Pfizer, Moderna Vaccines ‘Dramatically Increase’ Heart Attack Risk, Renowned Cardiologist Warns

The COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines “dramatically increase” a common measure of heart risk in people.

That’s according to a recently published “warning” in the journal Circulation by cardiologist Dr. Steven Gundry, who is called a pioneer in infant heart transplant surgery.

The analysis was presented at the recent meeting of the American Heart Association.

The “dramatic changes in most patients” mean they are at higher risk of a new acute coronary syndrome, such as a heart attack, according to Gundry.

In part, the analysis states:

“We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.”

Gundry explained:

“Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.”

Thousands of heart-related injuries have been reported following COVID mRNA vaccines. These injuries lead to the formation and progression of cardiac lesions which may become unstable and rupture, leading to cardiac events.

The PULS (Protein Unstable Lesion Signature) test measures the most clinically significant protein biomarkers that leak from cardiac lesions in the blood vessel walls, providing a measure of the body’s immune system response to arterial injury.

Scientists have already established a myriad of heart- and blood-related effects of COVID-19 vaccines in some patients, including young people. Among the adverse events linked to the vaccines are thrombosis blood clots and heart inflammation known as myocarditis and pericarditis.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration say the vaccines are safe and effective for everyone they are recommended for, and that the benefits outweigh the known risks, which will be emerging for some years as more people get vaccinated.

Originally published by Sharyl Attkisson.

As Reports of Injuries After COVID Vaccines Near 1 Million Mark, CDC, FDA Clear Pfizer, Moderna Boosters for All Adults

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released new data today showing a total of 894,145 adverse events following COVID vaccines were reported between Dec. 14, 2020, and Nov. 12, 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 18,853 reports of deaths — an increase of 392 over the previous week — and 139,126 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 3,726 compared with the previous week.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 654,413 adverse events, including 8,664 deaths and 54,962 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Nov. 12, 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 8,664 U.S. deaths reported as of Nov. 12, 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., 436.9 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Nov. 12. This includes 254.5 million doses of Pfizer, 166.3 million doses of Moderna, and 16.1 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date.

Every Friday, VAERS publishes 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.

This week’s U.S. data for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

  • 444 adverse events have been reported in the 5 to 11 age group since Nov. 1.
  • The rest of the reports in VAERS for children in the 5 to 11 age group occurred prior to the authorization of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, and are due to ”product administered to the patient of inappropriate age.”

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

The most recent death includes a 16-year-old girl from Missouri (VAERS I.D. 1823671) who died after receiving her second dose of Pfizer.

Other reported deaths include a 17-year-old female from Washington (VAERS I.D. 1828901) who died Oct. 29 reportedly from a heart condition after receiving her second dose of Pfizer; a 12-year-old girl from South Carolina (VAERS I.D. 1784945) who hemorrhaged 22 days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine; and 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.

  • 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.
  • 559 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) with 549 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 134 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.

This week’s U.S. VAERS data, from Dec. 14, 2020, to Nov. 12, 2021, for all age groups combined, show:

FDA, CDC sign off on Pfizer, Moderna COVID boosters for all adults

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today authorized Moderna and Pfizer COVID boosters for all adults. The agency made its decision without input from its advisory committee, whose members, on Sept. 17, voted 16 to 2 against recommending boosters, citing a lack of long-term data and stating the risks did not outweigh the benefits.

Hours after the FDA announced its decision, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) signed off with a unanimous endorsement.

The ACIP said 18- to 49-year-olds “may” get a booster, but people 50 and older should get one. CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky is expected to clear the doses, which will allow boosters to be administered broadly to the general public.

Speaking for the FDA, Dr. Peter Marks, head of the agency’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement:

“The FDA has determined that the currently available data support expanding the eligibility of a single booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines to individuals 18 years of age and older.”

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and an FDA advisory panel member took issue with how the FDA arrived at its decision.

In an email to The Epoch Times, Offit said, “I think it would have been of value for the public to hear an open discussion about the need for boosters. I wish we had had the chance to discuss this.”

The FDA said it did not hold a meeting because “the agency previously convened the committee for extensive discussions regarding the use of booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines and, after review of both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s [Emergency Use Authorization] requests, the FDA concluded that the requests do not raise questions that would benefit from additional discussion by committee members.”

Pfizer and BioNTech requested authorization last week after submitting the results of a phase 3 trial involving more than 10,000 participants.

Moderna resubmitted its application for its 50-microgram booster dose for all adults just two days ago. The company said the FDA based its decision on the “totality of scientific evidence shared by the company,” including data that showed neutralizing antibodies had waned at about six months.

14-year-old Kentucky girl mistakenly given J&J vaccine

A 14-year-old Kentucky girl was mistakenly given J&J’s COVID vaccine, which is not authorized for anyone under the age of 18, International Business Times reported.

The girl was given the jab on Oct. 16 at a vaccine drive-in at a high school in Covington.

The girl’s mother, Rolina Mason, said her daughter was reluctant to get vaccinated and wanted the J&J vaccine because it was only one dose. Mason agreed that the nurse could administer J&J, but didn’t realize it wasn’t authorized for use in children.

Mason said she trusted the nurse who told them that it was okay for her daughter to get it.

The health department contacted Mason a week later and informed her that her daughter should have received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine instead. Mason’s daughter reportedly experienced skin rashes after receiving the shot.

States bypass CDC, gave out COVID boosters to all adults before authorization

State officials from California to Maine encouraged and allowed adult residents to get COVID vaccine boosters despite recommendations by the FDA and CDC to reserve the shots for elderly and high-risk groups, CNBC reported.

California also told medical providers not to turn away any adults who requested a booster.

Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, New Mexico, Vermont, and West Virginia are also promoting widespread rollout of boosters for any fully vaccinated adult, with governors in Colorado and New Mexico signing executive orders a week before the FDA authorized the shots for the general population.

Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia called for all adults in-state to get their boosters, adding that fully vaccinated residents would be “very foolish” not to register for the third dose.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said during a briefing Monday he wanted to make sure everybody 18 and over was eligible and encouraged to get a booster. Danyelle McNeill, a spokesperson for the Arkansas Department of Health, told CNBC in an email “the great majority of adults in Arkansas” were already considered high risk by the CDC before Hutchinson issued his recommendation.

Kentucky approved boosters for fully vaccinated adults on Wednesday, while Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont expanded their booster programs this week before the FDA and CDC signed off, today.

Several children in California sick after receiving wrong COVID vaccine doses

At least two children in California are sick after a clinic administered the wrong doses of a COVID vaccine to 14 kids.

Denise Iserloth said she took her two children, ages 8 and 11, to a clinic where they received 20 micrograms of dosage instead of the recommended 10 micrograms.

Sutter Health said in a statement it warned parents of the mistake as soon as they learned of it, and contacted parents to advise them of CDC guidance. But Iserloth said she wasn’t made aware of the error until 10 hours after her children were vaccinated.

Both of her children stayed home from school on Monday with bad stomach aches, and her oldest child fell down twice in the hours following the shot, Iseroth said.

“I understand the mandate, I tried to comply with it, and my children now have been given a double dose and I don’t know the long-term side effects,” Iserloth said. “[…] It is unacceptable and negligent, completely negligent on their part.”

COVID hospitalizations on the rise among fully vaccinated 

COVID hospitalizations and emergency room visits are on the rise among people who are fully vaccinated, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“What we’re starting to see now is an uptick in hospitalizations among people who’ve been vaccinated but not boosted,” Fauci said Tuesday. “It’s a significant proportion, but not the majority by any means.”

In a White House COVID-19 Response Team briefing Wednesday, Fauci stressed the importance of vaccines and highlighted how well they work. At the same panel, CDC Director Walensky reported a decline in vaccine effectiveness among the elderly and residents of long-term care facilities, many of whom were the first to be eligible to be vaccinated last winter.

The current seven-day rate of COVID hospital admissions is about 5,300 per day, according to the CDC.

It’s not clear how many hospitalizations are breakthrough cases as the agency stopped reporting hospitalizations among fully vaccinated people and its website shows data only through Aug. 28.

CDC admits to not tracking data on natural immunity

In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the CDC said it has no record of an individual previously infected with COVID becoming reinfected or transmitting the virus to others — because the agency doesn’t collect that data.

The FOIA request, submitted Sept. 2 by attorney Aaron Siri of the Siri & Glimstad law firm on behalf of the Informed Consent Action Network, sought documents reflecting any documented case of an individual who: (1) never received a COVID vaccine; (2) was infected with COVID once, recovered, and then later became infected again; and (3) transmitted SARS-CoV-2 to another person when reinfected.

The CDC responded Nov. 5, stating:

“A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. The CDC Emergency Operations Center (EOC) conveyed that this information is not collected.”

According to Siri, the revelation that the CDC does not collect data on people who have acquired natural immunity to the virus raises questions about vaccine mandates, specifically how the government or employers can mandate vaccines for people who may not need them and who could be at a greater-than-average risk of experiencing an adverse reaction to the shots.

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

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

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

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

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.

More Than 200,000 Have Already Died From the COVID Jab in the US

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

  • So far, the CDC has not determined that any death was directly caused by the COVID shot, but that doesn’t mean the injections haven’t killed anyone. Calculations using VAERS data suggest the COVID shots have resulted in 212,000 excess deaths in the U.S.
  • An estimated 300,000 Americans suffered permanent disability from the COVID shots, and anywhere from 2 million to 5 million may have suffered adverse reactions
  • If you’re under the age of 50, your risk of dying from the vaccine is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19
  • Dr. Peter Schirmacher, chief pathologist at the University of Heidelberg, who is recognized as one of the top 100 pathologists in the world, autopsied 40 patients who died within two weeks of their COVID jab, and found 30% to 40% of the deaths were conclusively due to the shot
  • One top neurologist claims to have 2,000 reportable vaccine injuries in 2021, compared to zero in the last 11 years. In all, 5% of her existing patients now have suspected vaccine injuries, but she has only filed two VAERS reports due to the complexity of the filing

Yesterday, October 8, 2021, I published a Highwire exclusive interview with Deborah Conrad, a physician’s assistant who is blowing the whistle on COVID jab injuries, and the fact that these injuries are rarely reported because of a faulty VAERS database design.

Today you’re in for yet another bombshell video: “Vaccine Secrets: COVID Crisis.” It’s the first episode of “The False Narrative Takedown Series,” produced by Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund.

“Vaccine Secrets” complements and supports everything Conrad shared in her interview, so I highly recommend saving these files on your computer and watching both of them. Both are available on Bitchute.

How Many Have Died From the COVID Jabs?

According to Kirsch, the COVID shots have already killed an estimated 200,000 Americans, a far higher number than the 15,386 deaths reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as of September 17, 2021.1 You can find all the research for Episode 1 of the “False Narrative Takedown” series on SKirsch.io/vaccine-resources.2

As noted by Kirsch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky claims no causative link has been found for any of these deaths. She’s not lying, per se. But she’s also not telling the whole truth.

So far, the CDC has not determined that any death was directly caused by the COVID shot, but that doesn’t mean the injections haven’t killed anyone. In this episode, Kirsch sets out to determine whether evidence of causality exists, and if so, what the actual death toll is likely to be.

Can VAERS Data Demonstrate Causality?

The big disconnect, Kirsch points out, is that the CDC insists that VAERS, as an early warning system, cannot prove (or disprove) causality. Kirsch argues that this is false. The idea that VAERS cannot show causality is part of how and why the CDC can claim none of the deaths is attributable to the COVID shot.

To prove his point, Kirsch gives the following analogy: Suppose you give a two-dose vaccine. After the first dose, nothing happens, but after the second dose, people die within 24 hours of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). When you look at the VAERS data, what you would find is no reports associated with the first dose, and a rash of deaths after the second dose, and all within the same timeframe and with the same cause of death.

According to the CDC, you cannot ascribe any causality at all from that. To them, it’s just a random chance that everyone died after the second dose, and from the same condition, and not the first dose or from another condition.

Kirsch argues that causality CAN be identified from this kind of data. It’s very difficult to come up with another explanation for why people die exactly 24 hours after their second dose.

For example, is it reasonable to assume that people with, say, undiagnosed heart conditions would die exactly 24 hours after getting a second dose of vaccine? Or that people with undiagnosed diabetes would die exactly 24 hours after their second dose?

Why not after the first dose, or two months after the second dose, or any other random number of hours or days, or for other random cause of death? Why would people randomly die of the same condition at the exact same time, over and over again?

Vaccine Program Needs To Be Halted Immediately

According to Kirsch, the vaccination program should be immediately halted, as the VAERS data suggest more than 200,000 Americans have already died, and more than 2 million have been seriously injured by the vaccines. Interestingly enough, Kirsch and his entire family took the COVID shot early on, so he’s not coming from an “anti-vax” position.

Ending the vaccinations would not spell disaster in terms of allowing COVID-19 to run rampant, as we now know there are safe and effective early treatment protocols that everyone can use, both at home and in the hospital. These treatments also work for all variants.

According to Kirsch, the CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health are all “spreading misinformation about the vaccine versus early treatment.” In a nutshell, these agencies are saying the complete opposite of what is true — classic Orwellian doublespeak.

They claim the COVID shots are safe and effective, when the data show they’re neither, and they say there is no safe and effective early treatment, which is clearly false. At the same time, our medical freedoms are being stripped away under the guise of public health — all while an immense death toll is allowed to take place right before our eyes.

Kirsch is so confident in his analyses, he’s offered a $1 million academic grant to anyone who can show his analysis is flawed by a factor of four or more. So far, no one has stepped up to claim the prize. He’s even offered $1 million to any official willing to simply have a public debate with him about the data, and none has accepted the challenge.

As noted by Kirsch, “we’ve replaced debates as a way to settle scientific disagreements … with government-driven censorship and intimidation.” Medical recommendations are now also driven by the White House rather than medical experts and doctors themselves.

False Narratives Overview

In this episode, Kirsch goes through five false narratives about COVID jab safety, namely that:

  1. The shots are safe and effective
  2. No one has died from the COVID shot
  3. You cannot use VAERS to determine causality
  4. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is harmless
  5. Only a few adverse events are associated with the shots and they’re all “mild”

He also reviews the five false narratives about what the solutions are:

  1. Vaccines are the only way to end the pandemic
  2. Vaccine mandates are therefore needed
  3. Masks work
  4. Early treatments do not work
  5. Ivermectin is dangerous

COVID Shot Kills Five Times More People Than It Saves

Kirsch cites information from Dr. Peter Schirmacher, chief pathologist at the University of Heidelberg, who is recognized as one of the top 100 pathologists in the world.

Schirmacher did autopsies on 40 patients who died within two weeks of their COVID jab and found 30% to 40% of them were conclusively due to the shot, as there was no other underlying pathology that could have caused the deaths. Now, he did not rule out that 100% of the deaths could have been caused by the shots. He just could not conclusively prove it.

There’s also Pfizer’s six-month study, which included 44,000 people. During the blinded period of the study, the deaths were just about even — 15 deaths in the vaccine group and 14 in the control group. So, one life was saved by the shot.

But then, after the study was unblinded and controls were offered the vaccine, another three in the original vaccine group died along with two original placebo recipients who opted to get the shot. None of these deaths was considered related to the Pfizer “vaccine,” yet no one knows what they actually died from.

So, the final tally ended up being 20 deaths in the vaccine group and 14 deaths in the control group. What this tells us is the Pfizer shot offers no all-cause mortality benefit. The shot saved one life and killed six, which gives us a net-negative mortality rate. The reality is that five times more people are killed by the shot than are saved by it.

How to Calculate Excess Mortality

In the video, Kirsch explains how anyone can calculate the number of COVID shot deaths using VAERS data. What we’re looking at here is excess deaths, not background deaths of people who were going to die from a natural cause, such as old age, anyway. In summary, this is done by:

  1. Determining the propensity to report
  2. Determining the number of domestic deaths in the VAERS database
  3. Determining the underreporting factor for serious events
  4. Determining the background death rate, i.e., all deaths reported to VAERS by year
  5. Calculating the number of excess deaths

Lastly, you would validate your findings using independent methods or comparing it to what others have found. Step-by-step instructions and calculations can be found in the document called “Estimating the Number of Vaccine Deaths in America.”3

More Than 200,000 Have Likely Been Killed by the Jabs

Between the documentation on his website and the video, you get a detailed in-depth understanding of how to do this and how Kirsch came to the conclusions made. Here, I will simply provide a summary rundown of Kirsch calculations and conclusions:

  1. Propensity to report = same as in previous years
  2. Number of domestic deaths in the VAERS database = 6,167 as of August 27, 2021
  3. Under-reporting factor for serious events = 41 (i.e., for every 41 events, only one is reported)
  4. Background VAERS death rate = 500 per year (this background death number will be subtracted twice, as most COVID jab recipients are receiving two doses. This gives us a very conservative estimate)
  5. Excess deaths calculation = (6,167 – 2 x 500) x 41 = 212,000 excess deaths

Using the same calculation methods, Kirsch conservatively estimates more than 300,000 Americans have also been permanently disabled by the COVID shots. These estimates have been validated by four teams of researchers using other methods. (None of them used VAERS data.)

Kirsch also demonstrates another calculation to show the COVID shots kill more people than the actual COVID-19 infection does. That calculation also shows that if you’re under the age of 50, your risk of dying from the vaccine is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19, so it makes no sense from a risk-benefit perspective to get the jab if you’re younger than 50.

What’s more, since your risk of natural infection exponentially decreases over time (as natural herd immunity grows, your chance of infection approximately halves each year), the risks of the COVID shot rapidly outgrow any potential benefit with each passing year.

Examples of Adverse Events

Kirsch has also analyzed adverse events by symptom, calculating the rate at which they occur after the COVID shots compared to the average rate seen for all other vaccines combined from 2015- to 2019 for ages 20 to 60. Here’s a sampling:4

Pulmonary embolism occurs at a rate 473 times higher than the normal incidence rate (i.e., if there was one pulmonary embolism event reported in VAERS on average for all vaccines, there were 473 events following a COVID injection) Stroke, 326 times higher
Deep vein thrombosis 264.3 times higher Appendicitis 145.5 times higher
Parkinson’s disease 55 times higher Blindness 29.1 times higher
Deafness 44.7 times higher Death 58.1 times higher

Interestingly, the most common cause of death in children aged 12 to 17 who got the COVID shot was a pulmonary embolism. This was determined by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) after analyzing the deaths of 14 children. Coincidence? Or evidence of causality?

Anecdotes and Other Data Consistent With High Death Rate

Kirsch also cites anecdotal data that can clue us into what’s happening. One top neurologist claims to have 2,000 reportable vaccine injuries in 2021, compared to zero in the last 11 years.

In all, 5% of her existing patients now have suspected vaccine injuries. Yet this neurologist has only reported two of them because she got so frustrated with the VAERS system. So, in this instance, the under-reporting rate is not 41, but 1,000. And she’s not alone. This is another classic real-world illustration of what the PA Deborah Conrad shared in yesterday’s article.

Canadian physician Dr. Charles Hoffe has also reported that 60% of his COVID jabbed patients have elevated D-dimer levels, which is indicative of blood clotting, and levels in many cases remained elevated for up to three months.

This too is evidence of causation, because your D-dimer level is a marker for blood clotting. Even if you don’t have obvious symptoms of clotting, it can indicate the presence of micro clots. Hoffe discusses this in the video below.

Dr. Peter McCullough has also reported that troponin levels are elevated in many vaccinated patients. Troponin is a marker for heart damage, such as when you’re having a heart attack or myocarditis (heart inflammation). A level between 1 and 4 is indicative of an acute or recent heart attack. In case of a serious heart attack, troponin can remain elevated for five days.

In many patients who have received the COVID jab, the troponin level is between 35 and 50(!) and remains at that level for up to two months, which suggests massive damage is occurring to the heart. Yet this is what they’re routinely labeling as “mild” myocarditis. There’s absolutely nothing mild about this level of heart damage.

No Rate of Injury or Death Is Too Great

Unbelievably, there seems to be no ceiling above which the death and disability toll is deemed too great. Why aren’t the FDA and CDC concerned about safety when more than half a million side effect reports have been filed? How come nearly 15,000 reported deaths5 haven’t set off emergency alarms and in-depth investigations? Historically, 50 deaths have been the cutoff point at which a vaccine is pulled.

Considering the unprecedented risks of these shots, I urge you to review as much data as you can before you jump on the booster bandwagon. Based on everything I’ve seen, I believe the risk of side effects is likely going to exponentially increase with each dose.

If you need a refresher on the potential mechanisms of harm, download and read Stephanie Seneff’s excellent paper,6Worse 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.

Sources and References

COVID Vaccines: Public Deserves More Than ‘Just Trust Us’

Reports over the last few months about the proposed multi-billion-dollar settlements to end huge opioid-related lawsuits clearly reflect the attitude of drug manufacturers and distributors.

Even as they agree to pay record amounts, industry leaders and their public relations representatives maintain there is no connection between Big Pharma and narcotic addiction in the U.S.

Purdue Pharmaceuticals, which marketed the opiate derivative OxyContin as non-addictive, is demanding broad legal immunity in exchange for its $4.5 billion settlement.

With the announcement of the $26 billion offer, Michael Ullmann, executive vice president and general counsel of Johnson & Johnson, gave a carefully worded statement:

“We recognize the opioid crisis is a tremendously complex public health issue, and we have deep sympathy for everyone affected. This settlement will directly support state and local efforts to make meaningful progress in addressing the opioid crisis in the United States.”

With a consistent strategy, and in the wake of Big Pharma’s benevolent status for rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, the defendants are not taking any responsibility for contributing to the opioid epidemic.

Rather, for their billions, they are demanding all states and municipalities involved in all lawsuits agree to never again associate their products with drug addiction.

Corporations have offered to buy silence about their complicity in the death of half a million people over the last 20 years. This attempted bribe mirrors the morality of a continuing supply of addictive drugs to the uncounted millions who today suffer from prescribed opioid abuse.

Addicts who avoid or survive an overdose must navigate through a society that allows access to narcotics while designating the addicted as outcasts and criminals. Whether the source of their drugs is imported opiates or prescribed pain killers, their suffering is substantially enhanced by a hostile culture and negligent government oversight.

We have turned a blind eye to what is effectively a licensed drug cartel that exploits the vulnerable.

The attorney general of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, directly involved in both the Purdue and Johnson & Johnson lawsuits, gave a succinct analysis of his perspective:

“These deaths did not have to happen. This epidemic was manufactured by an army of pharmaceutical executives and drug distributors.”

Short-sighted oversight

Government regulators could have prevented this ongoing tragedy.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), empowered to protect the public, has not been able to resist the commanding influence of the pharmaceutical industry.

The FDA continues to fail in minimizing the pain and suffering of addicts and their families, ravaged by a preventable epidemic of drug dependence.

Dr. Raeford Brown, a former head of the FDA advisory committee for approval of new opioid painkillers, in 2019 said:

“The modus operandi of the agency is that they talk a good game and then nothing happens. Working directly with the agency for the last five years, as I sit and listen to them in meetings, all I can think about is the clock ticking and how many people are dying every moment that they’re not doing anything. The lack of insight that continues to be exhibited by the agency is in many ways willful blindness that borders on the criminal.”

The U.S. government’s war on drugs was misdirected: It should have been waged against the pharmaceutical industry.

But clearly, there hasn’t been an inclination to change anything, primarily because the FDA and Big Pharma have always had a mutually beneficial relationship.

Could it be because the opioid oversight division of the FDA relies on pharmaceutical giants for 75% of its budget? Or perhaps it is due to the revolving door between regulators at the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and drug industry professionals.

Both of these ongoing structural allowances are overt symptoms of the lack of will to end the flow of huge earnings.

Prescription drugs like Fentanyl and OxyContin, and similar opioids, have been abused because of profit-driven policies that result in ineffective efforts to regulate and restrict their use.

Even as acceptance of a settlement offer is considered, opioid addiction and its ensuing tragic consequences are on the increase.

Beyond huge civil suits, it seems there is no effort to reveal the details of the insidious relationship between profiteers and regulators — and not because the public isn’t aware of the destructive alliance.

New trust in a loathed industry

A Gallup poll in 2019 found the pharmaceutical sector is the most loathed industry in the United States.

By extension, expectation of honest government oversight has been minimal, although the underlying amoral relationship between the FDA and Big Pharma is a topic rarely analyzed in detail.

As the drug giants offer billions in settlement funds to state government programs for what are social and criminal abuses, regulation and oversight by the FDA for protecting public health is minimal.

There is no secret as to who holds the authority in their alliance with the pharmaceutical giants.

And now, as the world faces the challenges of an ongoing pandemic, there is unwarranted blind faith in this same consortium.

The development of vaccines was fast and furious in the name of an explosive health crisis. Yet when scrutiny of every detail is most needed, the pharmaceutical industry has been given extensive room for error and foul play.

Government regulators and Big Pharma maintain their status quo relationship. Should their motivation and honesty regarding an experimental vaccine be accepted at face value?

And why are those who question their veracity condemned and ostracized?

The FDA continues to dance to the tune of the pharmaceutical industry as the vaccine makes staggering profits — this should cause immense concern.

The prescription drug business has earned its reputation for being ruthless in seeking maximum proceeds from medications that are often abused or have numerous associated risks. Nothing has changed.

With a history of malfeasance, there is no room for good faith in a trade whose central interest is protecting profits — yet the public is asked to believe that compassionate concerns are driving the relentless push for vaccination policy.

With a tremendous financial incentive to grow the market, there is very little discussion about how profits might be influencing the promotion of the COVID-19 vaccine.

And now the messaging includes that everyone might need to be dosed repeatedly for new variants, perhaps for years.

An international sales campaign

While ostensibly, all forces have been gathering in the name of ending a worldwide pandemic, there are undoubtedly other motives in vaccine distribution.

From when it was first declared, it was clear that a country could not reach herd immunity independently. Effectiveness and pronouncements aside, six months after the first doses were given, 80% of the COVID-19 vaccines produced have gone to the world’s wealthiest countries.

More doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine produced in South Africa were sent out of the country than given to residents. When this was made public, the company was embarrassed into returning the vaccines to Africa.

Perhaps the universal vaccination campaign is not as equitable as portrayed. Once again, it appears that dependence on a costly drug for countries that can pay is a key component of pharmaceutical marketing. Recipients are told it is free, although nothing is without cost — whether through taxes or side effects.

For Big Pharma, the pandemic holds more potential earnings than from opiates.

Somehow blind trust continues, giving one of the most powerful and wealthiest industries on the planet free rein to push a questionable product. Their huge PR and lobbying forces are hard at work enforcing a subjective view. The new vaccines continue to be presented as a brilliant, humanitarian cure for the pandemic.

As justification for vaccine mandates grows, the drug industry, through its advocates at the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is at the center of minimizing dissent.

The industry has created the impression that the COVID-19 vaccine development and rollout could not possibly be flawed or duplicitous.

This manufactured consensus relies on seemingly reasonable logic: It would be impossible for all the well-meaning laboratories, researchers, and doctors across many countries to naively minimize risks or collude in any false narrative about the pandemic or vaccines.

This simplistic myth of their public relations campaign accounts for the general atmosphere — journalists and the public can’t imagine they are not fully informed.

However, it is important to understand this contrived rationale from the broadest perspective. The universal vaccine rollout is unfolding on a planet burning at its edges, with poles melting and oceans rising.

The same governments and corporate forces that have failed in slowing a planetary catastrophe are now asking for absolute confidence regarding our future health.

The impression that corporate, government, and scientific forces are collaborating in our best interests is based on a pretense worth examining. Blind acceptance of any industry’s solutions for a global crisis has no foundation.

Trusting Big Pharma with our well-being is equivalent to expecting that the oil, military, and chemical industries will save the Earth from environmental disaster.

The root problem is no secret: Profit-making eclipses sane decision-making.

The pharmaceutical industry has continuously duped the public. It has collaborated with the medical establishment in the distribution of addictive narcotics. This same commercial enterprise has promoted other questionable vaccines and drugs that are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent or symptoms they treat.

The huge number of people harmed or killed by adverse reactions to vaccines or prescribed drugs has somehow become a reality we accept. Over decades, an atmosphere has been created where poisonous side-effects are tolerated.

Meanwhile, the industry hires experts in generating group-think. Those who don’t agree to participate in their ruse are marginalized.

Challenging the official line of Big Pharma holds great risks. Countering policies that might diminish profits is often guaranteed to end research funding, and very likely, a lucrative career.

As crisis builds, there is even less tolerance for dissenters.

A pandemic of deceit

The greatest symptom of the pandemic is a loss of common sense.

The emotional pleadings and attempts to ostracize anyone who questions whether they should have a COVID-19 vaccination have the telltale signs of a deceitful public relations campaign.

It has been very successful.

Big Pharma also received a PR gift from politicians and pundits who repeat any conjecture, from the unlikely to the outrageous, about the pandemic.

Most legitimate questions about the vaccine program from doctors and scientists are now lumped together with challenges mounted by politically motivated, conspiratorial sensationalists.

There is always misinformation spread by a range of uninformed sources on any topic. Currently, because of a void of understanding and critical, detailed analysis, speculation about the pandemic is rampant.

If more information and detail were available, there would be less conjecture. Instead, anyone who doubts the prescribed reality must be part of a hoax.

The benefits of the vaccine continue to be soberly presented as unquestionable. Doubters must be fools, or at a minimum, ignorant of their value and importance.

There is a cult-like, unconscionable attitude toward those who dispute any aspect of the vaccination plan. As some of the first serious questions about effectiveness appear, with uncertainty about vaccine suppression on future variants of the disease, a softening of the dogmatic atmosphere might be expected.

Instead, angry blame is mounting, with an implication that the unvaccinated are causing the pandemic to continue.

The outrage would be more practically applied if focused on known risk factors such as unhealthy diet and poor nutrition, obesity and diabetes. These and other conditions impacted mortality rates before the pandemic — and they continue to represent the leading underlying causes for hospitalization with life-threatening cases of the virus.

Reporting about those at higher risk for serious illness has decreased since the start of the pandemic. Instead, there is a parade of dramatic stories about perfectly healthy, unvaccinated individuals who suddenly succumb to the virus.

For example, the British press widely reported the death of a so-called, fit and healthy 42-year-old man who regretted not being vaccinated, but failed to mention that he was an asthmatic and was likely using steroids to control his condition. A few articles mention his underlying condition, late in the text, seemingly without realizing the revelation countered the principal assertion of the piece.

This account is one of many that demonstrates how the emotional campaign for everyone to get vaccinated even overshadows efforts to inform those with underlying conditions. Perhaps their health is not the priority in the campaign.

Why isn’t COVID-19 news coverage replete with guidance for those at risk, with convincing articles concerning lifestyle and dietary choices?

It is because nothing but messages that support vaccination production and sales are acceptable. Deviation from this doctrine is taboo.

The fortress must be held

The CDC has admitted that the effectiveness of the vaccine is dropping by double-digit percentages. Concurrently, the need for vaccine boosters is being implemented.

Despite contradiction in terms, inconsistencies ignored and conflicts with previous optimistic data, the PR campaign continues. Indeed, as flaws in the vaccines and deceptive logic become apparent, the greater the intensity to support a distorted reality.

The pharmaceutical industry, the government, and the devoted news media continue to repeat the holy mantra no matter what unfolds: The vaccine is safe, effective, and free.

The self-labeled, fact-checking websites, rather than daring to critique the PR talking points, limit themselves to beating the drum of the CDC, FDA, and Big Pharma. Press research is dominated by those who look for sources of false data from those who question the science behind testing or vaccination.

Most of the news media staunchly hold its position. Critics remain 100% focused on debunking those who question vaccination statistics. Ignoring their greater responsibility for challenging the industry, they repeatedly arrive at an amazingly consistent conclusion about any statistics that imply doubts about the vaccine: All data, when properly analyzed, shows the importance of vaccination, with minimal risks, and in every case, the disparagers are falsifying or exaggerating.

Deviation from this prescriptive interpretation is deemed sacrosanct.

Doctors and analysts who break the prohibition against raising the possibility of other forms of prevention or treatment are marginalized or excommunicated. Knowledgeable physicians with patients who have had serious reactions to the vaccine, and virologists who have dissenting opinions, are shunned as dangerous deviants.

Data on adverse vaccine response is unreported in the mainstream press.

The remedy is truth

The Big Pharma consortium is invested in doing whatever is needed to make sure conventional wisdom has no challengers. Law and government support the industry.

As of May 1, the CDC stopped gathering data on breakthrough cases that were no hospitalizations or deaths. This quiet decision came concurrently with the revelation that newer highly contagious variants could infect the vaccinated. With minimal or no symptoms, these people could continue to infect others unknowingly. It is also possible this could drive new variants.

Somehow a policy that turned away from important details was revealed only more than two months after the change. The CDC announced this decision was made because the agency had more important things to do.

Objections by some scientists and organizations were reported in the press, yet there is no apparent investigation into why this data was intentionally deemed irrelevant.

Ignoring critical information about breakthrough cases directly illustrates how countering vaccine efficacy is off-limits.

This approach to maintaining the status quo for a product is not new.

An atmosphere where marginalizing dissent and minimizing non-supportive data has been the precursor to every abuse and scandal where Big Pharma dominated the conversation.

The industry denies facts and debases critics until evidence overwhelms their manufactured version of reality. Then without accepting fault, they move on — This is a sales trade that has been forced into paying billions of dollars in what is usually referred to as “damages.”

Perhaps there are some people who still believe Big Pharma’s prime directive in facing the pandemic is altruistic benevolence. But if indeed their mission has turned to ending suffering and healing the masses, there should be no problem in agreeing that there is nothing to hide.

For those who understand the foundational morality of the drug industry has not changed, it is a time for more scrutiny than ever before.

We must be vigilant in looking at facts. Blind trust in news media or any single source is dangerous.

The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is long overdue for vast improvement. Data on the dangers and complications of the vaccines should be scrupulously gathered and made public.

There is a desperate need for openness and transparency so that every detail can be evaluated with objectivity — the pandemic must be faced with eyes wide open. Our medical decisions must be based on extensively supported, verifiable information.

The public deserves more than “just trust us.”

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.

Long-Term Dangers of Experimental mRNA Shots

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

  • mRNA-based COVID shots have used codon optimization to improve protein production. A codon consists of three nucleotides, and nucleotides are the building blocks of DNA. The use of codon optimization virtually guarantees unexpected results
  • Replacing rare codons must be done judiciously, as rarer codons can have slower translation rates and a slowed-down rate is actually necessary to prevent protein misfolding
  • Stop codons, when present at the end of an mRNA coding sequence, signals the termination of protein synthesis. According to a recent paper, both Pfizer and Moderna selected suboptimal stop codons
  • The COVID shots induce spike protein at levels unheard of in nature, and the spike protein is the toxic part of the virus responsible for the most unique effects of the virus, such as blood clotting disorders, neurological problems, and heart damage. To expect the COVID shot to not produce these kinds of effects would be rather naïve
  • Other significant threats include immune dysfunction and the flare-up of latent viral infections such as herpes and shingles. Coinfections, in turn, could accelerate other diseases. Herpesviruses, for example, have been implicated as a cause of both AIDS and chronic fatigue syndrome

“Let’s start with a thought experiment: If an engineering design flaw exists and no one measures it, can it really injure people or kill them?” a Twitter user named Ehden writes.1 He goes on to discuss an overlooked aspect of the COVID mRNA shots, something called “codon optimization,” which virtually guarantees unexpected results. Ehden explains:2

“Trying to tell your body to generate proteins is hard for many reasons. One of them is the fact that when you try to run the protein information via ribosomes which process that code and generate the protein, it can be very slow or can get stuck during the process.

Luckily, scientists found a way to overcome this problem, by doing code substitution: instead of using the original genetic code to generate the protein, they changed the letters in the code so the code would be optimized. This is known as Codon Optimization.”

COVID Shots Use Codon Optimization

A codon consists of three nucleotides, and nucleotides are the building blocks of DNA. An August 2021 article in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, addressed the use of codon optimization as follows:3

“The open reading frame of the mRNA vaccine is the most crucial component because it contains the coding sequence that is translated into protein.

Although the open reading frame is not as malleable as the non-coding regions, it can be optimized to increase translation without altering the protein sequence by replacing rarely used codons with more frequently occurring codons that encode the same amino acid residue.

For instance, the biopharmaceutical company CureVac AG discovered that human mRNA codons rarely have A or U at the third position and patented a strategy that replaces A or U at the third position in the open reading frame with G or C. CureVac used this optimization strategy for its SARS-CoV-2 candidate CVnCoV …

Although replacement of rare codons is an attractive optimization strategy, it must be used judiciously. This is because, in the case of some proteins, the slower translation rate of rare codons is necessary for proper protein folding.

To maximize translation, the mRNA sequence typically incorporates modified nucleosides, such as pseudouridine, N1-methylpseudouridine or other nucleoside analogues. Because all native mRNAs include modified nucleosides, the immune system has evolved to recognize unmodified single-stranded RNA, which is a hallmark of viral infection.

Specifically, unmodified mRNA is recognized by pattern recognition receptors, such as Toll-like receptor 3 (TLR3), TLR7 and TLR8, and the retinoic acid-inducible gene I (RIGI) receptor. TLR7 and TLR8 receptors bind to guanosine- or uridine-rich regions in mRNA and trigger the production of type I interferons, such as IFNα, that can block mRNA translation.

The use of modified nucleosides, particularly modified uridine, prevents recognition by pattern recognition receptors, enabling sufficient levels of translation to produce prophylactic amounts of protein.

Both the Moderna and Pfizer–BioNTech SARS-CoV-2 vaccines … contain nucleoside-modified mRNAs. Another strategy to avoid detection by pattern recognition receptors, pioneered by CureVac, uses sequence engineering and codon optimization to deplete uridines by boosting the GC content of the vaccine mRNA.”

Much of this information was previously reviewed in my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D. You can’t see the article but the video is embedded above. This study was published well after our interview and merely confirms what Seneff and Mikovits have unraveled in their research.

According to Ehden, 60.9% of the codons in COVID shots have been optimized, equivalent to 22.5% of the nucleotides, but he doesn’t specify which shot he’s talking about, or exactly where the data came from.

That all mRNA COVID shots are using codon optimization to one degree or another is clear, however. A July 2021 article4 in the journal Vaccines specifically evaluates and comments on the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA shots, noting:

“The design of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines involves many different types of optimizations … The mRNA components of the vaccine need to have a 5′-UTR to load ribosomes efficiently onto the mRNA for translation initiation, optimized codon usage for efficient translation elongation, and optimal stop codon for efficient translation termination.

Both 5′-UTR and the downstream 3′-UTR should be optimized for mRNA stability. The replacement of uridine by N1-methylpseudourinine (Ψ) complicates some of these optimization processes because Ψ is more versatile in wobbling than U. Different optimizations can conflict with each other, and compromises would need to be made.

I highlight the similarities and differences between Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines and discuss the advantage and disadvantage of each to facilitate future vaccine improvement. In particular, I point out a few optimizations in the design of the two mRNA vaccines that have not been performed properly.”

What Can Go Wrong?

One key take-home from the Nature Reviews Drug Discovery article5 cited above is that replacing rare codons “must be used judiciously,” as rarer codons can have slower translation rates and a slowed-down rate is actually necessary to prevent protein misfolding.

An (adenine) and U (uracil) in the third position is rare, and the COVID shots replace these A’s and U’s with G’s (guanine) or C’s (cytosine). According to Seneff, this switch results in a 1,000-fold greater amount of spike protein compared to being infected with the actual virus.

What could go wrong? Well, just about anything. Again, the shot induces spike protein at levels unheard of in nature (even if SARS-CoV-2 is a “souped-up” manmade concoction), and the spike protein is the toxic part of the virus responsible for the most unique effects of the virus, such as the blood clotting disorders, neurological problems, and heart damage.

So, to expect the COVID shot to not produce these kinds of effects would be rather naïve. The codon switches might also result in protein misfolding, which is equally bad news. As explained by Seneff in our previous interview:

“The spike proteins that these mRNA vaccines are producing … aren’t able to go into the membrane, which I think is going to encourage it to become a problematic prion protein. Then, when you have inflammation, it upregulates alpha-synuclein [a neuronal protein that regulates synaptic traffic and neurotransmitter release].

So, you’re going to get alpha-synuclein drawn into misfolded spike proteins, turning into a mess inside the dendritic cells in the germinal centers in the spleen. And they’re going to package up all this crud into exosomes and release them. They’re then going to travel along the vagus nerve to the brainstem and cause things like Parkinson’s disease.

So, I think this is a complete setup for Parkinson’s disease … It’s going to push forward the date at which someone who has a propensity towards Parkinson’s is going to get it.

And it’s probably going to cause people to get Parkinson’s who never would have gotten it in the first place — especially if they keep getting the vaccine every year. Every year you do a booster, you bring the date that you’re going to get Parkinson’s ever closer.”

Immune Dysfunction and Viral Flare-Ups

Other significant threats include immune dysfunction and the flare-up of latent viral infections, which is something Mikovits has been warning about. In our previous interview, she noted:

“We use poly(I:C) [a toll-like receptor 3 agonist] to signal the cell to turn on the type I interferon pathway, and because [the spike protein your body produces in response to the COVID shot] is an unnatural synthetic envelope, you’re not seeing poly(I:C), and you’re not [activating] the Type I interferon pathway.

You’ve bypassed the plasmacytoid dendritic cell, which combined with IL-10, by talking to the regulatory B cells, decides what subclasses of antibodies to put out. So, you’ve bypassed the communication between the innate and adaptive immune response. You now miss the signaling of the endocannabinoid receptors …

A large part of Dr. [Francis] Ruscetti’s and my work over the last 30 years has been to show you don’t need an infectious transmissible virus — just pieces and parts of these viruses are worse, because they also turn on danger signals. They act like danger signals and pathogen-associated molecular patterns.

So, it synergistically leaves that inflammatory cytokine signature on that spins your innate immune response out of control. It just cannot keep up with the myelopoiesis [the production of cells in your bone marrow]. Hence you see a skew-away from the mesenchymal stem cell towards TGF-beta regulated hematopoietic stem cells.

This means you could see bleeding disorders on both ends. You can’t make enough firetrucks to send to the fire. Your innate immune response can’t get there, and then you’ve just got a total train wreck of your immune system.”

We’re now seeing reports of herpes and shingles infection following COVID-19 injection, and this is precisely what you can expect if your Type I interferon pathway is disabled. That’s not the end of your potential troubles, however, as these coinfections could accelerate other diseases as well.

For example, herpes viruses have been implicated as a trigger of both AIDS6 and myalgic encephalomyelitis7 (chronic fatigue syndrome or ME-CFS). According to Mikovits, these diseases don’t appear until viruses from different families partner up and retroviruses take out the Type 1 interferon pathway. Long term, the COVID mass injection campaign may be laying the foundation for a rapidly approaching avalanche of a wide range of debilitating chronic illnesses.

Are COVID Shots Appropriately Optimized?

As noted in the Vaccines article cited earlier, the codon optimization in the Pfizer and Moderna shots could be problematic:8

“As mammalian host cells attack unmodified exogeneous RNA, all U nucleotides were replaced by N1-methylpseudouridine (Ψ). However, Ψ wobbles more in base-pairing than U and can pair not only with A and G, but also, to a lesser extent, with C and U.

This is likely to increase misreading of a codon by a near-cognate tRNA. When nucleotide U in stop codons was replaced by Ψ, the rate of misreading of a stop codon by a near-cognate tRNAs increased.

Such readthrough events would not only decrease the number of immunogenic proteins, but also produce a longer protein of unknown fate with potentially deleterious effects …

The designers of both vaccines considered CGG as the optimal codon in the CGN codon family and recoded almost all CGN codons to CGG … [M]ultiple lines of evidence suggest that CGC is a better codon than CGG. The designers of the mRNA vaccines (especially mRNA-1273) chose a wrong codon as the optimal codon.”

The paper also points out the importance of vaccine mRNA to be translated accurately and not merely effectively, because if the wrong amino acids are incorporated, it can confuse your immune system and prevent it from identifying the correct targets.

Accuracy is also important in translation termination, and here it comes down to selecting the correct stop codons. Stop codons (UAA, UAG, or UGA), when present at the end of an mRNA coding sequence signals the termination of protein synthesis.

According to the author, both Pfizer and Moderna selected less than optimal stop codons. “UGA is a poor choice of a stop codon, and UGAU in Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines could be even worse,” she says.

What Health Problems Can We Expect to See More Of?

While the variety of diseases we may see a rise in as a result of this vaccination campaign is myriad, some general predictions can be made. We’ve already seen a massive uptick in blood clotting disorders, heart attacks, and stroke, as well as heart inflammation.

More long term, Seneff believes we’ll see a significant rise in cancer, accelerated Parkinson’s-like diseases, Huntington’s disease, and all types of autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders.

Mikovits also suspects many will develop chronic and debilitating diseases and will die prematurely. At the highest risk, she places those who are asymptomatically infected with XMRV and gammaretroviruses from contaminated conventional vaccines. The COVID shot will effectively accelerate their death by crippling their immune function. “The kids that are highly vaccinated, they’re ticking time bombs,” Mikovits said in my May 2021 interview.

What Are the Options?

While all of this is highly problematic, there is hope. From my perspective, I believe the best thing you can do is to build your innate immune system. To do that, you need to become metabolically flexible and optimize your diet. You’ll also want to make sure your vitamin D level is optimized to between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL (100 nmol/L to 150 nmol/L).

I also recommend time-restricted eating, where you eat all your meals for the day within a six- to an eight-hour window. Time-restricted eating will also upregulate autophagy, which may help digest and remove spike protein. Avoid all vegetable oils and processed foods. Focus on certified organic foods to minimize your glyphosate exposure.

Sauna therapy may also be helpful. It upregulates heat shock proteins, which can help refold misfolded proteins. They also tag damaged proteins and target them for removal.

Sources and References

Hundreds Injured by COVID Vaccines Turn to GoFundMe for Help With Expenses

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender

High school senior Emma Burkey received the one-shot Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine on April 1. Within two weeks she was placed in an induced coma. She underwent three brain surgeries after experiencing seizures and developing blood clots in her brain.

When Burkey was well enough to be transferred from the hospital to a rehabilitation center, her first round of bills totaled $513,000.

Friends of the 18-year-old’s family turned to GoFundMe to raise money to help cover Burkey’s mounting medical costs. As of July 7, more than $59,000 had been raised.

The family hopes most of Burkey’s medical costs will be covered by insurance, but that’s unclear, as their daughter’s medical care cost could run into millions of dollars.

“Right now it feels like the national debt,” a family spokesperson said. “It’s so big you can’t get your head around it.”

According to a recent update on Burkey’s GoFundMe page, Burkey is still in intensive rehab, remains in a wheelchair, and can stand unassisted for the first time July 6 — almost four months after she got the vaccine.

More than 180 people seeking help on GoFundMe

As The Defender reported July 1, research compiled by a group in Mesa County, Colorado, showed as of June 25 there were more than 180 GoFundMe accounts seeking help for people who had suffered injuries after receiving a COVID vaccine and were left with large medical bills and other expenses.

Alicia Smith, 34, is a hairdresser who felt pressured by the media to get a COVID vaccine to make her clients feel safe. After receiving her second dose of Pfizer on April 15 at Walgreens, she immediately experienced negative side effects, including swelling, loss of feeling, inability to breathe, and symptoms of Bell’s Palsy.

Bell’s Palsy is unexplained facial muscle weakness or paralysis caused by damage to the facial nerve that causes one side of the face to droop. The condition usually resolves on its own within six months, but in rare cases, may be permanent.

A neurologist at Louisiana State University told Smith her symptoms were caused by anxiety and urged her to seek cognitive therapy. Two months after being hospitalized and undergoing rehab, Smith still cannot return to work because of severe uncontrollable body tremors and Bell’s Palsy on the right side of her face.

After Smith shared her story on the Thrivetime Show: Business School without the BS, a friend started a GoFundMe to raise funds for Smith’s medical expenses.

Stacie [last name unknown] is a third-grade teacher who developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) three weeks after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine. She went to the emergency room several times after getting the shot because she was experiencing numbness of the lower extremities, but was sent home when tests were inconclusive.

The numbness continued to progress and Stacie eventually lost her ability to stand and walk. She was then hospitalized and diagnosed with GBS.

After several weeks, Stacie was able to take a few steps with the aid of a walker and physical therapist. She was transferred to an intensive rehab facility. A friend started a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for Stacie’s medical bills.

Lakela Thomas started taking medicine for seronegative arthritis on April 1. The next day she received her first COVID vaccine. Within three weeks, Thomas developed severe chest pain, a rash that covered her body, and swollen hands, feet, and lips. Thomas spent more than two weeks in the hospital and is now on at least 14 medications.

Doctors believe Thomas is now suffering from several autoimmune conditions, including Steven Johnson Syndrome — a severe medical emergency that affects the skin and mucous membranes associated with oral medications and other vaccines — neuropathy, a severe flare of seronegative arthritis, thrush, and pericarditis and Behçet’s Disease, a rare disorder that causes blood vessel inflammation throughout the body.

Almost three months after her COVID vaccine, Thomas has not improved. Her husband started a GoFundMe page to help cover the costs of medical expenses and lost wages, as she is unable to return to work and he must now provide care for his wife and daughter.

Gary Spaulding was an active landscaper who experienced a severe headache after receiving J&J’s COVID vaccine, causing him to go to the emergency room.

Doctors immediately diagnosed Spaulding with Lyme Disease. Treatment was started, but numbness and tingling in his extremities progressed. After doctors initiated tests to determine the cause of the escalating series of symptoms, Spaulding was diagnosed with GBS.

Doctors believe Spaulding’s immune system, which was fighting Lyme Disease, was overstimulated by the COVID vaccine causing it to attack the myelin — the protective insulation that surrounds nerves, including those in the brain and spinal cord.

Treatment was immediate and successful in arresting the progression of the disease, but not before Spaulding was almost completely paralyzed.

After he was stabilized, Spaulding was sent to a rehabilitation hospital. As of June 29, he was back in the hospital for an infection and blood clots. He lost almost all the progress he made during his initial round of rehabilitation.

According to his GoFundMe, Spaulding is still unable to walk and muscle weakness and pain are his constant companions. He is fighting to regain the mobility and feeling he lost due to the GBS brought on by the COVID vaccine.

On May 25, Freddy [no last name provided], a self-employed roof contractor with two children, suffered an immediate and severe reaction to Moderna’s COVID vaccine. Within 15 minutes of vaccination, he lost feeling in the left side of his body, developed a rash, and experienced swelling in his hands and feet. He was treated on-site by paramedics and sent home.

The next night Freddy began experiencing heart palpitations and atrial fibrillation and stopped breathing. He was transferred to the hospital for heart monitoring.

On June 22, Freddy was taken by ambulance to the hospital again after he stopped breathing, experienced massive tremors in his leg, and was unable to move.

According to Freddy’s GoFundMe page, he has been dismissed or ignored by healthcare providers who don’t associate his newly acquired conditions with Moderna’s vaccine. Freddy experiences constant uncontrollable spasms and tremors, migraines, tinnitus, fatigue, dizziness, neurological episodes resembling seizures or strokes, brain fog, and pain.

Obtaining federal compensation for COVID vaccine injuries almost impossible

After being injured by COVID vaccines, people facing huge medical bills have few options, beyond what their own health insurance covers. That’s because, under federal law, vaccine makers are shielded from liability.

In 2005, Congress passed the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP), which authorizes the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to issue a declaration providing immunity from tort liability for claims of loss caused by medical countermeasures (e.g., vaccines, drugs, products) against diseases or other threats of public health emergencies.

On Feb. 4, 2020, HHS invoked the PREP Act when it declared COVID-19 to be a public health emergency. On Jan. 21, HHS amended the act, extending the liability shield to include additional categories of qualified persons authorized to prescribe, dispense and administer COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In exchange for immunity for vaccine makers, under the PREP Act, the federal government pledged compensation for adverse reactions to COVID treatments and vaccines through a program called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), run by HHS.

As The Defender reported July 1, as of June 1, CICP reported 869 pending cases but offered no further information.

The CICP website outlines the parameters of the program, which provides compensation for medical expenses, lost employment income, and survivor death benefits as “the payer of last resort,” covering only what remains unpaid or unpayable by other third parties, such as health insurance.

Under the CICP program, attorney fees are not covered. There is no court, judge, or right to appeal.

Since the CICP program’s inception in 2010, only 29 claims have been paid, with an average payout of around $200,000. The other 452 claims (91.4%) were denied. Ten claims won approval but were deemed ineligible for compensation.

Only about 8% of people who applied to the CICP with vaccine injuries in the past received payouts, and there are no protections from the U.S. legal system.

As Renée Gentry, director of the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic at the George Washington University Law School, puts it, COVID vaccine claimants have two rights: “You have the right to file,” she said. “And you have the right to lose.”

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

Kudos to WSJ Editors for Publishing Op-Ed Saying ‘Politics’ Not Science Behind Failure to Acknowledge COVID Vaccine Risks

By Children’s Health Defense Team | The Defender

Kudos to the editors of the Wall Street Journal, which on Tuesday published an op-ed by two physicians who said politics — not science — is behind the failure of health officials and the media to fully inform the public about the potential risks associated with COVID vaccines.

In “Are Covid Vaccines Riskier Than Advertised?,” Joseph A. Ladapo, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, and Harvey A. Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health wrote while “some scientists have raised concerns that the safety risks of Covid-19 vaccines have been underestimated … the politics of vaccination has relegated their concerns to the outskirts of scientific thinking.”

Ladapo and Risch highlighted the fact that clinical studies don’t always tell the full story about the safety of medications, and that the health effects often remain unknown until the medicine is rolled out to the general public.

They wrote:

“Historically, the safety of medications — including vaccines — is often not fully understood until they are deployed in large populations. Examples include rofecoxib (Vioxx), a pain reliever that increased the risk of heart attack and stroke; antidepressants that appeared to increase suicide attempts among young adults; and an influenza vaccine used in the 2009-10 swine flu epidemic that was suspected of causing febrile convulsions and narcolepsy in children. Evidence from the real world is valuable, as clinical trials often enroll patients who aren’t representative of the general population. We learn more about drug safety from real-world evidence and can adjust clinical recommendations to balance risk and benefits.”

The authors said the “large clustering” of side effects following COVID vaccines is “concerning,” and the “silence around these potential signals of harm reflects the politics surrounding COVID-19 vaccines.”

They wrote: “Stigmatizing such concerns is bad for scientific integrity and could harm patients.”

The serious adverse events reported by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, including low platelets, heart inflammation, deep-vein thrombosis, and death, are likely “only a fraction” of the total number of adverse events, they said.

“The true number of cases is almost certainly higher,” said Ladapo and Risch. “This tendency of underreporting is consistent with our clinical experience.”

The authors slammed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for ignoring the reported serious COVID vaccine side effects and said more research is needed to understand the risks.

They wrote:

“Analyses to confirm or dismiss these findings should be performed using large data sets of health insurance companies and healthcare organizations. The CDC and FDA are surely aware of these data patterns, yet neither agency has acknowledged the trend.”

The authors acknowledged the risks of COVID vaccines in certain populations may outweigh the benefits. They also noted that no studies show people who have recovered from the virus benefit from getting vaccinated.

They wrote:

“The implication is that the risks of a COVID-19 vaccine may outweigh the benefits for certain low-risk populations, such as children, young adults, and people who have recovered from COVID-19. This is especially true in regions with low levels of community spread since the likelihood of illness depends on exposure risk.

“And while you would never know it from listening to public health officials, not a single published study has demonstrated that patients with a prior infection benefit from COVID-19 vaccination. That this isn’t readily acknowledged by the CDC or Anthony Fauci is an indication of how deeply entangled pandemic politics is in science.”

Ladapo and Risch warned that prioritizing politics over science in the wake of a pandemic could result in widespread distrust in public health officials.

They said:

“Public health authorities are making a mistake and risking the public’s trust by not being forthcoming about the possibility of harm from certain vaccine side effects. There will be lasting consequences from mingling political partisanship and science during the management of a public-health crisis.”

Vaccine Makers Claim COVID Shots Are ‘95% Effective’ — But What Does That Mean?

By Children’s Health Defense Team | The Defender

In 1954, writer and repentant cigarette industry lobbyist Darrell Huff wrote the best-selling book, “How to Lie with Statistics,” with the aim of teaching the general public how to decode the “secret language of statistics.”

In his introduction, Huff wrote: “Averages and relationships and trends and graphs are not always what they seem.” He added: “There may be more in them than meets the eye, and there may be a good deal less.”

Almost 70 years later, Huff’s admonition that a “well-wrapped statistic” can “sensationalize, inflate, confuse and oversimplify” seems more relevant than ever. For a pertinent modern-day example, one need look no further than COVID vaccine developers’ “headline-worthy” but misleading claims about their products’ “95% effectiveness.” As BMJ associate editor Peter Doshi and others have been confirming for months, these efficacy data are largely a matter of statistical smoke and mirrors.

Why are manufacturers’ claims about vaccine effectiveness misleading? Pfizer and Moderna declined to share with the public the fact that there is another way to parse their data that has more real-world significance.

Examining a statistic called absolute risk reduction — the number of percentage points that an individual’s risk goes down if they do something “protective” — the two companies’ COVID vaccines barely make a dent at all, reducing someone’s risk of experiencing COVID symptoms (the clinical trials’ endpoint) by less than 1%. This is the practical number that people are likely to care about most.

Knowing the paltry real-world impact of the injections on someone’s risk of developing COVID symptoms, how many people swayed by the misleading “95% effective” mantra might instead have decided to refuse the vaccines — products that have revealed themselves to be highly unsafe and, in some cases, fatal?

Unfortunately, topping its November efficacy claims for people 16 years and older, Pfizer just announced its COVID injection is “100% effective for 12-to-15 year-olds.” This announcement sets the stage for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) predicted authorization of Pfizer’s unlicensed vaccine for the adolescent market.

Parents who know that COVID rarely poses a threat to children and adolescents may already be planning to keep their kids away from the experimental shots, but there are other reasons for taking Pfizer’s latest grandiose claims with a grain of salt.

Absolute vs. relative risk

In November — just before the FDA issued its initial Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s COVID vaccine — Doshi cautioned the public that Pfizer’s and Moderna’s efficacy results seemed dramatic only because the companies derived them from relative risk data.

The absolute risk simply explained, is “the likelihood that an outcome will occur.” Relative risk “compares the risk of a health event … among one group with the risk among another group.”

Pfizer told the FDA that eight (of approximately 22,000) volunteers in its vaccine group developed a PCR-confirmed case of COVID-19, versus 162 of 22,000 volunteers in the placebo group. Moderna reported a similar spread — five out of 15,000 in the vaccine group versus 90 out of 15,000 in the placebo group.

When one does the math, the Pfizer clinical trial numbers showed: “The risk reduction in absolute terms [was] only 0.7%, from an already very low risk of 0.74% [in the placebo group] to a minimal risk of 0.04% [in the vaccine group].” (Dividing 0.7 — the difference between the two groups — by 0.74 is the mathematical calculation that produced the touted “95% effective” number).

Although the eight verses 162 PCR-confirmed COVID cases in the Pfizer trial may sound like a big difference to the casual reader, Peter Doshi subsequently alerted the public to the fact that Pfizer skewed its analysis by excluding more than 3,400 individuals with non-PCR-confirmed symptoms of COVID — individuals split almost evenly across the vaccine and placebo groups.

As Doshi wrote in The BMJ: “With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand.”

Factoring in both the suspected and confirmed cases, Doshi noted, would drop the 95% relative risk figure down to 19%.

In 2019, the author of a pre-COVID paper, “How to Communicate Evidence to Patients” (quoted in a post-COVID blog), explained that relative risks “can exaggerate the perception of difference” between groups — especially, as in the case of COVID vaccines and many other medical interventions, “when the absolute risks are very small.”

Other researchers agree the concealment of “underlying absolute risks” (and the tendency to “overestimate” effects presented in relative terms) is a “major weakness” of relative risk data. For these reasons, many researchers insist that one risk measure “cannot be interpreted without the other.”

Elaborating on the importance of providing a “complete picture” and communicating both measures, European researchers writing in 2017 explained how relative risk data alone can mislead:

“When relative risks are used for the presentation of effects of treatment, this can make the treatment seem better than it actually is. For example, investigators may claim that a certain treatment reduces mortality by 50% when the intervention reduces death rates from 0.002% to 0.001%, an improvement the clinical relevance of which may be questioned.”

Risk reduction … or risk intensification?

In the vaccine arena, a subtle byproduct of a narrow focus on relative risk-based efficacy statistics is that the latter often eclipse meaningful discussions of safety.

Pfizer’s announcement of 100% effectiveness in younger adolescents seems intended to accomplish just such a goal, drawing attention away from the 4,178 post-COVID-vaccine deaths now reported (through May 3) to the U.S.-based Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

In Europe, the COVID vaccine fallout has been equally alarming: The EudraVigilance database lists 8,430 deaths (through Apr. 24) — and more than 354,000 injuries — following injection with one of the four emergency-authorized shots (made by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson or AstraZeneca).

Supplementing reports to official databases, thousands of individuals have posted COVID vaccine injury stories on social media. Facebook recently deleted a group for COVID-19 vaccine victims and families that had in excess of 120,000 followers — the group “had been gaining more than 10,000 followers per week.” The company’s action is part of an unabashed Big Tech effort to curtail online discussions of vaccine risks and rebrand them as “misinformation.”

Drawing attention to the mounting evidence of COVID vaccine dangers, physicist and medical doctor Richard Fleming, Ph.D., M.D., J.D.. recently described increased risks for inflammation and blood clotting as well as a worrisome type of protein clumping associated with dementia and other neurological disorders.

Fleming called on the Biden administration to immediately reevaluate “whether there’s any demonstrated efficacy” of the COVID shots. In Fleming’s view, the companies’ own data show that the injections have “no statistically significant benefit” and “make zero difference in stopping COVID.”

Talking back

In the concluding chapter of “How to Lie with Statistics”, Huff encouraged members of the public to be more discerning and to “talk back” to and “face down” phony statistics. To this end, he recommended asking five simple questions, all of which could be helpful as the public scrutinizes the vaccine industry’s blanket pronouncements about COVID vaccine efficacy and safety and regulators’ moving-target statements about herd immunity:

  1. “Who says so?” This question entails assessing phenomena like researcher bias, use of ambiguous statements, “selection of favorable data and suppression of unfavorable” and reliance on improper measures.
  2. “How does he know?” Evaluating this question includes considering biased or improper sampling, small sample sizes, and low response rates, including researcher attempts to cover up these defects.
  3. “What’s missing?” Do the researchers rely on meaningless averages or fail to contextualize their findings?
  4. “Did somebody change the subject?” Huff noted that “one thing is all too often reported as another.”
  5. “Does it make sense?” With this final question, Huff cautioned that many a flawed statistic — particularly in the medical realm — “gets by only because the magic of numbers brings about a suspension of common sense.”

As Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. noted in January, “the absence of a placebo group in post-vaccination surveillance systems makes it easy for self-interested pharmaceutical and regulatory officials to undercount injuries by attributing them to coincidence.” Kennedy added, “Coincidence is turning out to be quite lethal to COVID vaccine recipients.”

The BMJ’s Doshi has shown that vaccine manufacturers are not above inappropriately excluding data, deviating from study protocols (and then hiding the deviations), using unofficially unblinded study groups, and keeping raw data (even when taxpayer-funded) to themselves.

One way for the public to push back against this “strategic chicanery” and lethal “coincidences” is to follow the lead of rigorous questioners like Doshi, querying the “trustworthiness and meaningfulness” of reported results at every step.

Since COVID Vaccines Are Experimental, Vaccine Administrators Must Inform You of Risks

By Alliance for Natural Health International | The Defender

With the mass vaccination program now in full swing, we are hearing more and more reports suggesting this fundamental right and the legal requirement is not being respected. The vast majority of people are simply not being given the opportunity to exercise this right that is a foundational principle of medical ethics and central to the concept of patient autonomy. Most people likely don’t even know what information they should be able to receive prior to vaccination.

Check out our video below (under 8 minutes in length), presented by Rob Verkerk Ph.D., including inputs from a dentist, Dr. Zac Cox, from the World Doctors Alliance, and integrative doctor, Dr. Anna Forbes, founder, and director of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance.


You don’t need to sign something to give consent — baring your arm is sufficient.

In the case of vaccination, this is, in essence, the gesture that gives the vaccinator permission to touch you and inject you. Failure to seek your permission would typically be regarded, legally, as assault or battery.

The real problem, therefore, isn’t with the consent itself, but with the information that should precede the issue of consent.

The three prerequisites for informed consent

For consent to be valid you need 3 things:

  1. It must be given voluntarily— without coercion or deceit.
  2. It must be given by an individual who has mental capacity.
  3. BEFORE giving consent, a person needs to have been fully informed about the issue. That includes being informed about what the risks and benefits of the treatment or vaccination are, as well as the risks and benefits of going without the treatment or vaccination, and what alternate options might be available.

Do health authority vaccine claims constitute deceit?

Health authorities around the world continue to claim that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe.” However, according to the Collins dictionary, this means that:

“Something that is safe does not cause physical harm or danger.”

“Safe” claims are routinely made by organizations like the UK NHS, the Centers for Disease Control in the USA, and the World Health Organization.

A search we carried out of the VAERS database in the U.S. shows that nearly 8,000 adverse events have been reported to date (note: as many as 90% of adverse reactions often go unreported), and over 1.5% of these involved death. It is then arguably deceitful to refer to these experimental vaccines as “safe.”

Information chasm

Even if it can be argued that the existing safety claims, advertising campaigns, or pressure from some sectors of the health professions are neither coercive nor deceitful, it is this last prerequisite concerning the provision of information where mass vaccination programs typically fall short.

Given the lack of vaccine transparency, vaccinators themselves are not properly informed so are generally not in any position to offer accurate information that might be available in the public domain, but is generally not well known.

Information that should be freely communicated includes the fact that the vaccines are experimental and unproven. Those considering giving consent should be told about the vaccines’ reliance on synthetic biology that has never been tested at scale. But it also includes information on known risks and benefits from Phase 3 trials, and that these trials are still underway and some won’t be complete for over 18 months (e.g. Jan. 31, 2023, for Pfizer mRNA vaccine).

Put simply – without vaccine transparency, informed consent is just not possible.

The very least we should expect is that every person gets to read the product information leaflet agreed between vaccine makers and regulators — before giving their consent. Even this isn’t happening. Where the information is being given — it’s often being handed to people as a passing gesture — a formality — after vaccination.

Vaccine leaflets:

Pfizer information leaflet, UK: Pfizer PIL

Pfizer fact sheet for recipients and caregivers, U.S.

Pfizer fact sheet for healthcare providers administering the vaccine, U.S

AstraZeneca information leaflet, UK

Moderna fact sheet for healthcare providers administering the vaccine, U.S.

Moderna information leaflet, EU

Moderna information leaflet

It’s time that those in charge of the vaccination programs begin to respect informed consent. And while they’re at it, recognize that they better change how they’re approaching informed consent because many are likely breaking the law by not allowing that right to be exercised.

The law on informed consent — present in nearly all jurisdictions — forms one of the central planks of medical ethics that’s the bedrock for the practice of “good medicine” in civilized, democratized societies. Let’s not throw that to the wind.

Originally published by Alliance for Natural Health International.

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.

Using Herd Immunity Myth to Justify COVID Vaccines for Kids Is Deceptive — and Dangerous

By Children’s Health Defense Team | The Defender

During the first six weeks of the coronavirus vaccine rollout among U.S. adults, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) — notorious for collecting only a tiny fraction of adverse events — received reports of more than 500 post-vaccination deaths and close to 11,000 other injuries.

Internationally renowned molecular genetics expert Dolores Cahill believes that these injuries portend a forthcoming tsunami of crippling and fatal problems. In the coming months, Cahill expects to see successive waves of adverse reactions to the experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) injections ranging from anaphylaxis and other allergic responses to autoimmunity, sepsis, and organ failure.

Notwithstanding these and other credible warnings, U.S. health officials are signaling their intent to rapidly green-light the as-yet unlicensed mRNA vaccines for children.

Already last April — when next to nothing was known about COVID’s epidemiology, and candidate vaccines had barely begun to be studied — Bill Gates set the stage for the pediatric push, declaring that the end goal is to make COVID-19 vaccines “part of the routine newborn immunization schedule.”

We have since learned that 99.997% of young people ages 0-19 survive COVID-19 (with most experiencing either mild symptoms or no symptoms at all). But that does not seem to matter. Nor does a January 2021 study, which confirmed that it is only in a minuscule subset of children — mostly kids with serious underlying medical conditions — that the illness occasionally takes a turn for the worse.

In this low-risk context, public health officials know that they need to come up with different arguments to persuade parents to give the coronavirus vaccines to their offspring. Fortunately for these vaccine functionaries, there is a concept that is readily at hand: herd immunity.

And as Moderna joins Pfizer in conducting vaccine experiments on 12- to 17-year-olds — with additional trials in the works to test the injections in children under-12, including infants as young as six months — the chorus of voices casting herd immunity as “the main driver for COVID-19 child vaccinations” is growing noticeably louder.

A flawed ‘marketing gimmick’

Several years ago, JB Handley, author of “How to End the Autism Epidemic,” dissected herd immunity’s use as a “marketing gimmick” to shame and pressure people into vaccination, based on the guilt-tripping claim that non-compliers are free-riders who “put the health of the ‘herd’ at risk.”

Immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych, Ph.D., and others concur that officials enjoy wielding herd immunity “as a trump card to justify any measures, often at odds with the personal freedom of choice, aiming to increase vaccination compliance.”

There’s just one problem with vaccine herd immunity claims, says Handley: “[W]e’ve never come close to achieving ‘herd immunity’ through vaccination, and we never will.”

Having conducted extensive research on the history of vaccine policies (such as mandated vaccines for school attendance), Children’s Health Defense (CHD) President and General Counsel Mary Holland agree, stating that decades of intensive effort “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.”

The theory of herd immunity originated with a health officer working in Chicago in the 1930s. At its inception, the concept “had nothing to do with vaccination.” Instead, the theory reflected the physician’s careful observations “about the process of how a disease works its way through a community and how that community, eventually, naturally builds up a resistance to it as a result.”

As Obukhanych also explains, herd immunity evolved as an epidemiologic rather than an immunologic construct, offering at best a theoretical opportunity to predict successful disease control. As vaccines (and vaccine mandates) became more widespread in the mid-20th century, herd immunity theory underwent a pivotal transformation, based on the “faulty assumption that vaccination elicits in an individual a state equivalent to bona fide immunity,” Obukhanych said. Overlooking the sophistication of the human immune system — the very model of versatility — vaccine scientists adopted the flawed assumption of equivalence and, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, now view vaccination as a superior — even ideal — route to herd immunity.

The World Health Organization goes even further, omitting any reference to natural infection and defining herd immunity solely as “a concept used for vaccination.” Ironically, even as medical facilities report “an uptick in the recording of [COVID-19 vaccine] side effects” — not to mention disruptive “health impact events” — the Mayo Clinic asserts that vaccination “create[s] immunity without causing illness or resulting complications.”

The moving herd immunity target

Dr. Anthony Fauci — Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is 50% owner of the royalty-generating Moderna vaccine patent — has declared that herd immunity cannot be achieved and life cannot “return to some kind of normal” unless 85% to 90% of the entire U.S. population gets a coronavirus vaccine, children included. Today, Fauci told ProPublica children as young as first-graders may be authorized to get the coronavirus vaccine by the time school starts in September.

Children (ages 0-17) make up 22% of the U.S. population. In late December, Fauci breezily admitted to the New York Times that he “nudged” the herd immunity target up to 90% (from a prior estimate of 70%) after he saw polls indicating a growing public willingness to get a vaccine.

Educators have been quick to reinforce Fauci’s message that young people should get the shots, stating that vaccinating students is “a crucial step in the return-to-normal for schools.” Conversely, Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), recently asserted that teachers don’t need to be vaccinated to reopen schools safely.

Two French scientists at the Pasteur Institute published a slightly more scientific discussion of COVID-19 herd immunity goals last September. While still promoting vaccination as the pathway of choice, they acknowledged that herd immunity calculations necessarily must account for variables such as susceptibility and transmission. They also noted that “children, particularly those younger than 10, maybe less susceptible and contagious than adults, in which case they may be partially omitted from the computation of herd immunity.”

Although American officials admit that “kids do not generally suffer from severe COVID-19” and are unlikely to directly benefit from the injections, they have no intention of following the French authors’ advice to exclude children from their herd immunity calculus. Instead, framing their ethically shaky and scientifically doubtful argument in the conditional tense, they claim that “inoculating [children] could reduce the spread to people at higher risk.”

In short, public health leaders say, parents, must “vaccinate the young to protect the old.” Given the federal government’s estimate that one vaccine injury results from every 39 vaccines administered, it seems clear that officials expect children to shoulder 100% of the risks of COVID vaccination in exchange for zero benefits.

Natural immunity and COVID

Interestingly, the experts issuing sweeping statements about the need for 90% vaccine coverage and protection of the elderly make no mention of the many Americans who have already had COVID-19, even though a growing number of studies point to “persistent [natural] immunity” in recovered individuals (see here and here).

Rep.Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), an MIT-trained scientist and inventor who had COVID early on in the pandemic, scrutinized data from the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials and ascertained that neither vaccine offers any benefit to those with naturally acquired immunity.

However, Massie discovered that the CDC not only was advising previously infected individuals to get vaccinated but continued to do so even after Massie alerted them to their propagation of “false and incorrect science.”

A phenomenon known as pathogenic priming (also called “disease enhancement”) represents another important reason to question the advisability of recommending that adults and children who have already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection get a COVID vaccine.

A pivotal April paper by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler explained how exposure to specific peptides (components of proteins) through infection may “prime” some individuals “for increased risk of enhanced pathogenicity during future exposure” — including subsequent exposure in the form of vaccination.

In December, Lyons-Weiler and CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. noted that the clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines “did not rule out pathogenic priming in any way.” Reports of post-COVID-vaccine deaths filed with VAERS (searchable at medalerts.org) indicate that some of the deceased had previously experienced COVID illness, including seniors who were a couple of weeks “post COVID” and then died within minutes or hours of receiving their injections.

A multi-country serological analysis published in Nature estimated (Table S4) that by the beginning of September, 14% of Americans had been infected — a conservative estimate given that serology (antibody) testing provides only a partial picture, assessing what is called “humoral immunity.” As the two Pasteur Institute authors observed in their fall paper, humoral immunity (which is the type of immunity induced by vaccination) “does not capture the full spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 protective immunity.”

Also in September, Dr. Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal), drew attention to studies showing mobilization of memory T cells against SARS-CoV-2 “in 20% to 50% of people with no known exposure to the virus.” The scientists quoted by Doshi in his article attribute this to prior exposure to the common cold and other coronaviruses — and wonder whether “there is more immunity out there” than meets the eye.

In fact, memory T cells are some of the immune system’s busiest white blood cells, and Doshi notes that they “are known for their ability to affect the clinical severity and susceptibility to future infection.” He suggests, therefore, that they could help elucidate “mysteries of COVID-19, such as why children have been surprisingly spared the brunt of the pandemic. . . and the high rate of asymptomatic infections in children and young adults.”

However, vaccine-centric scientists (and their mainstream media promoters) are not exploring these mysteries, instead of ignoring T cells while maintaining their narrow focus on antibodies. Piggy-backing on Doshi’s questions, another writer asks: “Is [the lack of research attention to T cells] because vaccines are good at provoking antibody responses but not so great at generating T-cells?”

Protecting the young

Over many decades, the far-from-uncommon phenomenon of vaccine failure in fully vaccinated individuals has made it abundantly clear that antibody responses are inadequate as a guarantor of real immunity. For children, an even bigger problem is that, before their immune system has even had a chance to develop, a pile-up of vaccinations aggressively overstimulates them into a state of artificial immunity. Immune dysfunction and chronic illness are the not-infrequent outcomes.

The pediatric study that recently identified underlying medical conditions as the strongest risk factor responsible for COVID-19 deaths in children cited conditions such as “asthma, autoimmune disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, GI/liver disease, hypertension, immune suppression, metabolic disease, neurologic disease, obesity, and renal disease.” Coincidentally or not, these are among the nearly 400 adverse reactions identified in package inserts as being potentially associated with vaccination.

As Lyons-Weiler reminded us several years before COVID, “The determination of the benefit of widespread vaccination for any vaccine must consider not only the ability to protect those at risk but also the downstream costs due to vaccine injuries.”

Instead of absurdly arguing (as some are doing) that rushing risky mRNA vaccines into children is what is needed not just to achieve an arbitrary level of herd immunity but to “fully revive the economy,” let’s heed Handley’s words: “Until we are honest in our assessment of both the safety and efficacy of vaccines, kids will continue to be hurt, rights will continue to be trampled, and mythology will continue to trump science.”

Parents should not be lulled into the false notion that vaccines (or any medical procedure) are all benefit and no risk.