looking at that short window during which the COVID shots are at maximum effectiveness.

The 90-day criterion also ends up excluding the vast majority of patients hospitalized with COVID-like illness, both vaccinated and unvaccinated. While Berenson doesn’t address the vaccinated, few if any could have been fully vaccinated for at least 90 days prior to March, so why include January and February? Just about everyone was by definition unvaccinated at that time.

As for those with natural immunity, only 1,020 of the 200,000 patients hospitalized between January and August had a previously documented COVID infection. As noted by Berenson:

“Given the fact that at least 20% of Americans, and probably more like 40%, had had COVID by the spring of 2021, this is a strikingly small percentage — and certainly doesn’t suggest long COVID is much of a threat.”

Of the 1,020 with natural immunity, only 89 tested positive for COVID, while 324 of the 6,328 vaccinated patients who met the study criteria tested positive. Of note here are two things:

  1. There were more vaccinated patients hospitalized for COVID-like illness than those with natural immunity; this despite including months when vaccination rates were in the fractional and single digits.
  2. A greater number of vaccinated patients tested positive for breakthrough infection than patients with natural immunity.

The hospitalization rate among vaccinated is soaring

Berenson continues:

“And the CDC didn’t have, or didn’t publish, figures on how many people were actually in the two groups … Instead it compared the PERCENTAGE OF POSITIVE TESTS in the two groups. But why would the percentage of positive tests matter, when we don’t know how many people were actually at risk? …

“[A]mazingly, the statistical manipulation then got even worse. The natural immunity group had an 8.7% positive test rate. The fully vaccinated group had a 5.1% positive test rate. So the natural immunity group was about 1.7 times as likely to test positive. (1.7x 5.1 = about 8.7.)

“With such a small number of people in the natural immunity group, that raw ‘rate ratio’ may well have failed to reach statistical significance. (We don’t know, because the CDC didn’t provide an unadjusted odds ratio with 95% boundaries — something I have never seen before in any paper.)

“Instead, the CDC provided only a risk ratio that it had adjusted with a variety of factors, including ‘facility characteristics [and] sociodemographic characteristics.’

“And finally, the CDC’s researchers got a number that they could publish — hospitalized people who had previously been infected were five times as likely to have a positive COVID test as people who were fully vaccinated. Never mind that there were actually four times as many people in the second group. Science!

“By the way, buried at the bottom of the report is some actual data. And it’s bad. The CDC divided the hospitalizations into pre-and post-Delta — January through June and June through August.

“Interestingly, the number of hospitalized people with natural immunity actually fell sharply over the summer, as Delta took off. About 14 people per month were hospitalized in the winter and spring, compared to six per month from June through August. (Remember, this is a large sample, with hospitals in nine states.)

“But the number of VACCINATED people being hospitalized soared — from about three a month during the spring to more than 100 a month during the Delta period. These vaccinated people still were less than 180 days from their second dose, so they should have been at or near maximum immunity — suggesting that Delta, and not the time effect, played an important role in the loss of protection the vaccine offered.”

Perhaps Rep. Thomas Massie said it best when he tweeted:

“What do ‘road kill’ and a CDC-sponsored COVID paper have in common? By the third day, they’re so picked apart they’re unrecognizable. This CDC Director is shameless for fabricating junk science with findings that stand in stark contrast to every credible academic study.”

Massie goes on to point out some obvious flaws and questions raised by the study, including the following:

  • The authors failed to verify recovery among those with the previous infection, so any number of these “reinfections” may actually have been long-COVID.
  • The fact that more than 6,000 hospitalized for COVID symptoms were vaccinated, compared to just 1,000 with the previous infection, counters the claim that 99% of COVID hospitalizations are unvaccinated.
  • The number of vaccinated people hospitalized for COVID symptoms correlates negatively with the time since vaccination; 3,625 were hospitalized within 90 to 119 days of vaccination, 2,101 within 120 to 149 days, and 902 within 150 to 179 days of vaccination. “Could initial hospitalizations be due to vaccine adverse effects or due to a temporarily weakened immune system from the vaccine?” Massey asks.
  • The study only considered those with natural immunity who ended up in the hospital, and not the ones who didn’t get sick. “Natural immunity helps prevent hospitalization!” Massey says.

Massie also notes that this paper, which is only six pages long, has an astounding 50 authors, and at least half a dozen of them disclose Big Pharma conflicts of interest. What’s more, seeing how Congress gave the CDC a cool $1 billion to promote the COVID jab, isn’t working for the CDC a conflict of interest as well?

Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a biostatistician and epidemiologist in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, also critiqued the study in a tweet, saying:

“This CDC study has a major statistical flaw, and the 5x conclusion is wrong, it implicitly assumes that hospitalized respiratory patients are representative of the population, which they are not. Trying to connect with authors.”

Natural immunity is the best answer

Try as the CDC might twist the data, there’s really no question that natural immunity is superior and longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity. This is also a long-held medical fact that has been tossed aside as too inconvenient to matter in COVID-19.

For some undisclosed reason, the government wants everyone to get the COVID injection, whether medically warranted or not. The sheer lunacy of that is cause enough to be leery and hold off on getting the risky jab.

I can tell you one thing, this policy has nothing to do with safeguarding public health because it’s driving public health in the wrong direction.

It’s quite clear that the way out of this pandemic is through natural herd immunity, and at this point, we know there’s no reason to fear COVID-19. Overall, its lethality is on par with the common flu. Provided you’re not in a nursing home or have multiple comorbidities, your chances of surviving a bout of COVID-19 is 99.74%, on average.

Additionally, we also know there are several early treatment protocols that are very effective, such as the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance I-MASK+35 protocol, the Zelenko protocol, and nebulized peroxide, detailed in Dr. David Brownstein’s case paper and Dr. Thomas Levy’s free ebook, “Rapid Virus Recovery.” Whichever treatment protocol you use, make sure you begin treatment as soon as possible, ideally at the first onset of symptoms.

The reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots in VAERS, on the other hand, exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and if you are injured by a COVID shot and live in the U.S., your only recourse is to apply for compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Act (CICP).

Compensation from CICP is very limited and hard to get. You only qualify if your injury requires hospitalization and results in significant disability and/or death, and even if you meet the eligibility criteria, it requires you to use up your private health insurance before it kicks in to pay the difference.

There’s no reimbursement for pain and suffering, only lost wages and unpaid medical bills. Salary compensation is of limited duration and capped at $50,000 a year, and the CICP’s decision cannot be appealed.

For a taste of what life is like for those injured by these shots, review some of the cases reported to nomoresilence.world. You can also learn more about the potential mechanisms of harm in Stephanie Seneff’s paper, “Worse Than The Disease: Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19,” published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research in collaboration with Dr. Greg Nigh.

Originally published by Mercola.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.




COVID Vaccines Do Not Impact Infection

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

  • Research shows increases in COVID-19 cases are completely unrelated to levels of vaccination in 68 countries worldwide and 2,947 counties in the U.S.
  • The data from U.S. counties showed similar trends, with new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people being “largely similar” regardless of the vaccination rate
  • Of the five U.S. counties with the highest vaccination rates — ranging from 84.3% to 99.9% fully vaccinated — four are on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “high transmission” list, while 26.3% of the 57 counties with “low transmission” had vaccination rates under 20%
  • Iceland and Portugal, both of which have more than 75% of their populations fully vaccinated, have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than Vietnam and South Africa, where only 10% or so of their populations are fully vaccinated
  • CDC data show rates of hospitalization for severe illness among the fully vaccinated went from 0.01% in January 2021 to 9% in May 2021, and deaths went from 0% to 15.1%. If the shots actually worked, these rates should have remained near zero

Considering the scale of the mass vaccination campaign against COVID-19, if the shots were working as advertised, we’d have vaccine-induced herd immunity already. As of October 28, 2021, 6.94 billion doses of COVID-19 jabs had been administered, equating to 49% of the world population having received at least one dose.1

Add to that the fact that we have widespread natural immunity, and COVID-19 really ought to be a non-issue at this point. Rarely does a pandemic last more than 18 months. Still, COVID-19 allegedly persists. Clearly, the mass injection effort isn’t working.

A study2 published in the European Journal of Epidemiology at the end of September 2021 confirms this, showing that increases in COVID-19 cases (i.e., positive cases based on PCR testing) are completely unrelated to levels of vaccination in 68 countries worldwide. Ditto for 2,947 counties in the U.S. In the Peak Prosperity video above, Chris Martenson, Ph.D., reviews the details of this paper.

Data Show the COVID Jabs Have No Impact on Infection Rates

While the official COVID narrative continues to blame the ongoing pandemic on the unvaccinated, data show that areas with high vaccination rates, like Israel, continue to have significant COVID-19 spread. As noted by S.V. Subramanian, from the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies and a colleague in the European Journal of Epidemiology:3

“Vaccines currently are the primary mitigation strategy to combat COVID-19 around the world. For instance, the narrative related to the ongoing surge of new cases in the United States (US) is argued to be driven by areas with low vaccination rates.

A similar narrative also has been observed in countries, such as Germany and the United Kingdom. At the same time, Israel that was hailed for its swift and high rates of vaccination has also seen a substantial resurgence in COVID-19 cases.”

Using data available as of September 3, 2021, from Our World in Data for cross-country analysis, and the White House COVID-19 Team data for U.S. counties, the researchers investigated the relationship between new COVID-19 cases and the percentage of the population that had been fully vaccinated.

Sixty-eight countries were included. Inclusion criteria included second dose vaccine data, COVID-19 case data, and population data as of September 3, 2021. They then computed the COVID-19 cases per 1 million people for each country and calculated the percentage of the population that was fully vaccinated.

According to the authors, there was “no discernable relationship between the percentage of the population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last seven days.” If anything, higher vaccination rates were associated with a slight increase in cases. According to the authors:4

“[T]he trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.”

As noted by Martenson, this flies in the face of the official narrative, which claims the shots are highly effective at preventing symptomatic infection. Wikipedia goes so far as to claim “A COVID-19 vaccine is a vaccine intended to provide acquired immunity against COVID-19,”5 when in fact it does no such thing at all.

Even the developers admit the shot cannot prevent infection. It only reduces symptoms of infection. That just goes to show how utterly unreliable Wikipedia is. It’s biased to the point of being disinformation.

Higher Vaccination Rates Linked to Higher Caseloads

If there were any doubt for the need to seriously question the worldwide mass injection campaign, this should put it to rest: Iceland and Portugal, both of which have more than 75% of their populations fully vaccinated, have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than Vietnam and South Africa, where only 10% or so of their populations are fully vaccinated.6

Israel is another example. With more than 60% of its population fully vaccinated, it had the highest number of COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the seven days leading up to September 3, 2021.7

The data from U.S. counties showed similar trends, with new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people being “largely similar” regardless of the vaccination rate. “I’m pretty sure this is not how it’s supposed to be working,” Martenson says.

He points out that President Biden recently issued a statement saying health care workers need to be fully vaccinated because then they “cannot transmit COVID-19 to patients.” “That doesn’t make sense though,” Martenson says, “because here we’re not seeing that association, which ought to be, the more vaccinated [a population is], the lower the transmission rate.”

The authors of the study further note there’s no evidence at all that cases are declining as vaccination rates rise. “There also appears to be no significant signaling of COVID-19 cases decreasing with higher percentages of the population fully vaccinated,” they write.8

Notably, out of the five U.S. counties with the highest vaccination rates — ranging from 84.3% to 99.9% fully vaccinated — four were on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “high transmission” list. Meanwhile, 26.3% of the 57 counties with “low transmission” had vaccination rates under 20%.

The study even accounted for a one-month lag time that could occur among the fully vaccinated, since it’s said that it takes two weeks after the final dose for “full immunity” to occur. Still, “no discernable association between COVID-19 cases and levels of fully vaccinated” was observed.9

High Time to Change Strategy

The study summed up several reasons why the “sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19” should be reevaluated. For starters, the jab’s effectiveness rapidly wanes.

A report from Israel’s Ministry of Health showed that Pfizer-BioNTech’s injection went from a 95% effectiveness in December 2020, to 64% in early July 2021 and 39% by late July, when the Delta strain became predominant.10,11

“A substantial decline in immunity from mRNA vaccines six months post-immunization has also been reported,” the researchers noted, adding that even severe hospitalization and death from COVID-19, which the jabs claim to offer protection against, have dramatically increased.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show rates of hospitalization for severe illness among the fully vaccinated went from 0.01% in January 2021 to 9% in May 2021, and deaths went from 0% to 15.1%.12,13 If the shots work as advertised, why are these rates rising? They should have remained near zero.

The researchers also noted that immunity derived from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is not as strong as immunity acquired through recovery from the COVID-19 virus.14 For instance, a retrospective observational study published August 25, 2021, revealed that natural immunity is superior to immunity from COVID-19 jabs. According to the authors of that study:15

“… natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.

The fact is, while breakthrough cases continue among those who have gotten COVID-19 injections, it’s extremely rare to get reinfected by COVID-19 after you’ve already had the disease and recovered.

This was demonstrated in an Irish study,16 which looked at data from 615,777 people who had recovered from COVID-19, with a follow-up of more than 10 months. The absolute reinfection rate ranged from 0% to 1.1%, while the median reinfection rate was just 0.27%.17,18,19 As noted by the authors, “Reinfection was an uncommon event … with no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time.”

Another study revealed similarly reassuring results. It followed 43,044 SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positive people for up to 35 weeks, and only 0.7% were reinfected. When genome sequencing was applied to estimate the population-level risk of reinfection, the risk was estimated at 0.1%.20

After seven months, there still was no indication of waning immunity. According to the authors of that study: “Reinfection is rare. Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy >90% for at least seven months.”21

All Risk and No Reward

The purpose of informed consent is to give people all of the available data related to a medical procedure so they can make an educated decision before consenting. In the case of the COVID-19 jab, very little data were initially available, given their emergency authorization.

However, as serious side effects became increasingly apparent, attempts to share them publicly were silenced. Medical professionals and scientists were censored and de-platformed simply for sharing well-founded concerns.

In August 2021, a large study from Israel22 revealed that the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA jab is associated with a threefold increased risk of myocarditis,23 leading to the condition at a rate of 1 to 5 events per 100,000 persons.24 Other elevated risks were also identified following the COVID-19 jab, including lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes), appendicitis, and herpes zoster infection.25

Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist, is among those who have warned that COVID-19 injections are not only failing but putting lives at risk.26 According to McCullough, by January 22, 2021, there had been 186 deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database following COVID-19 injection — more than enough to reach the mortality signal of concern to stop the program.

“With a program this size, anything over 150 deaths would be an alarm signal,” he said. The U.S. “hit 186 deaths with only 27 million Americans jabbed.” McCullough believes if the proper safety boards had been in place, the COVID-19 jab program would have been shut down in February 2021 based on safety and risk of death.27

However, by intentionally suppressing information, the media and Big Tech have made informed consent impossible. You simply cannot make an informed decision when only one side is allowed to speak and share information. Making matters worse, there’s evidence that the agencies we depend on to ensure drug safety and safeguard public health are manipulating statistics and carrying on their own cover-up to boost vaccine uptake.

Now, with data showing no difference in rates of COVID-19 cases among the vaxxed and unvaxxed, it appears more and more likely that the injections have a high level of risk with very little reward, especially among younger people, whose risk of serious COVID-19 infection is vanishingly small.

Children Are Put at Grave Risk

Due to the risk of myocarditis, Britain’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) recommended COVID-9 injections for healthy 12- to 15-year-olds.28

Meanwhile, the U.S. FDA not only gave the green light to teens but also OK’d the Pfizer shot to children aged 5 to 11,29 despite strong objections from qualified doctors and scientists. As reported by The Defender:30

“Experts raised concerns over the lack of safety and efficacy data presented by Pfizer for use of its COVID vaccine in younger children, and they pointed to increasing safety signals based on reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). They also questioned the need to vaccinate children — whose risk of dying from COVID is “almost nil” — at all.

According to Dr. Meryl Nass, member of the Children’s Health Defense Scientific Advisory Panel, Pfizer once again did not use all of the children who participated in the trial in their safety study.

‘Three thousand children received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, but only 750 children were selectively included in the company’s safety analysis,’ Nass said. ‘Studies in the 5-11 age group are essentially the same as the 12-15 group.

In other words, equally brief and unsatisfying, with inadequate safety data and efficacy data, with no strong support for why this type of immuno-bridging analysis is sufficient … All serious adverse events were considered unrelated to the vaccine’ …

Dr. Jessica Rose, viral immunologist and biologist, told the panel EUA of biological agents requires the existence of an emergency and the nonexistence of alternate treatment. ‘There is no emergency and COVID-19 is exceedingly treatable,’ Rose said.

In a peer-reviewed study31 co-authored by Rose, myocarditis rates were significantly higher in people 13 to 23 years old within eight weeks of the COVID vaccine rollout. In 12- to15-year-olds, Rose said, reported cases of myocarditis were 19 times higher than background rates …

Rose said tens of thousands of reports have been submitted to VAERS for children ages 0 to 18. Rose explained: ‘In this age group, 60 children have died — 23 of them were less than 2 years old.

It is disturbing to note that ‘product administered to patient of inappropriate age’ was filed 5,510 times in this age group. Two children were inappropriately injected, presumably by a trained medical professional, and subsequently died.'”

In an October 20, 2021, article,32 Paul Elias Alexander, Ph.D., a former assistant professor of evidence-based medicine and research methods, called the plan to vaccinate young children “absolutely reckless” and “dangerous based on lack of safety data and poor research methodology.”

We’ve also discovered that the FDA is ignoring and burying data on children who were seriously injured in the vaccine trials,33 which further erodes confidence in what little trial data there is. Meanwhile, data suggest no child has died from COVID-19 who did not have a serious underlying health condition. Alexander reviews that data in his article.

Mass Vaccination Drives Creation of Variants

Making matters more problematic, there’s evidence suggesting the shots are driving the creation of mutations resulting in variants with enhanced infectivity and antibody-evading capabilities. Aside from waning effectiveness, this helps explain why rates of serious infection among the fully vaccinated keep rising.

For example, a study34 posted August 23, 2021, on the preprint server bioRxiv warned the Delta variant “is posed to acquire complete resistance to wild-type spike vaccines.”

According to the authors, when four common mutations were introduced into the receptor-binding domain of the Delta variant, Pfizer vaccine antibodies could no longer neutralize the virus. They also found it had enhanced infectivity. This could essentially turn into a worst-case scenario that sets up those who have received the Pfizer shots for more severe illness when exposed to the virus.

A Delta variant with three of the four mutations has already emerged,35 which suggests it’s only a matter of time before a fourth mutation develops, at which point the virus would be completely resistant to the Pfizer jab.

Many have in fact warned about immune escape due to the pressure being placed upon the COVID-19 virus during mass vaccination.36 Another study37 — this one based on a mathematical model — found that a worst-case scenario can develop when a large percentage of a population is vaccinated but viral transmission remains high.

This represents the prime scenario for the development of resistant mutant strains,38 and that’s precisely the situation the U.S. and many other parts of the world are in right now. It’s time to acknowledge that the COVID shots aren’t the answer. Natural immunity is. As the European of Journal of Epidemiology researchers noted:39

“Stigmatizing populations can do more harm than good. Importantly, other non-pharmacological prevention efforts (e.g., the importance of basic public health hygiene with regards to maintaining safe distance or handwashing, promoting better frequent and cheaper forms of testing) needs to be renewed in order to strike the balance of learning to live with COVID-19 in the same manner we continue to live a 100 years later with various seasonal alterations of the 1918 Influenza virus.”

Do Your Own Risk-Benefit Analysis

Indeed, at this point, we know there’s no reason to fear COVID-19. Overall, its lethality is on par with the common flu.40,41,42,43,44 Provided you’re not in a nursing home or have multiple comorbidities, your chances of surviving a bout of COVID-19 is 99.74%, on average.45 It truly doesn’t get much better than that, unless you expect mankind to suddenly achieve immortality.

Should you develop symptoms, remember there are several effective early treatment protocols to choose from, such as the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance I-MASK+46 protocol, the Zelenko protocol,47 and nebulized peroxide, detailed in Dr. David Brownstein’s case paper48 and Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery.” Whichever treatment protocol you use, make sure you begin treatment as soon as possible, ideally at the first onset of symptoms.

The reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots in the national Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), on the other hand, exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and if you are injured by a COVID shot and live in the U.S., your only recourse is to apply for compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Act (CICP).49

Compensation from CICP is very limited and hard to get. In its 15-year history, it has paid out just 29 claims, fewer than 1 in 10.50,51,52 You only qualify if your injury requires hospitalization and results in significant disability and/or death, and even if you meet the eligibility criteria, it requires you to use up your private health insurance before it kicks in to pay the difference.

There’s no reimbursement for pain and suffering, only lost wages and unpaid medical bills. This means a retired person cannot qualify even if they die or end up in a wheelchair. Salary compensation is of limited duration and capped at $50,000 a year, and the CICP’s decision cannot be appealed.

To get an idea of what the real-world risks actually are, consider reviewing some of the cases reported to nomoresilence.world, a website dedicated to giving a voice to those injured by COVID shots.

Lastly, if you or ahead of your household is considering the jab, review the family financial disclosure form created by The Solari Report, for the purpose of ensuring that an adverse event or death does not translate into financial destruction for the entire family.

Sources and References



Gov. Newsom Injured by Moderna Booster Shot, Source Tells The Defender

A source close to California Gov. Gavin Newsom told The Defender the governor experienced an adverse reaction to the Moderna COVID vaccine he received Oct. 27, the last day he was seen in public.

By Children’s Health Defense Team

A source close to California Gov. Gavin Newsom today told The Defender the governor experienced an adverse reaction to the Moderna COVID vaccine he received Oct. 27.

The source, who asked not to be identified, said Newsom’s symptoms were similar to those associated with Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS), a known side effect of many vaccines.

GBS is a neurological disorder in which the body’s immune system mistakenly attacks part of its peripheral nervous system — the network of nerves located outside of the brain and spinal cord — and can range from a very mild case with brief weakness to paralysis to leaving the person unable to breathe independently.

The governor has not been seen in public since he was photographed Oct. 27 getting his COVID booster.

On Oct. 29, Newsom’s office issued a statement referring to unspecified “family obligations” as the reason the governor canceled his scheduled appearances, including his planned meetings at the global COP 26 climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland.

A local ABC News outlet reported that when “the surprising announcement was made,” a spokesperson said Newsom planned to participate virtually in the climate conference. However, Newsom’s name was removed from the schedule and he did not participate.

The Defender reached out to Newsom’s office today by phone and email, but the office did not respond before publication.

According to Fox News, Newsom’s wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, on Sunday tweeted — then quickly deleted — a message urging people to “stop hating” while her husband has been out of the public eye since canceling plans, including his appearances at COP 26.

Commenting on the situation, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense, today said he “prays for Newsom’s family” and wishes him a quick recovery.

Kennedy added:

“However, if it’s true the governor has suffered debilitating neurological injuries following vaccination, it raises grave ethical questions about his seemingly dishonest efforts to conceal his injuries while implementing aggressive policies to force the children and working people of California to endure similar risks.”

Newsom has been an outspoken advocate of COVID vaccines and mandates. On Oct. 1, he announced California’s schoolchildren will be required to get the COVID vaccine once it is fully approved by the FDA. It’s the first such mandate in the country.

In a Nov. 3 press release, the governor’s office said California was launching a “robust” vaccination program for 5- to 11-year-olds. The governor has allocated more than 1.2 million vaccines for the 5-11 age group and is setting up 4,000 vaccine sites throughout the state.

According to Times of San Diego, Newsome got the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine in April 2021 when his age group became eligible. In July, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration added a warning to the J&J COVID vaccine noting the vaccine had been linked to GBS.

The latest data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System show that between Dec. 14, 2020, and Oct. 29, 2021, there were 705 reports of GBS following COVID vaccines, with 41% of cases attributed to Pfizer, 31% to Moderna and 28% to J&J.

In April, The Defender reported on a teen who was diagnosed with GBS after his first dose of a COVID vaccine. And last week, The Defender reported on a 63-year-old cancer survivor diagnosed with GBS after her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

GBS is included as a possible risk for many vaccines including Adacel, Afluria, Engerix-B, Fluarix, Flulaval, FluMist, Fluzone, Gardasil/Gardasil 9, Havrix, Menactra, Menomune, MMR-II, PedvaxHIB, Pneumovax-23, ProQuad, Recombivax, Tenivac, Vaqta and Varivax.

Since 1992, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid approximately $500 million to 1,450 victims of post-vaccination GBS, The Defender reported.




2,433 Dead Babies in VAERS as Another Study Shows mRNA Shots Not Safe for Pregnant Women

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News

There have now been 2,433 fetal deaths recorded in VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) from pregnant women who have been injected with one of the COVID-19 shots. (Source.)

The vast majority of these have been from the Pfizer shot (1,862 deaths) and the Moderna shot (656 deaths.)

There have been more fetal deaths in the past 11 months following COVID-19 shots than there have been for the past 30+ years following ALL vaccines (2,198 – Source.)

Last month (October 2021) the New England Journal of Medicine admitted that the original study used to justify the CDC and the FDA in recommending the shots to pregnant women was flawed. (Source.)

Since then, researchers in New Zealand have conducted a new study on the original data and concluded:

A re-analysis of these figures indicates a cumulative incidence of spontaneous abortion ranging from 82% (104/127) to 91% (104/114), 7–8 times higher than the original authors’ results. (Source.)

And yet, the CDC and FDA still continue to recommend the shots for pregnant women, even though a correct analysis on the original data shows that 82% to 91% of pregnant women will suffer miscarriages if their unborn child is less than 20 weeks old. (Source.)

VAERS is a passive system that is severely underreported. The CDC and FDA have never conducted a study to determine what this under-reported factor is, but independent scientists have, and we have previously published the analysis conducted by Dr. Jessica Rose, who has determined that a conservative under-reported factor would be X41. See:

This means that there have probably been at least 99,753 fetal deaths following COVID-19 injections so far.

Here is a video report we made this last month with some very unfortunate gruesome examples of what these shots are doing to unborn babies.

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE…




Chinese Defector Reveals COVID Origin

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

  • Li-Meng Yan, M.D., Ph.D., escaped from China to the United States to expose China’s cover-up of the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic
  • According to Yan, SARS-CoV-2 was made in a Chinese military lab. The Third Military Medical University and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command discovered a bat coronavirus called ZC45. She’s convinced that ZC45 was used as a template and/or backbone to create SARS-CoV-2
  • While the Chinese military may be responsible for the physical creation of the virus, there’s ample evidence showing the U.S. funded at least some of the research that resulted in this pandemic
  • The COVID shots and the vaccine passports fit into the CCP agenda by making the whole world accept and adopt the CCP’s social control system
  • Yan urges Americans to realize the destructiveness of communism and to resist it in any way possible. This includes refusing vaccine mandates and vaccine passports

Today, we continue our discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic and its origin with a fascinating guest who has been a leader exposing the corruption and fraud with respect to the origin of the virus. Li-Meng Yan is both an M.D. and Ph.D., with specific training in coronaviruses. She escaped from China’s influence while in Hong Kong to the United States to warn us of what she believes is a massive cover-up.

Yan went to medical school, followed by a Ph.D. program in ophthalmology. The school where she got her Ph.D. was originally a military medical university, which helps explain some of her personal networks. She has contacts in both civilian and military research laboratories and hospitals in mainland China.

After finishing her studies, she decided to pursue research. For two years, she worked in an ophthalmology lab at the University of Hong Kong, where she researched stem cells, drugs, and artificial tissue development. She was then invited to join the lab of professor Malik Peiris.

Yan’s husband had worked with him and Peiris was impressed with Yan’s skillset. She jumped at the chance to learn more about emerging infectious diseases. She worked with Peiris for five years, until she escaped to the U.S. in April 2020.

“I worked on the influenza virus, universal influenza vaccine development, and then focused on the SARS-CoV-2 after the outbreak,” she says.

SARS-CoV-2 Was Made in a Chinese Military Lab

At the end of December 2019, Yan’s supervisor, Dr. Leo Poon, who is also an emerging infectious disease expert with the World Health Organization, assigned her to conduct a confidential investigation into a mysterious new pneumonia-like infection.

Colleagues and friends at universities and hospitals around China gave her information, which she forwarded to Peiris and Poon. They did not follow up on it, however, which she says “shows that they want [to] help China to cover it up.”

In January 2020, Poon asked her to look into whether the raccoon dog, a civet cat-like animal, which was a host for the original SARS virus, might also be an intermediary host for SARS-CoV-2. Yan’s research, however, was indicating that the virus did not come from nature. Poon warned her to keep silent or “you will be disappeared.”

According to Yan, SARS-CoV-2 was made in a Chinese military lab. The Third Military Medical University in Chongqing, China, and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command in Nanjing, had discovered a bat coronavirus called ZC45. The discovery of ZC45 was published in early 2018.

“If you compare this virus genome and the SARS-CoV-2 virus genome, you will realize [this is the] smoking gun,” Yan says. She’s convinced that ZC45 was used as a template and/or backbone to create SARS-CoV-2.

In mid-May 2020, shortly after she’d left Hong Kong, the journal Nature published a paper1 Yan had co-written, detailing the pathogenesis and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in golden hamsters. This experiment showed SARS-CoV-2 primarily spreads via aerosol.

In mid-September 2020, Yan published an open-access paper2 on Zenodo, in which she and her two co-authors laid out the evidence and their theory for SARS-CoV-2 being manmade.

Almost immediately, four “reviewers” of her work denounced it as being an “opinion” piece that was “flawed” and not scientifically in line with currently accepted knowledge of the origin of the virus. One reviewer3 said, “The manuscript attempts to refute our current understanding of the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Briefly, the consensus is that SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonosis and originated in bats with perhaps an intermediate host before spilling over into humans.”

A year later, in 2021, numerous indicators4,5 show that dismissing the lab leak hypothesis was premature and there is no “consensus” of a zoonosis origin.

Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by The Intercept6 also point directly to a lab origin, so much so that the WHO’s director-general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, called for a new investigation into it, writing in the October 13, 2021, edition of the journal Science,7 “A lab accident cannot be ruled out until there is sufficient evidence to do so and those results are openly shared.”

The Escape From China

Initially, Yan had released information via an American YouTube blogger that was very popular in China. By the end of April 2020, a colleague warned Yan she was at risk of being “disappeared.” That’s when she decided to flee to the U.S. Luckily, she already had a valid visa. Her husband was deeply opposed to her leaving, as you might imagine. She explains:

“I didn’t know it would happen like [it did]. From January to April [2020], I didn’t tell him what I had done. I tried to protect him, because at that time, in Hong Kong, there were a lot of people fighting against government for democracy and freedom. They can get disappeared easily.

But if their family don’t know what they have done, it’s kind of safe for the family. That’s why I tried to protect him. But when I heard that I need leave, I tried to bring him with me. He’s not Chinese. He’s from Sri Lanka. When I told him, he was outraged, which was really not like him. He warned me, saying ‘We can go nowhere. They are everywhere. We can do nothing.'”

Her husband even threatened to have her killed if she left. The next two weeks were a dangerous time for Yan. Her husband kept her under surveillance, and she developed a sudden heart problem. The day before she left, she went for a checkup. She had a resting heart rate of 130, which is a sign of sinus tachycardia.

Yan suspects foul play, saying the Chinese government prefers to “disappear” people by making it look like a natural death. “Like this virus,” she says. According to Yan, infections and heart attacks are common strategies used to get rid of dissenters. Yan also suspects her husband may have been helping them.

Fortunately, since entering the U.S., the attacks have been relegated to discrediting her and ruining her reputation. “For example, they created thousands of fake accounts on social media, using at least seven languages, to spread [lies about me] and attacks to discredit me,” she says.

According to Yan, this has been verified by FireEye, a cybersecurity company that also does work for American intelligence agencies. Her family, who are in mainland China, friends, and even alumni are also under strict surveillance by the Chinese government, she says.

Vindication

While the whole world denied the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 was manmade for over a year, in recent months, the truth has finally entered the mainstream. A number of reporters have wrestled with excuses, trying to justify or explain away their long-held denials.

“Last year in July, when I was first on Fox News, I told them the WHO and the CCP are corrupted and are in the cover-up together,” Yan says. “At that time, it was a bombshell. Now, most people realize [the virus] is not from nature. That is a very good turning, and I keep helping other people to realize the evidence.

I explain to them the CCP’s style and the evidence. Now, I see that even some mainstream media are starting to talk about the possibility of [it being a] bioweapon. I think it is very encouraging. Because people need to realize that China is using this virus together with their misinformation campaign and propaganda to attack all over the world.”

Who’s Running the Show?

While the Chinese military may be responsible for the physical creation of the virus, there’s ample evidence showing the U.S. funded at least some of the research that resulted in this pandemic.

The flow of money from Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the EcoHealth Alliance run by Peter Daszak and the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is well-documented. Ralph Baric, Ph.D., at the University of North Carolina has also conducted research that appears to have been applied to SARS-CoV-2.

The sequence of events is confusing, however, and it’s unclear just who is the real string-puller in all of this. When asked what her take is, and who she believes might be running the show, Yan replies that even without American funding, China certainly would still have managed to create this virus.

“The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) … they are a giant octopus and they have tentacles. The brain is the CCP. Those scientists, especially the military scientists and coronavirus experts [such as] my previous supervisor, Dr. Malik Pieris, they are the ones that had the real evil ideas.

They enjoy it, and they want to command this knowledge … Even China cannot use their tentacles … if they cannot use infiltration to get your money, they will still manage to get your technology and do it in China. That’s the key point. The money from American taxpayers, it looks a lot. Yes, it’s millions [of dollars]. However, compared to the money donated by the Chinese government, it’s just a very small piece …

They developed this virus and other things in their unrestricted bioweapons program. They want to destroy Americans’ economic and social order, destroy your civilization. [While the virus has attacked worldwide], they always list America as a primary enemy and the biggest problem.

So, when they show you this kind of propaganda, through TikTok and other social media [where Chinese citizens] tell you, ‘Oh, in China we control the outcome and it’s good, and we love our government.’ American people will feel, ‘Yeah, maybe we should give up our democracy and turn to try communism.’ That’s all they want to do.”

Chinese Data Collection

Since the start of the pandemic, it’s been near-impossible to determine how many Chinese have actually been affected. According to Yan, the CCP will only release data that benefits itself.

“Chinese people all know not to trust any data that comes from our government,” she says. “They don’t do statistics. They just sit there. Whatever data they want, they write it down. That’s how they [produce] data.”

According to Yan, the CCP has been using the converse strategy used in the U.S. and elsewhere. Rather than inflate case numbers, they’ve been suppressing them. One way they’ve been doing this is by delaying diagnosis, so deaths are not listed as COVID-19 deaths.

“It’s totally opposite,” she says. “For example, in America, once a person has been diagnosed with COVID, even if they later died of some other problem, they still will be [counted] as a COVID case.

But in China, they can use a ventilator to make the patient survive until the test comes out negative. They have thousands of ways to handle it. Importantly, they also gave early treatment, including hydroxychloroquine and other drugs.”

According to Yan, military scientists in China have also filed a patent to use hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. “That made them earn the top anti-COVID award by Chairman Xi last year,” she says. Hydroxychloroquine is also sold over the counter in China, so it’s easy to get a hold of. She believes part of the reason why the death toll in the U.S. has been so high is that hydroxychloroquine was suppressed and censored.

Is There a Connection Between the COVID Shots and the CCP?

The COVID-19 pandemic has clearly been capitalized upon by greedy drug companies, and the suppression of early treatment drugs appears to have been an intentional strategy to make the COVID shot — which is turning out to be extraordinarily hazardous to your health — the only alternative. How does the COVID “vaccine” tie into the theory that SARS-CoV-2 is a CCP bioweapon? Yan says:

“Definitely there is a clear connection between the vaccine and the CCP’s strategies … Some people … try to explain that the vaccine will kill people, and therefore it is another bioweapon. But this is not an accurate reason. First China released the virus they developed in the military labs. This virus doesn’t have a high death rate … That’s why I called it an unrestricted bioweapon. It looks like it’s natural occurring.

Once you realize something is wrong, they use misinformation and denial to confuse you. So, when China released it — and China controls the scientific community to spread misinformation, and censored [information] to let people believe it’s come from nature — what will people do?

They will think about drugs, the drugs they already have. The other way is a vaccine, because people are educated to accept a vaccine can end a pandemic.

In this case, useful drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are so cheap. How could they use this to earn huge profits? The CCP also had a lot of stock shares from Pfizer, Moderna and other big pharmaceutical companies. Check the money they put in … And then big pharmaceutical companies, they all say, ‘OK, now we can use this chance to make money.'”

Clearly, many who support and push the COVID shot know full well that they’re bound to cause health problems. Yan herself was asked to work on a COVID vaccine but she declined after looking into the available science. No coronavirus vaccine has ever been released, despite scientists working on it for two decades.

The reason? The vaccines cause too many injuries. They’re lethal. Yan did not believe these problems could be overcome for SARS-CoV-2. Peiris himself discovered antibody-dependent enhancement during efforts to develop a vaccine against the original SARS virus. Still, when money is being thrown at scientists, they’re usually not going to turn it down.

Vaccine Passports Will Usher in a Social Credit System

Of course, the COVID shots and the vaccine passports also fit into the CCP agenda by making the whole world accept and adopt the CCP’s social control system. The vaccine passports are clearly designed to usher in a social credit system as they have in China. And with that, you get 24/7 digital surveillance and an unbelievable amount of control over every single person.

As explained by Yan, in China, the digital surveillance system is so advanced, if your phone GPS shows you were near an infected person, you are automatically ordered into isolation.

What’s more, if parents or grandparents fail to get the COVID shot, the family’s children are barred from school, even if they got the shot. Every aspect of life is linked together through this system, so a poor social credit score will also have financial ramifications, and will dictate if, where, and how you’re allowed to travel.

Yan points out that Americans, being unaware of the Chinese surveillance system, don’t understand that by agreeing with vaccine mandates and passports, they are saying yes to a total surveillance system that will dictate their entire lives. They’re also saying yes to being guinea pigs for an endless stream of questionable vaccines.

“Once you support mandate for two doses, then you have to support for the booster, and then support 60 boosters, 199 boosters. It [will be] endless,” she says. “And you’ll be tied into this [social] credit system you built.”

China Wants World Dominance by 2035

According to Yan, China’s goal is to achieve world dominance by 2035. With that aim in mind, they’ve spent decades developing unrestricted bioweapons. With COVID-19, they’re well on their way.

“They want to use all this to overcome the world, and America is their primary enemy,” Yan says. “So we have to stand up for the future, for our next generations. We cannot keep silent. This will be the last chance we have to fight against such communist evil plans, and to save all of us. And, most importantly, we have to all work together to stop the next pandemic or attack that comes out of China …

[Just look at] what’s happening in Hong Kong now. In two years, from 2019 until now, China destroyed the systems of law, democracy and freedom in Hong Kong. They also enacted national security laws. Basically, they own your privacy. They own your freedom, and you are forced to listen to them.

There is no reason they can’t do whatever [they want] to you. Basically, you are a slave living in a modern society. No doubt, once China overcomes America, it will be the same here, and maybe worse because they will have other technology at that time.”

When asked what actions Yan believes we need to take to resist and derail this plan, she says:

“I want Americans to know that, first, adults should realize the evilness of Communism, Maoism, Marxism, no matter what name it changes to … And once you realize that, speak out about it, because they are using propaganda to brainwash people, to brainwash the kids.

Also, you must let your policymakers, legislators, know this. I’m a foreigner, but you are an American citizen. You can vote, so you must let them understand the importance and push them to do something. Don’t believe the Chinese government and don’t give any mercy to the CCP.

Also, you have to update your own system. Study the weakness in your whole system, [the weakness that allows them] to divide America. Once you do all these things, hold them accountable and don’t let them do more. That’s the end of the pandemic.”

You can follow Yan on Twitter for frequent updates and breaking information. Her only authentic Twitter account is @Dr.LiMengYan1.

Sources and References



What You Need to Know About Comirnaty

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com  

Story at-a-glance

  • Pfizer/BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID shot was approved (licensed) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in late August 2021, but only for adults, and only when carrying the Comirnaty label. No other COVID shot has been FDA approved. However, Comirnaty is currently not available, and while the experimental, emergency use authorized (EUA) Pfizer shot is substituted for Comirnaty, the two products are clearly legally distinct and not the same
  • A licensed vaccine is not shielded from liability until or unless it’s added to the recommended childhood vaccination schedule by the CDC. So, if you were injured by Comirnaty, you could sue Pfizer. You cannot sue if injured by the EUA Pfizer shot (or any of the other EUA COVID injections)
  • Even though several hundred claims have been filed with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) for injuries resulting from the COVID shots — which is the only possible avenue to obtain damages — not a single claim has been paid out
  • Natural immunity is much stronger than what you can achieve from the injection, which only provides antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and wanes within a few months. The shots may in fact permanently limit the kind of immune response you would make were you to later be exposed or infected with COVID
  • Children’s Health Defense has filed a lawsuit arguing you cannot have a vaccine that is both an emergency use product and a licensed product at the same time. That’s against the law, but the government has done it anyway. Remarkably, the request for an injunction was initially thrown out, but the CHD has not given up and is still pursuing the case

In this interview, Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist specializing in toxicology, vaccine-induced illnesses, and Gulf War illness, shares her insights into the dangers of the COVID jab, which received an emergency use authorization on October 26, 2021, for children as young as 5.

We also discuss the conflicts of interest within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that seem to be behind this reckless decision, and how the agency pulled the wool over our eyes with its approval of Pfizer/BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID injection.

Is the COVID Jab Approved or Not?

As explained by Nass:

“All of the COVID ‘vaccines,’ and most of the COVID treatment products, have not been [FDA] approved. Approved means licensed. All except one, which is the Pfizer vaccine for adults, age 16 and up, which got approved, i.e., licensed on August 23 [2021].

But every other vaccine, and for every other age group, including the boosters, have only been authorized under emergency use authorizations (EUAs). There’s a critical difference [between licensing and EUA]. Once a drug is fully licensed, it is subject to liability.

If the company injures you with that product, you can sue them, unless it later gets put on the CDC’s childhood schedule or is recommended by the CDC [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] [during] pregnancy, in which case it obtains a different liability shield.

It then becomes part of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP, established under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act), and 75 cents from every dose of vaccine that is sold in the United States goes into a fund to pay for injuries that way.”

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act removed liability for all vaccines recommended by the CDC for children. Since 2016, they’ve also removed liability for vaccines given to pregnant women, a category that has become the latest “gold rush” for vaccines. Naturally, once a company is no longer liable for injuries, the profitability of the product in question increases dramatically.

Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program Is Nearly Useless

Products under emergency use have their own special government program for liability called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). “It is a terrible program,” Nass says. CICP is an offshoot of the 2005 PREP Act.

“The PREP act enabled the CICP to be created by Congress,” Nass explains. “Congress has to allocate money for it. If you are injured by an emergency use product, you don’t get any legal process. The companies have had all their liability waived. There is a single process that is administered through HHS [Health and Human Services].

Some employees there decide whether you deserve to be compensated or not. The maximum in damages you can obtain is about $370,000 if you’re totally disabled or die, and the money is only to compensate you for lost wages or unpaid medical bills.”

So far, even though several hundred CICP claims have been filed for injuries resulting from the COVID shots, not a single claim has been paid out. This is important because the statute of limitations is one year. “It’s getting close to running out for people who were vaccinated early,” Nass says.

If you fail to apply in time, you lose the opportunity to get any compensation entirely. “Of course, in fact, it’s really ‘an opportunity to apply and get nothing because almost nobody gets paid,” she says. At that point, you have no further recourse. There’s no appeals process to the judicial system.

“You can ask the HHS twice to compensate you, and if they say no, that’s it,” Nass explains. “You can attempt to sue the company that made the product, if you’re convinced it was improperly made, but the secretary of HHS has to give you the permission to sue.

You have to prove that there was willful misconduct and no one has ever reached that bar. So, there has never been a lawsuit under this. Anyway, that’s what you’re looking at. If you get the vaccine under EUA and are injured, you’re on your own. People have no idea about this when they vaccinate themselves or their children.”

Why Were the Shots Mandated?

As you know by now, president Biden decided to mandate the COVID jab for most federal employees (but not all) and private companies with 100 employees or more. “We don’t know why that is,” Nass says. It doesn’t make sense, as large numbers of Americans have already recovered from COVID-19 and have durable, long-lasting immunity already.

As correctly noted by Nass, natural immunity is much stronger than what you can achieve from the injection, which only provides antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and wears off within a few months. The shots “may in fact permanently limit the kind of immune response you would make were you to be infected with COVID later,” Nass says.

For these reasons, there’s absolutely no good reason to vaccinate people who have recovered from the infection and several bad reasons. There’s evidence showing the shot can be more harmful to those with existing immunity.

“But for reasons best known to itself, the Biden administration feels so certain it needs to vaccinate everybody that it has used illegal means to tell employers they will lose federal contracts if they don’t force their employees to be vaccinated immediately, and must fire them — if they’re health care workers, for example, or government employees, or military — if they have not been vaccinated.

Obviously that is creating a great deal of chaos, particularly within the health care industry, particularly in my state, Maine, where these draconian rules have gone into effect and many fire department, police, EMTs, nurses and doctors can no longer work.

The one thing that was necessary to push mandates forward was for the government to be able to say it had a licensed product. Before the emergency use authorization was created in 2005, you had licensed drugs and you had experimental drugs and nothing else.

There was no gray area between them. Any use of a medication or vaccine that is not fully licensed is still experimental, despite the fact that a new category of drugs has been created with emergency use authorizations.

These are still experimental drugs, so under emergency use, you can’t force people [to take them]. You have to offer them options and they have the right to refuse. Since that is part of the statute, the federal government can’t get around it.

Therefore, attorneys in the Biden administration knew they could not legally impose mandates under an EUA, and so they demanded that FDA provide a COVID vaccine full approval, aka, an unrestricted license. This was believed to enable them to impose mandates.

They must have put pressure on the FDA, and FDA gave them what they wanted, which was a license for the Pfizer vaccine called Comirnaty on August 23 [2021].”

Comirnaty Approval Includes Important Caveats

In the documents released August 23, 2021, by the FDA, there were some interesting caveats. They said the Comirnaty vaccine is essentially equivalent to the EUA vaccine and the two vaccines may be used interchangeably. However, they pointed out that the two are legally distinct. Curiously, FDA didn’t specify what these legal distinctions are.

“I concluded that the legal distinctions were the fact that under EUA, there was essentially no manufacturer liability, but once the vaccine got licensed, the manufacturer would be subject to liability claims unless and until the vaccine was placed on the childhood schedule or recommended in pregnancy, in which case it would then fall … under the NVICP,” Nass says.

“Right now, Comirnaty is still not in that injury compensation program, and it’s licensed, so it no longer falls under the CICP. So, it is in fact subject to liability if you get injured with a bottle that says Comirnaty on it. Of course, if you’re Pfizer, what do you want to do?

You don’t want to make that licensed product available until several months have gone by and Comirnaty has been put into the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. So, Pfizer and FDA have not made the licensed product available yet.

What has happened instead, in the military, is the FDA has made a secret deal with the military and said, certain emergency use lots can be considered equivalent to the licensed vaccine, and [told military medical staff] which QR codes — which lots can be used. [These specific lots] can then be given to soldiers as if they’re licensed.

Subsequently, we’re told that military clinics are actually putting Comirnaty labels onto bottles that are under EUA. Now, that probably can happen in the military, but only in the military, because there are likely to be memoranda of understanding within the military that we haven’t seen yet that say soldiers cannot sue Pfizer for injuries …

In the military, the government and Pfizer feel like they have set up a situation where nobody can sue, but in the civilian world, that has not happened, and so there is no Comirnaty available.

Yet, on the basis that FDA licensed this product, the federal government is still telling employers that they can mandate it and that they must fire employees that have not taken the vaccine, or they will lose government contracts. We’re in a very interesting situation that is ripe for litigation, and Children’s Health Defense, which is an organization I represent, is litigating some of this.

However, the litigation situation has been very difficult since the pandemic began. Cases that normally would’ve been easy wins are being thrown out by the courts, both in the U.S. and in Europe. Something strange has happened and the judges are looking for any way out, so they don’t have to rule on the merits of these cases.”

The organization Children’s Health Defense has filed a lawsuit arguing you cannot have a vaccine that is both an emergency use product and a licensed product at the same time. That’s against the law, but the federal government did it anyway. Remarkably, the request for an injunction was initially thrown out, but Children’s Health Defense hasn’t given up and is still pursuing that case.

COVID Jab Is Authorized for 5- to 11-Year-Olds in the US

As mentioned, the FDA recently authorized the EUA COVID jab for children between the ages of 5 and 11, which is simply appalling, considering they are at virtually no risk from COVID-19. I’ve not seen a single recorded case in the entire world of anyone in that age group dying of COVID that didn’t have serious preexisting comorbidity, such as cancer.

If you have a healthy child, they are at no risk from the infection, so there’s only danger associated with this shot, which in this age group would be one-third the adult dose. Typically, when you’re giving a drug to a child, the dose is calculated based on the child’s weight. Here, they’re giving the same dose to a 5-year-old as an 11-year-old, despite there being a significant difference in weight. So, it’s pure guesswork.

Worse yet, the mRNA vaccines produce an unpredictable amount of spike protein, and even if they produce much too much, there is no way to turn off the process once you have been injected.

Despite clear safety signals, the FDA’s advisory committee authorized the Pfizer jab for 5- to 11-year-olds unanimously, 17-to-0 (with one abstaining vote). However, when you look at the roster of the FDA’s committee members1 who reviewed and voted to authorize the Pfizer shot for children as young as 5, the unanimous “yes” vote becomes less of a mystery.

Abhorrent Conflicts of Interest

As reported by National File2 and The Defender,3 the membership of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) has had staggering conflicts of interest. Members have included:

A former vice president of Pfizer Vaccines
A paid Pfizer consultant
A recent Pfizer research grant recipient
A mentor to Raphael Simon, senior director of vaccine research and development at Pfizer
James Hidreth — President of Meharry Medical College, which administers Pfizer vaccines
A chair of the Independent Data Monitoring Committee for the Pfizer Group B Streptococcus Vaccine Program
An individual proudly photographed taking a Pfizer vaccine
Several people who are already on the record supporting coronavirus vaccines for children, including Ofer Levy, Jay Portnoy, and Melinda Wharton

In addition to that, former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb is currently on Pfizer’s board of directors. As noted by Nass, two of the members, one permanent and one temporary, is also CDC career employees whose job it is to push vaccines at the CDC.

“If they voted against authorizing a vaccine, they would be out of a job,” Nass says. “They have no business on that committee … It’s a very unethical stew of advisory committee members …

What happened is Pfizer delivered a large package of information to the FDA on October 6, 2021. FDA staff had to go through this large packet of information on the 5- to 11-year-olds and produce their own report, which was about 40 pages long, and create talks to give to the advisory committee, and they did all of this in 17 days.

There was apparently very little critical thought that went into their presentations. Before the meeting, Children’s Health Defense, and I was one of the authors, wrote to the committee and to FDA officials saying, ‘Look, there’s all these reasons that don’t make logical or medical sense for vaccinating kids in this age group, because they almost never get very ill or die, and the side effects of the vaccine are essentially unknown.

We know there are a lot of side effects, but the federal government has concealed from us the rate at which these side effects occur. But we know that the rate from myocarditis is very high, probably at least 1 in 5,000 young males … which is a very serious side effect. It can lead, probably always leads, to some scarring. It can lead to sudden death, to heart failure.”

Trials in Young Children Were Insufficient

As explained by Nass, in the clinical trial, there were two groups of children. The first group was enrolled for two to three months, while the second group was enrolled for just 17 days after receiving the second dose. (Pfizer added the second group because FDA claimed there weren’t enough volunteers in the first group.)

These two groups comprised over 3,000 children who got the jab and 1,500 or 2,000 who got a placebo. None suffered serious side effects. This was then translated into the claim that the injection was safe. However, as noted by Nass:

“They didn’t look at safety in all these kids. Even though FDA had said, ‘Add kids to your clinical trial,’ Pfizer created a ‘safety subset’ of one-tenth of the vaccinated subjects.

It was this small number of kids from whom they drew blood to show they had adequate levels of neutralizing antibodies, which was a surrogate for efficacy, because they didn’t have enough cases of COVID in this abbreviated trial to show that the vaccine actually works in this age group.”

Even though the advisory committee acknowledged that the blood test done for efficacy had not been validated, and wasn’t reliable evidence of effectiveness, they still decided that all children, regardless of health status, would benefit from the injection.

They also ignored the fact that at least half the children are already immune, and giving them the injection will provide no additional benefit in terms of immunity while putting them at increased risk for serious side effects.

“Nobody said, ‘Look, the parents of healthy kids may be dying for a vaccine, but that’s because we haven’t told them the truth about the vaccine. We haven’t told them their kids don’t need it. We haven’t told them it’s going to potentially damage future immunity.

We haven’t told them they’re at higher risk of side effects than if they never had COVID. We’re not allowing them to go get antibody tests to establish that they’re already immune and therefore should be waved from being vaccinated.’

The committee members were aware of all this stuff, but in the end [they voted yes] … apart from one very smart member of the committee who works for the National Institutes of Health. He abstained. He didn’t have the guts to vote no, but he knew this was a bad idea.”

Children Are Being Injected Without Parental Consent

While all of that is bad enough, parents of young children now face the possibility of their children being injected against their will and without their knowledge. Nass comments:

“As I said, we don’t know why the government wants everybody vaccinated, but there’s probably a reason that goes beyond protecting us from COVID.

The government got the FDA to authorize the vaccine for 12- to 15-year-olds on May 10 [2021], and subsequently that group, which is about 6 million kids, has been getting vaccinated across the country. That’s under emergency use so, again, you can’t sue.

But something kind of evil happened, which was many cities began vaccinating 12- to 15-year-olds in the absence of parental permission. So, a child could show up with their friends or a friend’s mother at a vaccine center and get vaccinated with no one asking about their medical history, nobody calling the parents. No notation got entered into the child’s medical record that they were vaccinated.

Vaccinators were told to make their own assessment. If they thought this child could give consent, go ahead and vaccinate. Now, that is a gross violation of our laws, and yet it was happening in Boston, in Philadelphia, in Seattle, in San Francisco, and we have good documentation of it.

The government currently is planning for mobile vaccination clinics for kids and vaccinations in schools, and they may take this program of vaccinating without parental consent down to the 5- to 11-year-olds …

In fact, we may see clinics popping up that don’t require informed consent in the 5- to 11-year-old group. Let me just mention that the chief medical officer in Canada’s British Columbia said they have brought laws that allow children of any age to consent for themselves. Think about that. A baby can consent for vaccinations for itself. It would be funny if it wasn’t so diabolical.”

All of this goes against the most basic concept of medical ethics, which is informed consent. No one has the right to perform a medical procedure on you without your consent, or the consent of a legal guardian. The government, again, without establishing any new laws, is simply bypassing the legal system.

Will Young Children Be at Risk for Myocarditis?

Based on her review of the scientific literature, Nass suspects younger children in the now COVID jab-approved, 5- to 11-year-old age group will be at exponentially higher risk of myocarditis and other side effects compared to the 12- to 15-year group, where we’ve already seen a documented increase.

“In the letter that Children’s Health Defense wrote to the advisory committee for the FDA, we created a graph based on the reporting rate of myocarditis versus age, and we showed there was an exponential curve.

Men aged 65 and up had a rate that was 1/100th the rate of boys aged 12 to 17. If that exponential curve keeps going up, the rate in the 5- to 11-year-olds could be even dramatically higher. In those young men, a 1 in 5,000 rate was reported to VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System]. That’s not a real rate.

That just tells us how many people got diagnosed with myocarditis, and then went to the trouble of reporting it to the FDA. The FDA and CDC have a large number of other databases from which they can gather rates of illness.

VAERS is considered passive reporting. It is not considered fit for purpose to establish illness rates because we don’t know how many people report. Do 1 in 10 report, 1 in 100, 1 in 50? Nobody knows.

However, again, because everything is crazy since the pandemic came in, the CDC has tried to pull the wool over our eyes and has claimed that the rate of anaphylaxis in the population from COVID vaccines is identical to their reporting rate to VAERS. We know that’s not true.

On the CDC’s website, that’s what they have. Elsewhere on the website, they say you can’t take a VAERS rate and call it an actual rate of reactions, but they’ve done that [for anaphylaxis]. And they’re trying to obfuscate the fact that they’re not giving you real rates, and sort of pretending that the myocarditis rate is probably the VAERS reporting rate of myocarditis, although they’re not saying so directly.”

Nass goes on to recount an example from the smallpox vaccine, which also caused myocarditis. A military study that just looked at cases sent to specialists found roughly 1 in 15,000 developed myocarditis. A military immunologist then dug deeper, and drew blood on soldiers before and after vaccination, and found a myocarditis rate of 1 in 220 after receiving the smallpox vaccine.

However, 1 soldier in 30 developed subclinical myocarditis where troponin rose from normal to more than two times the upper limits of normal. While asymptomatic, 1 in 30 had measurable inflammation of the heart. “Right now, in terms of what the rate is for COVID, nobody is looking, no federal agency wants to find out the real rate,” Nass says.

You Can’t Find Problems You Refuse to Look For

A simple study that measures troponin levels — a marker for heart inflammation and damage — before and after each dose, could easily determine what the real rate of myocarditis is, yet that is not being done.

“This is what we’re dealing with,” Nass says. “All these databases, which is about a dozen different databases, that CDC and FDA said they could access to determine the rates of side effects after vaccination with COVID vaccines, they’re either not being used or being used improperly,” Nass says.

“It was discovered that a new algorithm was being used to study the VAERS database that only came into use in January 2021, immediately after the vaccines were authorized, and the algorithm was developed such that you compare two vaccines to each other.

If the pattern of side effects was similar between the two vaccines — which is often the case because there’s a limited number of general vaccine adverse reactions — even if one vaccine has a thousand times more side effects as the one it is being compared to, by using this flawed algorithm, if the pattern of reactions was the same, even though the rates were 1,000 times higher for one, the algorithm would fail to detect a problem.

That is the algorithm they’re using to analyze VAERS [data]. They’re also using bad methods … to analyze the vaccine safety database, which encompasses 12 million Americans who enrolled in HMOs around the country. The CDC pays for access to their electronic medical records and their data.

Somehow when these databases have been looked at carefully, they’re finding very low rates of myocarditis in boys, approximately equal to the VAERS reporting. It was said months ago, ‘We can’t find a safety signal for myocarditis. We’re not finding an anaphylaxis signal. we’re not finding a Bell’s palsy signal.’

The FDA’s and CDC’s algorithms couldn’t pick up for most known side effects. So, there’s something wrong with the analytic methods that are being used, but the agencies haven’t told us precisely what they are. What we do know is that the rates of side effects that are being reported to VAERS are phenomenal.

They’re orders of magnitude higher than for any previous vaccines used in the United States. An order of magnitude is 10-fold, so rates of reported adverse reactions are 10 to 100 times higher than what has been reported for any other vaccine. Reported deaths after COVID in the United States are 17,000+. It’s off the charts.

Other side effects reported after COVID vaccinations total over 800,000. Again, more deaths and more side effects than have ever been reported for every vaccine combined in use in the U.S. cumulatively over 30 years.”

Despite all this shocking data, our federal agencies look the other way, pretending as if nothing is happening, and no matter how many people approach them — with lawsuits, with public comments, reaching out to politicians — they refuse to address blatantly obvious concerns. This is clear evidence that they’re acting with intentional malice.

The FDA and CDC are supposed to protect the public. They’re supposed to identify safety concerns. They’re not supposed to act as marketing firms for drug companies, but that’s precisely what they’ve been converted to.

New Formulations Have Never Been Tested

Another truly egregious fact is that Pfizer has altered its formulation, allegedly to make it more stable, but this new formulation has never been included in any of the trials. Nass explains:

“During the October 26, 2021, VRBPAC [Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee] meeting, Pfizer said, ‘Look, we want to give the vaccines in doctor’s offices and we’ve found a way to stabilize the vaccine so we don’t need those ultra-cold fridges anymore. We can put these vials in a doctor’s office and, once defrosted, they can sit in a regular fridge 10 weeks and they’ll be fine.’

Some committee members asked, ‘OK, what’d you do? How did you make this marvelous discovery?’ And they said, ‘We went from the phosphate buffered saline buffer to a Tris buffer, and we slightly changed some electrolytes.’ A committee member asked, ‘OK, how did that make it so much more stable?’ And everybody in the meeting from FDA and Pfizer looked at each other and said, ‘We don’t know.’

An hour later, Pfizer had one of their chemists get on the line, but he couldn’t explain how the change in buffer led to a huge increase in stability, either. Then, later in the meeting, one of the members of the committee asked, ‘Did you use this new formulation in the clinical trial?’

And Dr. Bill Gruber, the lead Pfizer representative, said, ‘No, we didn’t.’ In other words, Pfizer plans, with FDA connivance, to use an entirely new vaccine formulation in children, after their clinical trials used the old formulation. This is grossly illegal. They’ve got a new formulation of vaccine. It wasn’t tested in humans. And they’re about to use it on 28 million American kids.”

It’s nothing short of a dystopian nightmare. Completely surreal. You can’t make this stuff up. Yet as shocking as all this is, earlier this year, Dr. Anthony Fauci projected that these COVID jabs would be available for everyone, from infants to the elderly. Now they’ve got the 5-year-olds, and there’s every reason to suspect they’ll go after newborns and infants next.

Whose Babies Will Be Offered Up as Sacrificial Lambs?

According to Nass, Pfizer and the FDA have struck a deal that will allow Pfizer to test on babies even younger than 6 months old, even if there’s no intention to inject infants that young. Those trials may begin as early as the end of January 2022.

“This arrangement between FDA and Pfizer will give Pfizer its extra six months of patent protection, whether or not these vaccines are intended to be used in those age groups. So, you can look at these trials as a way of almost sacrificing little children, because when you start a trial, you don’t know what the dangers are going to be.

I could be wrong, but I doubt we’re going to give these to newborn babies the way we give the hepatitis B vaccine on the date of birth, yet they will be tested in very young babies. The question is, whose babies get tested? In the past, sometimes the babies that got tested were foster children, wards of the state. Sometimes parents offer up their children. But there will be clinical trials.”

When will we get the data from those trials? It turns out that in the agreements reached between Pfizer and the FDA, some of those trials won’t conclude until 2024, 2025, and 2027. The goal here is to vaccinate all Americans, children, and adults, within the coming few months or a year, yet it’ll be five years before we actually know from clinical trials what the side effects may be.

We’re Living in Clown World

As noted by Nass, this is yet another crime. It may fulfill the letter of the law, but it doesn’t fulfill the meaning of the law. It makes no sense to run clinical trials that won’t be completed until five years after your mass vaccination program has been completed and the entire population is injected.

“It’s just a joke to do that,” Nass says. “But FDA has become Clown World, and what they do now is to perform a charade of all the normal regulatory processes that they are expected to do, but they’re only doing them in an abbreviated or peculiar manner so that they don’t really collect the important data.

For example, the control group has been vaccinated two months into the Pfizer trials, which effectively obscures side effects that develop after two months. Blood is not tested for evidence of myocarditis or blood clots using simple tests (troponin and D-dimer levels).

For all the Americans out there who haven’t spent 20 years examining the FDA procedures like I have, these FDA advisory committee meetings are it’s designed to make you think a real regulatory process is going on, when it’s not. Instead we are all guinea pigs, but no one is collecting the data that would normally be required to authorize or approve a vaccine. Therefore, in my opinion, nobody should get these shots.“

To make matters even worse, it’s actually illegal to grant EUAs for these vaccines, because there are drugs that can prevent the condition (COVID), as well as treat it. EUAs can only be granted if there are no existing approved, available alternatives to prevent or treat the infection.

The effective drugs most have already heard of are ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, but there are a number of other drugs that also have profound effects on COVID, Nass says, including TriCor and cyproheptadine (Periactin).

TriCor, or fenofibrate, emulsifies lipid nanoparticles and fatty conglomerations that contain viruses and inflammatory substances. The drug essentially allows your body to break down the viral and inflammatory debris better. As such, it might also help combat complications caused by the nanoliposomes in the COVID shot.

According to Nass, Pepcid at high doses of up to 80 milligrams three times a day is also useful for treatment. Dr. Robert Malone is starting a clinical trial using a combination of Pepcid and celecoxib (brand name Celebrex). Many are also recommending aspirin to prevent platelet activation and clotting.

I believe a far better alternative to aspirin is lumbrokinase, and/or serrapeptase. Both are fibrinolytic enzymes that address blood clotting. You can develop sensitivity to them, so I recommend alternating the two on alternate days for about three months if you’ve had COVID.

You could rule out blood clotting by doing a D-dimer test. If your D-dimer is normal, you don’t need an anticlotting agent. If clotting is a concern, you could also use NAC in addition to these fibrinolytic enzymes. It too helps break up clots and prevent clot formation.

More Information

To learn more, be sure to peruse MerylNassMD.com and anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com. She typically posts something every day to her Blogspot blog. In closing, Nass concludes:

“Remember, all the COVID jabs are authorized [under EUA], not licensed. They’re all legally, technically, experimental. I know you can lose your job and all these terrible things can happen if you refuse the vaccine, but if you are injured by the shot, you won’t be able to sue later. You will be on your own.

Legally, they can’t force you to accept the vaccine while it is in EUA status because of the Nuremberg code, because of existing U.S. law about informed consent, and because of the actual statute on emergency use authorization, which says you have the right to refuse. They can’t force you to take these [shots].

I know they are forcing you, but legally they can’t, and please keep that in mind. Hopefully these wrongs will be redressed. Mandates are being walked back in many jurisdictions.

As I’ve told people, demand to see the bottle that says Comirnaty, because legally, they can force the licensed product on you, but there isn’t any right now. So, you have an out for the next few months, hopefully.

They’re really dangerous vaccines. What you don’t know will hurt you. Please protect your children. If there’s any way, don’t get vaccinated. The more people who say no, the more the government is already backing down. In many cities, the imposed dates by which you have to be vaccinated have been pushed back.

Now Biden’s administration is saying, ‘Well, it’s not going to be carved in stone. We’re going to negotiate with people because they don’t want to lose 30% or 40% of their staff.’ So, be strong, protect yourself and your children. Know you’re doing the right thing.

We’ve got a criminal organization running things now. This is a worldwide program of some kind designed to control us. Once we all figure it out, we can win. There’s many, many more of us than there are of them.”

Sources and References



6 Studies Showing Why Children Don’t Need — and Shouldn’t Get — a COVID Vaccine

When it comes to COVID, public health officials have consistently downplayed and/or ignored natural immunity.

Yet these public health experts and many doctors and scientists know that no vaccine can confer the type of robust, full, sterilizing, and life-long immunity to COVID that natural-exposure immunity confers.

Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) know anyone exposed, infected, and recovered from SARS-CoV-2 has acquired cellular immunity.

They know how natural immunity works, yet they continue to deceive the public on this issue by falsely insisting vaccines are the only answer to “ending the pandemic.”

The authors of a 2008 study on the 1918 pandemic virus showed how potent and long-lived natural immunity is, and how the immune system generates new antibodies if and when needed (re-exposed).

The researchers wrote:

“A study of the blood of older people who survived the 1918 influenza pandemic reveals that antibodies to the strain have lasted a lifetime and can perhaps be engineered to protect future generations against similar strains … the group collected blood samples from 32 pandemic survivors aged 91 to 101 … the people recruited for the study were 2 to 12 years old in 1918 and many recalled sick family members in their households, which suggests they were directly exposed to the virus … The group found that 100% of the subjects had serum-neutralizing activity against the 1918 virus and 94% showed serologic reactivity to the 1918 hemagglutinin.

“The investigators generated B lymphoblastic cell lines from the peripheral blood mononuclear cells of eight subjects. Transformed cells from the blood of 7 of the 8 donors yielded secreting antibodies that bound the 1918 hemagglutinin.

“ … here we show that of the 32 individuals tested that were born in or before 1915, each showed seroreactivity with the 1918 virus, nearly 90 years after the pandemic. Seven of the eight donor samples tested had circulating B cells that secreted antibodies that bound the 1918 HA. We isolated B cells from subjects and generated five monoclonal antibodies that showed potent neutralizing activity against the 1918 virus from three separate donors. These antibodies also cross-reacted with the genetically similar HA of a 1930 swine H1N1 influenza strain.”

The very same CDC that fights against COVID natural immunity, argues just the opposite when it comes to chickenpox.

Guidance on the CDC website, “Chickenpox Vaccination: What Everyone Should Know,” states: “People 13 years of age and older who have never had chickenpox or received chickenpox vaccine should get two doses, at least 28 days apart.”

In this reasonable guidance, the CDC says you need the chickenpox jab if you “have never had chickenpox.” If you have had it, then you do not need the vaccine.

The CDC goes even further, stating: “You do not need to get the chickenpox vaccine if you have evidence of immunity against the disease.” So if someone has had chickenpox and recovered, and can demonstrate that via a laboratory test, they don’t need the vaccine.

Again, this makes sense. All parents know this and have for generations. You do not need a vaccine for measles if you already had measles and cleared the rash and recovered. Natural, beautiful robust immunity, typically lasts for the rest of a person’s life.

The same goes for the CDC’s guidance for the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR). The CDC clearly states no MMR vaccine is needed if “You have laboratory confirmation of past infection or had blood tests that show you are immune to measles, mumps, and rubella.”

So, what is different for COVID-19? Is something other than science at play here?

We now have a major crisis as the race is on to vaccinate our 5- to 11-year-old children who bring no risk to the table, with a vaccine that has been shown to be sub-optimal and carrying risks.

We even have one of the FDA advisory committee members, Dr. Eric Rubin, who is also lead editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, stating: “We’re never gonna learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it.”

This is a shocking statement by someone who played a role in the decision-making and should lead us to examine if Rubin and others on that committee were conflicted in terms of relationships with the vaccine developers.

Rubin further stated: “The data show that the vaccine works and it’s pretty safe … we’re worried about a side effect that we can’t measure yet,” he said, referring to a heart condition called myocarditis.

So then why would Rubin and others agree to expose our children to potential harm from a vaccine for an illness that poses little risk to children, if they have serious concerns and admit they have not and cannot yet measure the safety?

This depth of uncertainty should never exist in any drug or vaccine that the FDA regulates, much fewer drug officials propose to administer to 28 million children. Something is very wrong here.

It is clear that children are at very low risk of spreading the infection to other children, of spreading to adults as seen in household transmission studies, or of taking it home or becoming ill, or dying — this is settled scientific global evidence ((references 1, 2, 3, 4).

An April 2021 study in the Journal of Infection (April 2021) examined household transmission rates in children and adults. The authors reported there was “no transmission from an index-person < 18 years (child) to a household contact < 18 years (child) (0/7), but 26 transmissions from adult index-cases to household contacts < 18 years (child) (26/71, SAR 0=37).”

These findings add to the stable existing evidence that children are not spreading the virus to children but rather that adults are spreading it to children.

Why vaccinate our children for this mild and typically non-consequential virus when they bring protective innate immunity towards this SARS-VoV-2, other coronaviruses, and other respiratory viruses?

Why push to vaccinate our children who may well be immune due to prior exposure (asymptomatic or mild illness) and cross-reactivity/cross-protection? Why not consider assessing their immune status?

Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche writes that children’s innate immunity:

“… normally/ naturally largely protects them and provides a kind of herd immunity in that it dilutes infectious CoV pressure at the level of the population, whereas mass vaccination turns them into shedders of more infectious variants. Children/ youngsters who get the disease mostly develop mild to moderate disease and as a result continue to contribute to herd immunity by developing broad and long-lived immunity.”

Here are six studies that make the case for not vaccinating children:

1. A 2020 Yale University report indicates children and adults display very diverse and different immune system responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection which explains why they have far less illness or mortality from COVID. 

According to the study:

“Since the earliest days of the COVID-19 outbreak, scientists have observed that children infected with the virus tend to fare much better than adults … researchers reported that levels of two immune system molecules — interleukin 17A (IL-17A), which helps mobilize immune system response during early infection, and interferon-gamma (INF-g), which combats viral replication — was strongly linked to the age of the patients. The younger the patient, the higher the levels of IL-17A and INF-g, the analysis showed…these two molecules are part of the innate immune system, a more primitive, non-specific type of response activated early after infection.”

2. Studies by Ankit B. Patel and Dr. Supinda Bunyavanich show the virus uses the ACE 2 receptor to gain entry to the host cell, and the ACE 2 receptor has limited (less) expression and presence in the nasal epithelium in young children (potentially in upper respiratory airways).

This partly explains why children are less likely to be infected in the first place or spread it to other children or adults, or even get severely ill. The biological molecular apparatus is simply not there in the nasopharynx of children. By bypassing this natural protection (limited nasal ACE 2 receptors in young children) and entering the shoulder deltoid, this could release vaccine, its mRNA and LNP content (e.g. PEG), and generate spike into the circulation that could then damage the endothelial lining of the blood vessels (vasculature) and cause severe allergic reactions (e.g., here, here, here, here, here).

3. William Briggs reported on the n=542 children who died (0-17 years (crude rate of 0.00007 per 100 and under 1-year-old n=132, CDC data) since January 2020 with a diagnosis of COVID linked to their death. This does not indicate whether, as Johns Hopkins’ Dr. Marty Makary has been clamoring, the death was “causal or incidental.” That said, from January 2020, 1,043 children 0-17 have died of pneumonia. 

Briggs reported:

“There is no good vaccine for pneumonia. But it could be avoided by keeping kids socially distanced from each other — permanently. If one death is “too many,” then you must not allow kids to be within contact of any human being who has a disease that may be passed to them, from which they may acquire pneumonia. They must also not be allowed in any car … in one year, just about 3,091 kids 0-17 died in car crashes (435 from 0-4, 847 from 5-14, and 30% of 6,031 from 15-24). Multiply these 3,000 deaths in cars by about 1.75, since the COVID deaths are over a 21-month period. That makes about 5,250 kids dying in car crashes in the same period — 10 times as many as Covid.”

Briggs concluded: “there exists no justification based on any available evidence for mandatory vaccines for kids.”

4. Weisberg and Farber et al. suggest (and building on research work by Kumar and Faber) that the reason children can more easily neutralize the virus is that their T cells are relatively naïve. They argue that since children’s T cells are mostly untrained, they can thus immunologically respond (optimally differentiate) more rapidly and nimbly to novel viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 for an effective robust response. 

5. Research published in August 2021 by J. Loske deepens our understanding of this natural type of biological/molecular protection even further by showing that “pre-activated (primed) antiviral innate immunity in the upper airways of children work to control early SARS-CoV-2 infection … the airway immune cells in children are primed for virus sensing…resulting in a stronger early innate antiviral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection than in adults.”

6. When one is vaccinated or becomes infected naturally, this drives the formation, tissue distribution, and clonal evolution of B cells, which is key to encoding humoral immune memory.

Research published in May 2021 showed that blood examined from children retrieved prior to the COVID-19 pandemic have memory B cells that can bind to SARS-CoV-2, suggestive of the potent role of early childhood exposure to common cold coronaviruses (coronaviruses). This is supported by Mateus et al. who reported on T cell memory to prior coronaviruses that cause the common cold (cross-reactivity/cross-protection).

There is no data or evidence or science to justify any of the COVID-19 injections in children. Can the content of these vaccines cross the blood-brain barrier in children? We don’t know because it wasn’t studied.

There is no proper safety data. The focus rather has to be on early treatment and testing (sero antibody or T-cell) to establish who is a credible candidate for these injections, as it is dangerous to layer inoculation on top of existing COVID-recovered, naturally acquired immunity.

There is no benefit and only potential harm/adverse effects (here, here, here).

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.




Vaccine-Injured Speak Out, Feel Abandoned by Government Who Told Them COVID Shot Was Safe

U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) on Tuesday held a discussion with a panel of experts, including clinicians, scientists, lawyers, and patient advocates, and with people injured by COVID vaccines, who gave powerful testimonies about their experiences.

Johnson and the expert panel discussed the importance of early treatment for COVID, healthcare freedom and natural immunity, the impacts of mandates on the American workforce and the economy, COVID vaccine safety concerns, and the lack of transparency from federal health agencies in response to his COVID oversight requests.

None of the major mainstream media outlets picked up the event, but Children’s Health Defense hosted Johnson’s live panel discussion on CHD.TV.

Cody Flint [57.20], a 33-year-old airline pilot from Cleveland, Mississippi, was among those who spoke out about their injuries. Flint was healthy and had no underlying health conditions prior to receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.

Within 30 minutes of getting his first dose on Feb. 1, Flint developed a severe stabbing headache that later became a burning sensation in the back of his neck.

Two days later, he got into his airplane to do a job and quickly realized something wasn’t right.

Flint explained:

“I was starting to develop tunnel vision and my headache was getting worse. Approximately two hours into my flying I pulled my airplane up to turn around and felt an extreme burst of pressure in my ears. Instantly I was nearly blacked out, dizzy, disoriented, nauseous, and shaking uncontrollably. By the grace of God, I was able to land my plane without incident, though I do not remember doing this.

“My initial diagnosis of vertigo and a severe panic attack — although I’ve never had a history of either of these — was later replaced with left and right perilymphatic fistula, eustachian tube dysfunction, and elevated intracranial pressure due to brain swelling. My condition continued to decline and my doctors told me only an adverse reaction to the Pfizer vaccination or major head trauma could have caused this much spontaneous damage.”

Flint underwent numerous spinal taps and two surgeries to address the fistulas and intracranial pressure. He said he has more questions than answers, does not know if he will ever be able to fly a plane again, lost a year of his life and part of his children’s lives.

“This vaccine has taken my career from me, and the future I have worked so hard to build,” Flint said. “I used all my savings just to pay medical bills just to be able to survive. My family is on the verge of losing everything we have.”

Flint, who is pro-science and pro-vaccine, said the main issue rests squarely on the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NIH (National Institutes of Health) refuse to acknowledge that real lives are being absolutely destroyed by this vaccine.

“The federal government has yet to help a single one of the vaccine-injured,” Flint said. “It was my understanding the federal government accepted the responsibility of helping people injured by vaccines, considering they gave pharmaceutical companies fully legal immunity from people like me.”

Flint said it is time for the government to stop silencing vaccine injuries like his, and it is unconscionable for these agencies not to help.

​​Lt. Col. Theresa Long [101:00], a U.S. Army surgeon, said she believes the COVID vaccine is a greater threat to a soldier’s health and military readiness than the virus itself.

“Over 200,000 service members have rejected the vaccine yet the military is pressing forward without regard to the damage to the morale and readiness to process these soldiers out,” Long said. “We have never lost 200,000 soldiers on the battlefield in a few months. Taking soldiers out of uniform has the same impact on readiness as losing them on the battlefield.”

Long explained she tried to get senior leadership within the military to inform military members of the risks of vaccines, as required by informed consent.

She said in one day, she had to ground three out of three pilots due to COVID vaccine injuries. When she told her command, her patients were canceled, her charts were pulled for review and Long was told she would not be seeing acute patients anymore — just healthy pilots who needed physicals.

Ernest Ramirez [1:16:40], from Texas, said his only son, 16 years old, collapsed while playing basketball and passed away from myocarditis following Pfizer vaccination. Ramirez got his son the Pfizer vaccine to protect him because it was the right thing to do.

“My government lied to me,” Ramirez said. “They said it was safe, and now I go home to an empty house,” Ramerez said. “They need to quit pushing this on children. I lost mine and you need to protect yours.”

Ramerez said the vaccine isn’t worth the risks, and all he wants is his son back. “Do not make the mistake I made. I did it because I thought it was a great thing to do. It wasn’t.”

“On Dec. 17, 2020, they did a study and they knew it [the COVID vaccine] was causing heart problems in teenagers. Why wasn’t it released until October of this year?” Ramerez asked. “This is murder.”

“I love the “hell out of my country,” Ramerez said, “but I do not trust my government anymore.”

Kyle Werner [123:40:40] is a 29-year-old professional mountain bike racer and three-time national champion from Idaho who was diagnosed with pericarditis following vaccination.

Werner said he got vaccinated because his country asked him to and he believed the vaccine was safe and effective.

“In June, I joined the rapidly growing number of young men who developed pericarditis — inflammation of the lining surrounding the heart — post mRNA vaccine,” Werner said. “That condition, along with POTS [postural orthostatic tachycardia] and reactive arthritis, have completely brought an end to life as I knew it.”

Werner said he has since been bedridden, is unable to work, and is unable to exercise for months. He fears his career “has been officially ended.”

Werner said he isn’t asking the government to end the vaccine program, he just wants some transparency and acknowledgment of what’s happening so that “we as a country” can have an honest discussion of the risks.

“Where there is a risk, there must be the choice, and without acknowledging people are being seriously injured and dying, we are doing a great disservice to the American people,” Werner said.

“It is estimated Moderna and Pfizer will make $60 billion this year on COVID vaccines,” Werner said. “With the roll-out of boosters and mandates, it seems like much of that is destined to be recurring revenue.”

Werner suggested a portion of the profits should be set aside to study vaccine injuries and to compensate the vaccine-injured.

Douglas Cameron [127:29] was a healthy and physically active 64-year-old before he received the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) shot at his workplace on April 5. The day after his vaccination he started experiencing side effects he believed were due to the vaccine.

“I lost bladder control, suffered ED [erectile dysfunction], my legs felt odd, I had a […] sensation in my hips” and “over the next few days my symptoms worsened and I became alarmed.”

Cameron went to the ER where he explained to doctors he had recently received J&J’s vaccine. He tested positive for COVID and underwent a battery of tests before being sent home.

Three days later Cameron told his wife he felt like he drank poison. “My whole body felt different,” Cameron said. “I went to bed at 10:00 p.m at night and woke up at 2 a.m paralyzed from the diaphragm down.”

Doctors discovered Cameron had a blood clot in his leg and his entire spinal cord had swollen and hemorrhaged. He was placed on a ventilator, was in the ICU for two weeks and spent 105 days in the hospital and rehab centers.

“I have had multiple MRIs, CT scans, EKGs, x-rays, spinal angiograms, spinal taps, autoimmune blood tests, muscle biopsies — everything has come back negative in an attempt to pin my paralysis on my body and not the J&J vaccine,” Cameron said. “Today I am an unemployed paraplegic who is learning an entirely new lifestyle and the only thing I did between full health and my current condition took a shot.”

Suzanna Newell [1:32:30] a former triathlete from Minnesota, was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease after receiving her second dose of Pfizer on April 13. She now needs a walker or cane to get around.

Since Newell was injured she has had very little motivation or energy. She has extreme fatigue, struggles to retrieve words, can’t concentrate or focus, has ringing in her ears, blurred vision, muscle spasms, internal vibrations, and joint pain. Newell was diagnosed with small-fiber neuropathy, an autoimmune disorder, and is now on disability.

“This is not a pandemic of the unvaccinated. This is a pandemic of trauma.” Newell said. “We are unnecessarily being traumatized due to our cases being overlooked, misdiagnosed, and hidden. We aren’t being believed and our trust in the media and government is faltering.”

Newell said at a minimum, the public has a right to know that injuries are a possibility before they’re vaccinated. Newell said she was excited to get the vaccine to do her part for her country, but “where is my country now?”

Kelly Ann Rodriguez [1:43:30], a 35-year-old mother from Washington, needs a walker after her second Pfizer vaccine dose on May 5.

“On June 29, my predictable life came to a screeching halt,” Rodriguez said. “I lost my ability to speak naturally. I have become unable to walk without a walker and I do not know if or when the tremors will come or go. I can no longer cook, clean, or even pick up or hold my baby for too long before my body starts to shake uncontrollably or is thrown into excruciating pain.”

Rodriguez explained:

“This has become the most lonely and isolating experience in my 35 years of life. I have been made to feel that I do not matter to those in western medicine. That I am nothing more than an annoyance and waste of time. I deserve to be heard and treated with compassion, but instead, I have been called a liar and a fake and I have even been told by the ER doctors that this is all in my head and there is nothing medically wrong with me, to the point where they called a social worker to have me evaluated and committed to a […] mental health hospital.

Maddie de Garay from Ohio volunteered for the Pfizer vaccine trial when she was 12. On Jan. 20, Maddie received her second dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine as a participant in the clinical trial for 12- to 15-year-olds and is now in a wheelchair.

Her vaccine adverse reaction has been completely ignored by the FDA, CDC, Pfizer, and the mainstream media.

Maddie and her mother, Stephanie de Garay also participated in Johnson’s June 29 press conference for vaccine-injured families. De Garay’s mother said neither Pfizer, the FDA, or CDC have contacted her about her daughter’s condition, and Maddie’s adverse event was excluded from the data Pfizer reported about its clinical trial.

Dr. Joe Wallskog [3:01:00], an orthopedic surgeon from Wisconsin, was diagnosed with transverse myelitis after receiving Moderna vaccination on Dec. 30. Wallskog has been off work since attempting to go back two weeks after his diagnosis, as he is no longer safe to work as an orthopedic surgeon.

Wallskog has not been contacted by U.S. health agencies, other than the CDC verifying his report was submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting stem (VAERS). His injury was not classified as “serious,” because he was not hospitalized and did not die.

“My life has dramatically changed after this adverse reaction,” Wallskog said.“The career I’ve had for 19 years, that I took 14 years to train for is likely over.”

Brianne Dressen [2:40:00], a clinical trial participant in the U.S. AstraZeneca trial, is co-founder of react19.org — a patient advocacy organization dedicated to increasing awareness of adverse events.

Dressen participated in Johnson’s June 29 press conference, and her husband provided public comment to the FDA during their recent hearing on the authorization of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine for 5 to 11-year-olds.

Dressen suffered an adverse event in Nov. 2020 during the AstraZeneca clinical trial, was dropped from the trial and her reaction was excluded from AstraZeneca’s reported data.

Dressen said:

“The heads of the NIH, FDA, and CDC have known first-hand about my case and thousands of others,” Dressen said. “These direct reports began as early as last December. I along with several injured physicians continued to reach out to the FDA through emails and phone calls. We did emails and video conferences with Peter Marks and Janet Woodcock.”

Dressen said she has “asked and begged repeatedly for them to acknowledge these reactions,” but they declined.

“They know their lack of acknowledgment has created an insurmountable barrier to our ability to receive medical care from doctors who rely on these agencies for information,” Dressen said.

Dressen said U.S. health agencies are aware of vaccine injuries, deaths, the lack of follow-up on VAERS, injuries to children, problems with clinical trials, the scientific and media censorship and mandates imposed on the injured. “They know all of it,” Dressen said, “and they have for months.”

Dressen said the NIH, an institute many turned to for help, is no longer accepting calls from the vaccine-injured.

“Here’s your proper informed consent. If you get COVID, you will get medical help,” Dressen said. “But I’m afraid to tell you” if you have an adverse reaction, “you’re on your own. The government won’t help you. The drug companies won’t help you. The medical teams will have no idea how to help you. Financially you will on your own. You will be completely on your own.”

Dressen ended her testimony by sharing a letter from a friend who committed suicide because she could no longer endure her COVID vaccine injury.




‘The Idea That the Unvaccinated Are a Threat to You Is Ridiculous,’ Jimmy Dore Explains

On a recent episode of “The Jimmy Dore Show,” comedian and political commentator Jimmy Dore condemned the popular portrayal of COVID policy critics as anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists.

“Because I’ve been giving a critical examination of the COVID narrative, they’re calling me anti-vax, even though I’m double vaccinated,” said Dore. “And I’m not anti-vaccine, I’m anti-mandate.”

Dore said he’s against COVID vaccine mandates because vaccinated individuals can still spread the disease to others. He took issue with the popular justification for mandate policies —  the need to protect others from disease.

“That isn’t what the science shows,” Dore said. “A vaccinated person does not protect other people.”

Dore pointed to an Oct. 28 Bloomberg article on how COVID vaccines don’t protect people from getting the virus.

According to the article:

“People inoculated against COVID-19 are just as likely to spread the Delta variant of the virus to contacts in their household as those who haven’t had shots, according to new research.”

The article cited research, published in the Lancet Journal of Infectious Disease, showing “the peak viral load of COVID patients was similar regardless of vaccination status.” The researchers wrote:

“The ongoing transmission we are seeing between vaccinated people makes it essential for unvaccinated people to get vaccinated to protect themselves.”

Commenting on the research, Dore said:

“So you get vaccinated to protect yourself. That’s what the science says … but the medical establishment is telling you to get vaccinated to protect other people and so we can reach herd immunity and this study proves that this narrative which says if we vaccinate everyone there will be no more COVID … it’s not actually true.

“Even if you vaccinate 100% of the population, according to the science, people will still be giving and getting COVID … the idea that the unvaccinated are a threat to you is ridiculous because the vaccinated are just as likely to spread COVID as the unvaccinated.”

Dore also cited a recent Harvard study showing countries and counties with the highest vaccination rates also have the highest rates of transmission.

“The idea that you can vaccinate your way out of the pandemic is completely incorrect,” Dore said. “This false narrative is coming from the corporate media and Big Pharma and it’s not right.”

“So we’re against mandates on principle and because they’re unscientific and guess who was also against mandates?” Dore asked.

Dore played a clip from an August 2020 interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief medical advisor to President Biden, in which Fauci said, “I don’t think you’ll ever see a mandating of [COVID-19] vaccines for the general public … you would never mandate it.”

When the interviewer asked Fauci what the contingency plan would be for those who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19, Fauci said people who refuse the vaccine “have every right to refuse and I don’t think you even need a contingency plan.”

Dore also played a clip, from April, of Nancy Pelosi, echoing a similar point: “We cannot require someone to be vaccinated and it’s a matter of privacy to know who is or who is not vaccinated.”

“What changed?” asked Dore.

Dore said government officials who claim COVID is a pandemic of the unvaccinated were proven wrong this week when White House Press Sec. Jen Psaki, who is double vaccinated, came down with a case of symptomatic COVID.

Watch the segment here:

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.