One of the many unfortunate side effects of the attention which has been given to the covid-19 jabs is the fact that more traditional vaccinations (including the dozens routinely given to children) have been forgotten and are now largely administered without protest, controversy or a second thought.
There was always a danger that the justifiable outrage and fear engendered by the covid-19 jabs would push the wider issue of traditional vaccination into the background. The experimental and notably toxic covid-19 jabs have understandably and rightly captured the attention of those who aren’t prepared to accept the lies, the deceits and the manipulations at face value.
But it is important that we don’t forget the ever-growing hailstorm of vaccinations, aimed particularly at children, which have seemingly become an integral part of our relationship with health care in general and doctors in particular.
We all know that the establishment and the mainstream media refuse to debate the mRNA jabs.
But it is, I suspect, less widely known that there has for a long time been a blackout on any discussion of the more traditional vaccines or that the reputation of vaccines is built on a toxic mixture of myths, fallacies and plain, vanilla lies.
I’ve been writing about vaccines for over 50 years but rather to my surprise it was 2011 before I wrote a book entirely devoted to vaccines and vaccination.
I wrote the book (Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying. Here’s the proof.) partly to provide evidence proving that vaccines are often dangerous and don’t work but also to destroy the outrageous, manufactured myth that vaccination has extended life expectancy and eradicated diseases such as smallpox and whooping cough.
I’ll get back to that theme in a moment but first I think it is worth using the history of that book to illustrate the extent of the media blackout which exists to protect vaccines and vaccination.
Knowing that none of my usual publishers would touch a book about vaccines, I published it myself.
We sent out 600 review copies, hoping that one or two reviewers might be brave enough to consider the book on its merit. However, to the best of my knowledge, not one reviewed it. People I’d known for years wouldn’t discuss it. Moreover, quite a number of reviewers returned the book. It is usual practice for reviewers to sell books they don’t want to keep on their shelves. But journalists actually spent time and money returning the book!
I knew there were risks in writing a whole book about vaccines. It has always been a topic which has aroused anger within the medical establishment. In the Preface I wrote: ‘Experience tells me this book will bring me much trouble, a great deal of abuse, a number of threats and considerable professional and personal inconvenience’.
But even I was surprised at how quickly I became persona non grata. My questioning of official establishment policies had, for a long time, made me unpopular with the establishment. It quickly became apparent that vaccination is a taboo subject and that vaccines are protected from criticism in the way that film stars were protected in the 1930s.
Since its publication there have been concerted efforts to ban the book and have it removed from sale.
No one has ever questioned the science, the statistics or the conclusions in the book. Critics have, however, been upset by my criticism of ‘the establishment’s unquestioned enthusiasm for a practice which is of such doubtful value and which offers such potential for disaster’.
I described vaccination as `a massive confidence trick’ and predicted (in 2011 remember) that ‘vaccination will become compulsory in the West’. I have been lied about constantly by thousands of rabid supporters of vaccination.
It seems that the mainstream media has devoted itself to promoting vaccines and never allowing any aspect of vaccination to be questioned. The BBC actually has a policy of excluding all vaccine criticism from its programmes. Merely questioning the validity of vaccination draws a torrent of abuse down upon the questioner’s head.
The inevitable result is that vaccination programmes continue pretty well unhindered and millions of children are now regularly jabbed with products which have never been properly tested or evaluated either for safety or efficacy.
The most potent claim for vaccines is, as I’ve already mentioned, that they have saved millions of lives. (This claim is now being falsely applied to the covid-19 jab which cannot be proven to have saved any lives at all). The fraud is maintained by pointing to average life expectation but this is a false argument for the figures are skewed by the vast number of babies and infants who used to die of disease or malnutrition. Every infant death drags down life expectation dramatically.
All around the world, infants and children are now subjected to a seemingly endless series of assaults on their immune systems. The vaccines used have never been adequately tested to see how they might interact or how they might affect other medications. Very few long-term trials have been done though the few available confirm my scepticism. For example, in 2017, the Danish Government and a Danish vaccine maker, funded a study of the DTP vaccine. The WHO and the medical establishment claim that the DTP vaccine saves millions of lives but, after looking at 30 years of data, the scientists concluded that the DTP vaccine was probably killing more children than died from diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus prior to the vaccines introduction. The vaccine had ruined the immune systems of children rendering them susceptible to death from pneumonia, leukaemia, bilharzia, malaria and dysentery.
The results of that trial changed nothing. The vaccination continued unhindered.
The vaccines most often described as having changed the world are those for polio, whooping cough and smallpox. But look at the evidence.
With polio the truth is that with other infectious diseases the significance of polio dropped as better sanitation, better housing, cleaner water and more food were made available in the second half of the 19th century. Look at the evidence and it shows that the number of polio victims went up not down as a result of vaccination. In Tennessee, USA (chosen at random) the number of polio victims before vaccination became compulsory was 119. The year after vaccination was introduced the figure rose to 386. In America as a whole the number of deaths from polio had fallen dramatically before the first polio vaccine was introduced but the incidence of polio increased by around 50% after the introduction of mass immunisation.
Of even more significance (which I revealed in my book `Why Animal Experiments Must Stop in 1991) 17 million people who were given polio vaccines as children in the 1950s and 1960s are now at risk of developing cancer. This is because the first practical vaccine used monkey kidney tissue – which contains a carcinogenic virus. Moreover, the virus can be passed on to the children of those who were given the contaminated vaccine. Could this explain the ever rising number of people with cancer? We’ll never know. The doctor who first warned of this risk was ignored and her laboratory was closed down. The documents showing who had received the dangerous vaccine were destroyed by the Department of Health in 1987 though it seems likely that millions of doses of the dangerous polio vaccine were used despite the risk.
The smallpox story is equally startling.
The myth that smallpox was eradicated through a mass vaccination programme is just that – a myth. Smallpox was eradicated through identifying and isolating patients with the disease. One of the worst smallpox epidemics of all time took place in England between 1870 and 1872 – nearly two decades after compulsory vaccination had been introduced. The people of Leicester refused the vaccine and there was only one death. In contrast there were massive numbers of deaths in towns where people had been vaccinated.
German doctors are taught that it was the Reich Vaccination Law (making vaccination compulsory) which halted smallpox in their country. But the incidence of smallpox had dropped before the law came into action. Once again, a legally enforced national vaccination programme did not eradicate the disease.
Look at history and it is clear that the number of cases of smallpox has gone up each time there has been a mass vaccination programme.
It’s worth remembering too that Dr Jenner, a hero for pro-vaccine folk, refused to have his second child vaccinated after he’d tried his smallpox vaccination on his own son. Tragically, the boy remained mentally retarded until his death at the age of 21.
Everywhere you look the evidence is the same: vaccination doesn’t work. Moreover, it is not difficult to sustain the argument that it does more harm than good.
Sadly, the medical establishment and the media have for years conspired to suppress the truth and to demonise the truth tellers.
The suppression of the truth about the covid-19 jab is nothing new.
Children, who are at no risk from Covid-19, are being aggressively pursued and forcibly injected with an experimental injection whose ingredients are secret. The injection, which is marketed as a vaccine, has garnered more life-threatening adverse reactions within 18 months than all other FDA-licensed vaccines combined for the last 30 years.
Infants and young children are being injected within the framework of an experimental medical atrocity, an atrocity that is a chilling reminder of Nazi medical atrocities. FDA officials issued one after another Emergency Use Authorization for the use of the “vaccine” for ever younger age groups. The latest FDA authorization was issued on June 17th, authorizing the injections for very young children and infants as young as 6 months.
FDA officials ignored entirely the accumulating, unprecedented number of severe injury reports involving children aged 5 to 11. These reports were submitted to the FDA-CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
An analysis of 58 VAERS case reports of severe adverse events suffered by babies and toddlers under 3 years of age following the mRNA Covid injection. The VAERS case reports reveal that the Covid-19 injections are attacking infants’ and toddlers’ brains, hearts, and other vital organs.
The analysis was submitted by Israeli journalists Ranit Feinberg & Yaffa Shir-Raz, to the FDA, prior to its advisory committee meeting on June 17th. The analysis was published by Rite Time an Israeli online magazine, on June 13, 2022.
“The most common serious adverse events were life-threatening bleeding, anaphylactic shock, anticholinergic syndrome, encephalitis, hypoglycemia and neuroleptic syndrome. In most of the reported cases, these are multi-system injuries.
In some cases it is not clear what happened to the babies – did they survive? And if so, have they recovered?
Most reports do not specify under what circumstances the infants were vaccinated, and if they participated in the clinical trials.
Most reports do not record whether the babies died or survived.” (Emphasis in original)
(case number 1015467) Cardiac arrest, chest pain of a two-month-old baby boy, one Hour after Pfizer’s mRNA Experimental Vaccine
Torsade de Pointes/QT prolongation (broad), Anaphylactic reaction (broad), Arrhythmia related investigations, signs and symptoms (broad), Shock-associated circulatory or cardiac conditions (excl torsade de Pointes) (narrow), Acute central respiratory depression (broad), Gastrointestinal nonspecific symptoms and therapeutic procedures (broad), Cardiomyopathy (broad), Respiratory failure (broad), Hypoglycaemia (broad), Noninfectious myocarditis/pericarditis (broad)
(case number 1133837) is of a 43-day-old baby girl who reportedly received an “intramuscular” COVID-19 jab and immediately afterward suffered a variety of multi-system, life-threatening injuries.
These include: “‘Anaphylactic reaction (broad), Asthma/bronchospasm (narrow), Anticholinergic syndrome (broad), Acute central respiratory depression (broad), Pulmonary hypertension (broad), Cardiomyopathy (broad), Eosinophilic pneumonia (broad), Vestibular disorders (broad), Hypersensitivity (broad), Respiratory failure (narrow), Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome (broad).’”
While the section for noting whether or not the patient died was marked “No,” the recovery section was also marked “No.”
“What then happened to her? Is she alive, or did she die?” Does anyone employed by the FDA or CDC care about what happened to these babies?
FDA officials disregarded the evidence of harm entirely. It is unclear whether FDA shared the analysis of the 58 VAERS case reports with the advisory committee. The committee voted unanimously to recommend these clearly UNSAFE experimental injections for infants and young children – thereby lending their support to a morally perverse policy that subjects children to a medically unjustifiable experiment that exposes them to life-threatening hazards.
As of July 8th, VAERS received 278 case reports of adverse events following Covid-19 injections involving 5-month-old infants to less than 5-year-old young children. Of these, 137 cases were recorded since the FDA authorization. (MedAlerts.)
Case 2342486, a nine-month-old female infant who, submitted on June 27th — one day after the injection, her condition was life-threatening. Electroencephalogram, Intensive care, Seizure Her symptoms: Systemic lupus erythematosus (broad), Convulsions (narrow), Noninfectious encephalitis (broad), Noninfectious encephalopathy/delirium (broad), Noninfectious meningitis (broad), Generalised convulsive seizures following immunization (narrow), Hypoglycemia
By July 15th, the number of case reports involving infants and young children under 5 who have suffered serious adverse reactions rose to 381.
Young children who have been forcibly injected in a massive, unethical vaccination experiment suffer from multiple life-threatening adverse reactions. The following are described in VAERS reports involving infants and young children::
“Inflammation and systemic symptoms syndrome, Anaphylactic reaction,Peripheral neuropathy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, Noninfectious encephalitis, delirium, Febrile convulsion, Generalised convulsive seizures following immunization, Decreased oxygen saturation, Seizure, Unresponsive to stimuli, Abnormal sleep-related event, Acute pancreatitis, Hyperglycemia/new onset diabetes mellitus, Neuroleptic malignant syndrome, Anticholinergic syndrome, Systemic lupus erythematosus, Dementia, Convulsions, Acute central respiratory depression, Psychosis and psychotic disorders, Hostility/aggression, Hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode, Generalized convulsive seizures following immunization, Respiratory failure, Drug reaction and systemic symptoms syndrome, Hypoglycemia, Infective pneumonia Abnormal sleep-related event, Acute pancreatitis, meningitis…”
Most of these conditions have never before been diagnosed in young children, such as “Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome,” which is induced by toxic psychotropic drugs.
“Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) is a rare and life-threatening reaction to the use of any neuroleptic medication. Neuroleptics, also known as antipsychotic medications.”
Since FDA officials authorized the toxic experimental shots for babies, 27 reported cases of Neuroloeptic Malignat Syndrome involved the youngest children.
As the mother of an adult-aged son who died of Clozaril-induced Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome, which led to organ failure, I am horrified that children, including infants and toddlers, are being exposed to multiple risks of death.
What are the undisclosed ingredients in these toxic injections?
Why did the manufacturers, distributors, as well as doctors, and public officials insist on getting total immunity from liability?
This extraordinary marketing scheme has resulted in hundreds of thousands of human casualties. Most were previously healthy men, women, and even younger children who have suffered profound, life-altering harm following the injections.
Are Children and Infants Targets of Deliberate Genocide?
The evidence that the medical establishment and the media ignore and disavow is documented in an unprecedented number of children who died following Covid injections:
The evidence that children are dying in unprecedented numbers is also documented by the bulk orders for child-sized burial caskets since 2021, following the rollout of the Covid injections.
The tweet below was posted on July 4, 2022, by Mick Haddock
Mick Haddock says that he has sold 5 years’ worth of child-sized caskets in 7 months. “Vaccines are killing children. If not, what is?”
Having escaped the Nazi genocidal agenda – i.e., the Final Solution– I am convinced that we are confronted with a genocidal war. This time, the genocide is on a Global scale. This time instead of Zyklon B gas, the weapons of mass destruction are genetically engineered injectable bioweapons.
This time, the Israeli Health Ministry follows in lockstep with FDA vaccine authorizations. Officials at the Health Ministry ignored the alarming VAERS data and ignored their own substantial data confirming that Pfizer’s Covid injections are causing severe harm and cutting short the lives of Israeli children in unprecedented numbers
[Read: Israel Was Caught Concealing Children’s Vaccine Injuries]
Read the report below:
*********
58 Babies Who Received mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Suffered Life-threatening Adverse Events
Ranit Feinberg & Yaffa Shir-Raz June 13, 2022
An analysis of VAERS reports shows that contrary to the FDA’s briefing document claiming that the majority of adverse events in Pfizers’ clinical trial were non-serious – at least 58 cases of life-threatening side effects in infants under 3 years old who received mRNA vaccines were reported. For some, it is unclear if they survived. It is also unclear why the infants were vaccinated and whether they were part of the clinical trials. However, in the upcoming FDA meeting on Wednesday, the FDA will not be able to argue it did not know
While the FDA is preparing to approve the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for infants and toddlers aged 6 months to four years and claims in its’ VRBPAC Briefing Document released today that the majority of adverse events found in Pfizers’ trial were non-serious – Real-Time magazine analysis reveals at least 58 life-threatening adverse events in infants and toddlers aged under 3 years old reported to VAERS.
The most common serious adverse events were life-threatening bleeding, anaphylactic shock, anticholinergic syndrome, encephalitis, hypoglycemia, and neuroleptic syndrome. In most of the reported cases, these are multi-system injuries.
In some cases, it is not clear what happened to the babies – did they survive? And if so, have they recovered?
Most reports do not specify under what circumstances the infants were vaccinated and if they participated in the clinical trials.
While the FDA claims in its’ briefing document that the vaccine efficacy in infants is 80.4%, the document reveals that the claim is based on a total of 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19 identified in the trial among 1415 participants – 7 of them in the placebo group vs. 3 in the vaccine group.
Assisted in the preparation of the article Shani Cohen
“Chest pain; cardiac arrest; Skin cold clammy”. This short description of a cardiac arrest, which occurred one hour after receiving a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, is taken from the VAERS system – the US Vaccine Adverse Eve Reporting System ( case number 1015467), and it does not refer to an elderly person, nor to a young adult, or even a teenager. It is hard to believe, but this report refers to a two-month-old baby. “A 2-month-old male patient received bnt162b2 (PFIZER-BioNTech COVID-19 VACCINE) lot number: EL 739, via an unspecified route of administration on 02 Feb 2021 at single dose for COVID-19 immunisation”, thus stated in the report.
“Patient administered vaccination, observed for 15 minutes left the clinic then returned one hour later on 02 Feb 2021, presenting as skin cold, clammy and with chest pain, cardiac arrest event then developed, patient stabilised and transferred for further medical treatment… The outcome of the events was unknown. This case was reported as serious with seriousness criteria-life threatening from HA. No follow-up attempts possible. No further information expected”.
How did a 2-month-old baby receive the mRNA vaccine? These vaccines have not yet received EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) for approved use in children ages five and under by the FDA, or any other regulatory authority, and even if it will, the EUA will only include babies 6 months and older.
Was this baby a participant in Pfizer-BioNTech’s clinical trials, testing efficacy, and safety among babies?
The answer is unclear. According to the person who wrote the report, “Unsure if the patient was enrolled in a clinical trial.” However, the author of the report also states that the report was ”received from a contactable Other Health Care Professional by Pfizer from the Regulatory Agency.” This note implies that the infant might have actually participated in Pfizer’s trial. The regulatory agency report Safety Report Unique Identifier GB-MHRA-ADR 24687611 – indicates that the report came from Great Britain (the first 2 letters in the report ID stand for the country of origin, GB- Great Britain, and MHRA indicate that the source of reporting was its’ drug authority).
Why did they not follow up on the 2-month-old baby’s condition after going into cardiac arrest an hour after receiving an experimental vaccine? Why is there no further information? Is it because he died? Or was the baby removed from an experiment? Why would the author of the report not mention this?
Shockingly, it turns out that this incident is not isolated but, in fact, one of many in the VAERS system describing babies and children under five exposed to mRNA Covid vaccines who suffered life-threatening adverse reactions.
Even though children under five were not considered eligible for these vaccines unless they were part of a clinical trial, astonishingly, it appears that there are many reports in the system describing babies and toddlers who were vaccinated. Some of the children suffered from life-threatening adverse events. In some cases, it is not clear what happened to them; did they survive and recover, do they still suffer from health problems, or did they die.
In a couple of days, on June 15, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will discuss Moderna and Pfizer’s EUA requests for vaccines for infants and toddlers aged 6 months to 4 years – the only group not yet eligible for COVID-19 vaccination today. According to the FDA’s briefing document released today ahead of the VRBPA committees’ meeting, there were “245 US reports” to the VAERS system “in children 6 months through 4 years of age” who were injected (“product administered to the patient of inappropriate age” or “off-label use”) or exposed to the vaccine “via breastmilk.”
Nevertheless, both companies announced already in May that their findings indicate that their vaccines are safe and effective. The VRBPAC Briefing Document lists a variety of adverse events reported following the exposure to the vaccine in this age group, including “pyrexia…, body temperature…, cough, headache, rash, diarrhea”. According to the document, “Among US VAERS reports for individuals aged 6 months through 4 years, which may reflect unauthorized use of the vaccine or may reflect a reporting error, the majority (96.3%) were non-serious”.
While the document specifies safety concerns identified from post-authorization safety surveillance data in VAERS, including anaphylaxis, myocarditis, and pericarditis, it does not relate to these safety concerns identified in the younger age group. Instead, it states: “No unusual frequency, clusters, or other trends for adverse events were identified that would suggest a new safety concern.”
But is that really the case? It seems that regardless of the results, and despite the disturbing and shocking findings that are being exposed from Pfizer’s documents, it is expected that both companies will receive the desired EUA very soon. In fact, the CDC website, already in April, had advertised a protocol regarding children’s vaccination, which included babies 6 months to 4 years as well.
In light of this expected approval, RT Magazine conducted an analysis of the cases reported in the VAERS system referring to babies up to 3 years old.
During the analysis, cases were removed in which it was stated that the exposure to the vaccine was through breastfeeding (these cases were analyzed separately and will soon be presented in a follow-up article), as well as cases that were identified as errors in the age registration.
The analysis shows there were at least 58 cases of severe and life-threatening adverse reactions among babies and toddlers 3 years old and younger. This finding is especially puzzling considering the fact that they weren’t supposed to be vaccinated at this age, to begin with. Sadly, similarly to the case reported above, most VAERS reports do not indicate how and under which circumstances they were exposed to the vaccine – were the participants in the companies’ trials? And if not, why and in which circumstances were they vaccinated?
Both companies have not yet released the safety data from their trials on this age group. However, one thing is clear from the VAERS reports: there were many babies who were injured after receiving the vaccine. Whether vaccinated in the trials or illegally in their communities, Pfizer and Moderna will definitely not be able to claim, when presenting their data to the FDA, that the vaccine is safe for babies and that there weren’t any severe adverse events in this age group. Moreover, the FDA’s committee experts who will discuss the EUA approval will not be able to ignore those cases and argue that they did not know. The data presented in this article demonstrate beyond any doubt the complete opposite, and this time – these data are presented to the public in advance before the EUA is granted and ahead of the VRBPAC discussion.
The outcome of the events: Did not recover
One of the most chilling reports refers to a 43-day-old female baby, who on January 30, 2021, received Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine. In the incident description (report no. 1133837), it is clearly stated that she was vaccinated and that the vaccine was injected into the muscle: “A 43-days-old female patient received bnt162b2 (COMIRNATY), intramuscular on 30Jan2021 (Lot Number: EK9788) as SINGLE DOSE for COVID-19 immunization”. Right after the vaccination, the baby suffered a variety of life-threatening multi-system injuries, such as:
“Anaphylactic reaction (broad), Asthma/bronchospasm (narrow), Anticholinergic syndrome (broad), Acute central respiratory depression (broad), Pulmonary hypertension (broad), Cardiomyopathy (broad), Eosinophilic pneumonia (broad), Vestibular disorders (broad), Hypersensitivity (broad), Respiratory failure (narrow), Drug reaction with eosinophilia andsystemic symptoms syndrome (broad).” Although in the section reporting death, the statement states “No,” the section reporting recovery also states “No,” – meaning the baby has not recovered. What then happened to her? Is she alive, or did she die?
In addition, this report, like many others, raises some difficult questions. How did a 43-day-old baby receive a vaccine not yet approved for use in babies? Furthermore, the current clinical trials conducted are supposed to include babies and children over 6 months. Was this baby a participant in Pfizers’ trial? The report does not answer this question.
Just like this baby, it turns out that in most of the reported cases, several life-threatening side effects were recorded for the same baby. The most common severe adverse events were dangerous hemorrhaging; anaphylactic shock – a life-threatening allergy that can damage the respiratory system and cause dizziness, fainting, and even death; anticholinergic syndrome- a condition that occurs when the receptor sites for the neurotransmitter acetylcholine are blocked, which can lead to coordination problems, increased heart rate, and other symptoms; encephalitis – a brain infection, that can cause headaches, vomiting, loss of consciousness and death; hypoglycemia – very low blood sugar, a condition that can quickly escalate to death in infants; and neuroleptic syndrome – which is also life-threatening and can damage the heart muscles, other muscles, and the kidneys.
From the summary of the findings of the analysis according to age and gender groups, the following picture emerges:
In the age group of 0-6 months – there are 28 reports, of which 10 are males, 16 are females, and 2 whose gender was not specified.
9 of them (32%) suffered an anticholinergic syndrome, 9 (32%) had an anaphylactic shock, 8 (28.6%) suffered from Neuroleptic syndrome, 5 suffered from heart rhythm irregularities, and 5 had hypoglycemia.
In the age group of 6-12 months – in this group, 5 reports were found – 3 males, one female, and one whose gender was not specified. This group is small compared to the other groups. The list of adverse reactions included: anaphylactic shock, anticholinergic syndrome, and Neuroleptic syndrome.
In the age group of one-to-three year old – in this group, 25 cases were reported, of which 5 related to males, 19 related to females, and one to a baby whose gender was not specified.
6 of the babies (24%) had an anaphylactic shock, 6 (24%) suffered anticholinergic syndrome, 5 (20%) suffered from Neuroleptic syndrome, 4 (16%) suffered encephalitis, 3 (12%) had irregular heartbeats, one baby was hemorrhaging and one suffered from hypoglycemia.
It should be noted that the adverse events listed above are only some of the ones reported in VAERS with respect to babies. We have chosen to focus only on life-threatening and common adverse events.
Table No. 1: Analysis of reports by age and gender
Table No. 2: Analysis of reports by adverse events
Are the babies alive?
Similarly to the previous case described, another baby, two months old, also went through anaphylactic shock after being exposed to a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on January 6, 2021, and just like her, according to the report (no. 976433), she suffered from an array of multi-system symptoms. Regarding the method of administering the vaccine, it was stated ”via an unspecified route of administration”, meaning it is not clear in what circumstances the baby was exposed to the vaccine.
Was she part of Pfizers’ clinical trial? Again, it is unclear from the report.
However, the more important question that should be asked, just like in the previous case, is what happened to the baby? Did she survive? Is she alive?
And again, in the section reporting death, it states “No”, meaning the baby did not die. However, in the report description, it says, “The patient had not recovered from the event. No follow-up attempts possible. No further information expected”. Read the rest here
It is hard to believe, but this basic question – what happened to a baby after suffering such severe and life-threatening adverse reactions – also arises from other serious cases, such as the case of a 6-month-old baby (report # 2084418) who “received bnt162b2 (COMIRNATY), intramuscular” on December 29, 2021, and went through anaphylactic shock, anticholinergic syndrome, Neuroleptic syndrome, infectious pneumonia, other infections, and multi-system symptoms.
In this case, as well, the section reporting death states “No”, meaning supposedly the baby did not die, while in the event description it says “outcome ‘unknown’… No follow-up attempts are possible. No further information is expected”.
In another case (report no. 1012508), a one-year-old baby who also received a Pfizer vaccine on January 19, 2021 (in this case, it is specified that the baby did not take part in a trial) developed pain in her left ear that escalated to full paralysis, which was diagnosed as Guillain Barre syndrome. In the case described, it was stated that the baby suffered Guillain Barre Syndrome, face paralysis, non-infectious encephalitis, non-infectious meningitis, earaches, and hearing disorders. Nonetheless, in the summary of the report, it was again written that “No follow-up attempts are possible.”
And another shocking case (report number 1379484) emerges from the report of a baby who was only one month old, who suffered “Vaginal bleeding/ Constant heavy vaginal bleeding with chunks of clot” the following day after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on May 19, 2021.
Although the symptoms the baby suffered from were defined as “serious as medically significant,” in the incident description, it is stated that the result is “unknown” and that “No follow-up attempts are possible. No further information is expected”.
As mentioned, in some of the cases, it is stated the babies were not part of a clinical trial, while in others, it is not clear whether they participated in a clinical trial or were vaccinated in other unknown circumstances. But whether they were part of the trial or not, the report does not explain the absence of this critical information; what happened to these babies? Did they survive? And if so, did they recover? Why was there not a follow-up on the medical condition of babies who suffered from severe and life-threatening adverse events while it was clearly stated that they did not recover? Is it not required in such severe cases by the FDA that the company should make every effort to locate these babies, find out what their condition is and follow up on them?
“Redness in the injection area: the clinical trial protocol does not mention severe adverse reactions”
The press release issued in February 11, 2022, in which Pfizer-BioNTech announced that they intend to apply to the FDA for approval for infants from 6 months to 4 years of age, the safety findings from the company’s clinical trials in babies and toddlers at these ages are not mentioned, not even in a word. The information brochure regarding the clinical trials testing the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine in adults, children, and babies, on the FDA website clearly states, “No Study Results Posted on ClinicalTrials.gov for this Study.” And as noted above, the newly released VRBPAC Briefing Document only lists a handful of non-serious adverse events reported in this age group, including, and concludes that there is nothing that would suggest a new safety concern. How could the FDA not know about so many serious adverse events that were reported to the CDC’s reporting systems? Alternatively, if they do know about them – why are they ignoring them?
How were adverse events in babies tested in the clinical trials? In an attempt to answer this critical question, intended to address the safety issues and to assure parents that the vaccine is safe for babies, we examined the study protocol found on the FDA clinical trial website.
It appears that no potential severe adverse events were listed. The list of potential adverse events that the study was supposed to evaluate according to the protocol (“outcome measure”) did include both local and systemic reactions. However, these are relatively non-serious adverse events.
The list of local adverse events that the trial was supposed to monitor includes: “Pain or tenderness at the injection site, redness, and swelling,” and the systematic reactions included ”Fever, fatigue, headache, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, new or worsened muscle pain, new or worsened joint pain, decreased appetite, drowsiness, and irritability”. Moreover, although the study is scheduled to end only on June 14, 2024, the time frame set for examining adverse events is limited to seven days after each of the doses – the first and the second dose.
The vaccine is ineffective in infants. The solution: lower the efficiency threshold and add a third dose
In addition to the substantial concerns regarding the vaccines’ safety for babies, their efficacy in this age group is questionable by and large. According to the available data, healthy children are at almost zero risk for severe illness, hospitalization, or death due to COVID-19.
Hospitalization due to COVID-19 is very rare among children, and death cases are even rarer. In Germany, for instance, a large study found that not even one child died of COVID-19 among 5-11 age group without pre-existing conditions. Under these circumstances, even one case of a serious adverse event, let alone death, is crucial and outweighs any possible benefit of the vaccine.
Not surprisingly, Pfizer clinical trials in babies under 4 proved that 2 vaccine doses do not increase their antibody count significantly. The FDA commissioner, Dr. Janet Woodcock, admitted in an interview in early April 2022 that “The antibodies that were developed were not as high, so they didn’t have the same antibody response to the two-shot series in the older kids. It wasn’t as high as what we would have hoped for the younger as it was for the older kids.” According to Woodcock, this is why Pfizer, which planned to apply for EUA approval for babies in February, postponed the submittal date and decided to add a third dose to the trial and wait for the findings after all babies got their third dose.
Furthermore, in a statement given on May 11, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research at the FDA, announced that infant and toddler vaccines will not need to pass the 50% efficacy rate against Covid. A 50% efficacy rate is the threshold adult vaccines need to pass. However, Marks explains that despite the previous guidelines, the FDA will not deny companies now approval for babies and toddlers just because it did not reach the 50% efficacy in preventing symptomatic infections.
Pfizer issued a press release on May 23 announcing that “Vaccine efficacy of 80.3% was observed in the descriptive analysis of three doses during a time when Omicron was the predominant variant”. According to the press release, “The study suggests that a low 3-ug dose of our vaccine…, provides young children with a high level of protection against the recent COVID-19 strains”.
Yet, the FDA’s briefing document reveals that the claim for a “high level of protection” is based on a total of 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19 identified in the trial, that occurred at least 7 days postDose 3. Three of them occurred among participants 6-23 months of age (which included 555 participants – 376 in the vaccine group and 179 in the placebo group) – with 1 case in the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine group and two in the placebo group. Seven other cases occurred among participants 2-4 years of age (which included 860 participants – 589 in the vaccine group and 271 in the placebo group) – with 2 cases in the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine group compared to 5 in the placebo group.
Nevertheless, the vaccine’s efficacy was framed by the FDA as 80,4%, and the document concludes that “Available data support the effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine 3-dose primary series (3 µg each dose) in preventing COVID-19 in the age group of 6 months through 4 years”. In addition, the document states that “Among infants and children 6 months through 4 years of age, rates of hospitalization and death due to COVID-19 are higher than among children and adolescents 5-17 years of age, and comparable to individuals 18-25 years of age, underscoring the benefit of an effective COVID19 vaccine in this age group”.
How ethical is it to give a baby a vaccine for a disease that the chances of getting severely ill or dying from are almost zero, while the benefits of the treatment are unclear and, and life-threatening adverse reactions are very significant?
This question was the topic of an article published in March this year in Bioethics. The researchers stated that not even one of the main claims argued to justify approval for babies is valid. According to them, the benefits of the vaccine for healthy children are minimal, and therefore, even though complications are rare, they outweigh the vaccine’s benefits, especially since it is highly unclear what the short and long-term risks are, and the experience with the vaccine is very short. The altruistic claim of protecting the environment is also very problematic, since as a vaccine exists, the groups at risk can defend themselves, and it was proven already that children are not the main transmitters of the virus.
Congress members demand answers
This ethical issue has been raised in recent days by 18 members of Congress in a letter issued to the FDA on June 7, demanding answers before the authority’s decision to grant an emergency permit for the infant vaccine. Members of Congress demanded to know why COVID-19 vaccines are necessary for this age group in light of the fact that the disease poses a very small risk to infants and young children, that vaccines have little efficacy, and that there are many unanswered questions regarding these vaccines’ safety and adverse events.
The letter presents 19 questions to the FDA, including, among others – why did the FDA delayed the publication of the hundreds of thousands of data pages from the manufacturers’ studies, the state of adverse events, and when can all FDA data be expected to be made public? The FDA was also asked to provide the public with more details regarding children who were severely injured or died from COVID-19 and how many children, in general, became seriously ill. Legislators also addressed the issue of cardiac risks in giving the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to children, noting that following vaccinations given to large numbers of children aged 5-18, an increase in myocarditis and pericarditis was observed, with some cases ending in death, and the long-term effects of heart-related inflammation not yet quantified by health authorities. What’s more, lawmakers demanded to know why the FDA lowered the threshold of efficacy for the vaccines specifically for infants and youngest children, thus actually allowing companies to apply for EUA without any justification.
The FDA will not be able to argue it did not know
As stated, the data emerging from the analysis presented in this article demonstrate beyond any doubt that the vaccine is not safe for babies and toddlers. Whether these children were part of the study or not – these reports have been in the VAERS system for many months, so there is no chance that the FDA does not know them. Unfortunately, the fact that the FDA was aware of at least some of the serious adverse events, including increased risk of morbidity in the first days after vaccination, myocarditis, and increased risk of miscarriage and fetal malformations, and yet approved the vaccine for teens, children, and pregnant women, was later revealed too late – long after the EUA was granted to Pfizer and Moderna, when many have already been harmed. It only became clear thanks to FOIA (Freedom of Information) requests submitted to the FDA and other health authorities, and only after the FDA was forced by the court to disclose the documents. This time, the VAERS data presented here makes it possible to reveal this fact even before the approval. The FDA will not be able to claim that it did not know.
Daily Clout and Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF) filed a Citizen Petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requesting that FDA revoke Emergency Use Authorization of COVID-19 vaccines for young children subsequent to FDA’s authorization of the COVID-19 injections for that age group on June 17, 2022.
Dr. Naomi Wolf, CEO of Daily Clout, asserted,
“With this decision, the FDA abandons its duty to protect the American people. COVID-19 poses statistically insignificant risk to babies and young children, and neither safety nor efficacy of the injections have been proven. But research from the WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Volunteers, along with analyses of official databases, primary source documents, and peer-reviewed studies, shows that the mRNA vaccines damage many teens’ hearts, leave babies with GI problems, sleep problems, seizures, liver damage, and multiorgan system failure, and suppress leukocytes; the vaccines visibly damaged the hearts of animals in studies. Why on earth would we thus risk the health of small children and babies?”
In fact, ignoring this data is the definition of arbitrary and capricious, a clear legal dereliction of FDA’s duty.
While the COVID injections were promoted as the only way to end the COVID crisis, the real-world evidence has demonstrated the injections not only fail to prevent infection, they also do not stop transmission.
Moreover, clinical trial data from Pfizer and Moderna reveal that more children who received the vaccines were diagnosed with COVID and hospitalized, respectively, than those in the placebo group. In addition, recent research and data from around the world suggest the injections impair long-term immunity to the virus, rendering recipients more likely to be hospitalized or die from COVID.
Leslie Manookian, President of Health Freedom Defense Fund stated,
“Aside from not performing as purported, the injections pose serious known and unknown risks to young children. Leaked data from Japan revealed high levels of the lipid nanoparticles from the mRNA shots accumulate in the ovaries with unknown consequences. But menstrual irregularities and increased rates of miscarriage have been reported after the injections. A recent study identified reduced sperm concentrations and effects on sperm motility. With these safety concerns in mind, FDA authorizing the injections for young children defies reason and the precautionary principle.”
FDA is charged with protecting public health, not marketing the products of what is arguably the most powerful industry in the world.
Daily Clout and HFDF request that FDA reverse or at the very least pause its decision to issue an EUA for mRNA vaccines for six-month-olds to under-fives. We ask instead that they further study the research available, including the research itemizing harms described above, and that they take into account over 130,000 comments submitted to the FDA regarding the dangerous step of authorizing these shots for young children, which they are legally required to consider.
Should FDA fail to reverse its authorization, Daily Clout and Health Freedom Defense Fund will take legal action to ensure that FDA abides by the law.
The transgender movement wants you to believe that young children know exactly what they want and, therefore, they should be allowed to have it.
Even without the obvious guidance, nudging, and grooming from teachers, parents, and friends, some of these children want to change genders—we are told.
This is bullshit only a demented person would believe.
Children change their minds every day. They want to be fire fighters, doctors, football players, parents, gardeners. They want to look like THIS friend on Monday and THAT friend on Tuesday.
They want straight hair, curls, long hair, short hair, no hair.
Parents have the job of keeping all these flights of fancy in line. Meaning—think what you want to, Jimmy, but we’re not letting you cut off all your hair or get on a boat and paddle out into the ocean looking for sharks.
What parents keep in line their kids can rebel against later; much later; if they decide to. But now, no dice.
Transgender guides and recruiters and groomers and outright pedophiles want to destroy that set-up. They want to “discover what a child really wants,” as long as it aligns with what THEY want for the child.
It’s a vicious game. It’s an obvious con. Because it’s so obvious, the hustlers needs mountains of propaganda and fake psychological theory and mass social media attacks to tip the public scales in their favor.
They even need the backing of government bureaucrats and politicians. And doctors with no consciences.
When the doctors chime in, we get GENDER DYSPHORIA, a psychological condition out of nowhere. Of course it has no defining physical test. It’s actually a piece of social conditioning pumped up to look like science.
“Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, your son definitely is suffering from gender dysphoria.”
No, your son has a criminal doctor. That’s the problem.
Here’s a secret. Any reasonably intelligent and clever adult could take a young child, and after spending enough time with him, stands a good chance of turning that child into a person desperately yearning for sex-change. The yearning would be quite convincing. People would say, “Well, this child REALLY NEEDS to transition. This is very serious. If he doesn’t get what he needs, he’ll be irreparably damaged.”
I’ve seen children act that desperately about wanting sugar, or internet access. When the parents travel past a certain threshold of permissiveness with a child, all sorts of strange things begin to happen. It’s very hard to turn back the clock. It might be impossible. The child gets an idea into his head, and the universe is going to end if he can’t bring that idea to fruition.
Again, don’t forget about the medical component, because we’re talking about chemical intervention. Puberty blockers. The doctors and the medical societies are blithely passing this off as a minor issue of no real concern.
Excuse me? Screwing around with a young child’s hormone levels is a minor issue? You really buy the claim that the chemicals can be stopped and then the process of attaining puberty picks up where it left off, and there are no problems?
This is a chemical INVASION. This is fronted by pharmaceutical companies that have a new market and a new profit plan. They’re the last people you should look to for any sign of conscience.
Do parents raise their children based on biases? Of course. This has been the case since the dawn of history. But children catch on to that dynamic sooner or later. They realize a day will come when they can make their own decisions.
However, when the biases come from new charming adults on the outside of the family, who affect the pose of friendship and true caring, and thus imply to the child (or state it overtly) that there is a whole other world, right now, which the child can enter—having strayed from home—and this is a very SAFE world…
The child is intrigued.
This is a form of kidnap.
This is a prime illustration of temptation. With ripe victims for the taking.
The child is too young to understand the mechanisms of seduction.
As you can see, if you follow the news, transitioning children has become an industry, with the backing of government.
It’s well-organized.
Surprisingly so.
But you shouldn’t be put off or confused by the surprise.
You should look straight at what this is.
Evil masked as kindness.
And you should deal with it on those terms. Come hell or high water.
I was relaxing in our screened porch in our little cottage in the forest, feeling rather pleased with myself. It had been an arduous week of the usual combat for liberty, but there had been victories.
I was reading a decorating magazine (we all have our vices). The grass was dewy; birds were loud. The morning was glorious.
I was feeling pioneer-ish and independent. I was alone in the house; Brian was traveling. I enjoyed the narrative moment: “Lady in the woods.”
Then I heard a “thump” about eight feet away behind my head. It was an exasperated thump, like a teenager slamming the door to his room. Like, “Really??”
I glanced behind me and saw the enormous ears and forehead of a sizable brown bear, who was ducking insolently, clearly aware of me, to lower himself behind the trash cans.
I sped indoors, locking the door. I grabbed a weapon out of the hall closet. In my haste, I grabbed the weapon that looked like a rifle, instead of the actual rifle, which was in a case. Thus I found myself locked in an upstairs bathroom, cowering, armed with a BB gun.
I sort of knew this bear. Brian had captured on his trail camera about a year ago, what must have been this bear and his brother or sister, when the little ones were just adorable cubs. One of the cubs had nuzzled the trailcam til the mom had batted it away, urging her little ones to follow her deeper into the woods, far from the dangerous things of men. One of the cubs was now this massive creature, that bear-watchers call a “sub-adult.”
I saw, peering fearfully out of the window, that it was no longer cute and fat. It was was thin, but massively muscled, and looked disoriented. It must have been eight feet long.
I paced into the upstairs bedroom and secured the windows. The bear left the garbage cans, and followed me around the corner of the house. I could now see it pacing and sniffing directly opposite the bedroom windows, though on the ground level. There were windows all around the house on that level. Bears had been known to break into homes.
I looked under the bed: hiding there could not save me if the bear made it into the house. I realized I was holding a BB gun, and felt ridiculous. Even if I managed to shoot it, this would do nothing but enrage him. The thin bedroom doors that I had thought so rustic and charming, could be broken down by an angry animal of that size in no time.
My heart pounded as I realized that he was not leaving; he continued pacing and circling, no matter where I went.
I went back into the bathroom, and locked that door with its flimsy lock.
There he was again, outside on that side of the house, as if he was spotting me or as if he could scent me. Surely he could smell my fear.
I cowered behind the bathroom curtain. The bear paused in its ransacking of the trash, stood up again on hind legs, looked right at me — or smelled right at me — and bared its long, sharp yellow teeth.
If I had had sympathy for the hungry teenager abandoned by its mom (or “emancipated” by its mom, as the bear watching sites explain) it evaporated.
I was on the phone with Brian, frozen with fear.
“Make yourself big! Shout at him!” Brian instructed. That was impossible. I could not move. I could hardly breathe.
That would be it, surely, I thought, after he’d exhausted the trash bag. He’d leave now, surely. But no. He came back toward me again like a nightmare, and headed once more to circle the house.
I called the sheriff’s office.
Twice they told me that nothing could be done, and to stay inside. I don’t blame the Columbia County Sheriffs. They have issues to deal with more serious than a former city lady trapped in her house by a hungry bear.
But the bear kept circling right up against the walls of the house. This went on for an hour. Adrenaline poured through my bloodstream. I did wonder if I would die that day.
When I called back in spite of myself and begged the police for help, they told me to call again only if he managed to break into the house. (Thank you, ‘Defund the Police’ advocates…)
At certain points of extreme stress, I could not even bring myself any longer to look outside to see where the bear was. What if I looked and couldn’t see him because he was already in the house? I went right into a place that is familiar to those of us with PTSD – a traumatized place where you freeze, and where you engage in magical thinking.
If I don’t look at the bear he won’t be there. If I don’t meet his gaze he won’t see me or smell me. I am somewhere else. I am not really here.
Reader, after an hour I was saved when brave colleagues of mine, Craig Klein, Reinette Senum and Jamie Arrigo, who had been meeting nearby, drove down our wooded driveway, blowing their car horns. I raced down the steps, never so happy to see people in my life. Reinette laughed at the sight of me racing to open the door, still carrying my useless BB gun.
I think I was coherent, but I was in shock. An officer from the Sheriff’s department arrived at the same time, bless him. Humans saved me. The aggressor, the wild animal, had been scared away, and not by me. I’d been a wreck, hopeless.
For days, I ruminated about the sharp yellow teeth of that bear, exposed as he raised his snout into the air, sniffing, like a scene from a horrifying fairy tale.
Why do I tell this story?
Because – the bear had been growing more and more comfortable emerging from the woods; he grew more and more comfortable exploring our trash and then he took over territory in exploring our lawn; he was “habituated” ultimately, as bear watchers say; he had ownership of the lawn and was circling the house to mark his territory. He was comfortable at last in stalking the homeowners.
He was here because — I had done nothing to stop him. He was here because I let him slowly take over our home.
My not being able to look directly at the bear did not make me any safer. My denial put me in greater danger.
This all, of course, really happened. But that does not mean it is not also a metaphor.
The same week that this happened, I also finalized my reporting about the Pfizer vaccines, showing — what I knew for months I would eventually find.
The heart of the manufacture and distribution of millions of doses of the MRNA vaccines that are causing such a swath of death and destruction throughout North America and Western Europe, is enmeshed with the plans, methods and manufacturing infrastructure of our existential adversary.
The enemy is within our very bodies.
Since I first started reading the reports produced by the 3000 medical and scientific experts of the WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Volunteers team, based on the 55000 Pfizer documents released under court order, I knew I was seeing not just medicine gone wrong, not just a greedy pharmaceutical company and a regulatory agency that was fully corrupted, but rather, or additionally, I was seeing a massive act of war. [https://campaigns.dailyclout.io/campaign/brand/cc3b3e5a-6536-4738-8ed6-5ee368c67240]
When I saw the eighteen months’ worth of sudden deaths, slow deaths, encephalies, strokes, heart attacks, pericarditis, myocarditis, Guillain Barre, Bell’s palsy, MS, blood clots, lung clots, leg clots, blue-green breast milk, spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, neonatal seizures, neonatal multi-organ system failure, liver damage, kidney damage, suppressed lactation, suppressed sperm count, disrupted menses, all detailed the Pfizer documents; when I saw the fact that 34,000 plus of the 42000 plus adverse events “cases” itemized in the worldwide rollout of the Pfizer injections, were sustained in the US — with the next largest group being sustained in Western Europe – and that the 56 countries around the world that also had Pfizer injections rolled out, amounted for only a bit over 7000 adverse events total — I knew I was seeing not just medicine gone wrong on a massive scale, but rather that I was seeing an act of war.
When I saw the doubling of neonatal deaths in country after country, the rise of 34% above normal in stillbirths and spontaneous abortions for vaccinated versus unvaccinated mothers; when I saw that 3816 vaccinated women in the VAERS database lost their babies — 57% of all the neonatal deaths in all the time that VAERS records had been kept — [https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/cdc-database-shows-death-risk-for-babies-of-vaccinated-mothers/]; when I saw that of 36 pregnancies followed in the Pfizer documents, 28 of the babies died [https://www.drpaulalexander.com/blogs/news/etana-hecht-israeli-scientist-researcher-vaccinated-women-fertility-signals-are-coming-through-the-fda-pfizer-actively-worked-to-keep-this-data-hidden-from-sight-for-our-lifetimes]; when I saw the rise of 40 per cent in death rates and the shocking rise in cases of disability in the West [https://journal.rajeshtaylor.com/further-disturbing-rates-of-disability-mortality-in-life-insurance-data-since-covid-vaccine-rollout/—] I knew I was not seeing just medicine gone wrong on a massive scale, but that I was witnessing an act of war.
When I saw that you could boost the lethality or the damage caused by the injection by simply changing how dilute the solution is, or simply by reassigning which brand you use – with Moderna (100 mcg) far more damaging than Pfizer (30 mcg) — I knew that I was seeing not just medicine gone wrong on massive scale, but an act of war.
When I saw a study out of Hong Kong in 2021 — a study that, of course, was answerable to the CCP — that revealed that a second dose (a “booster”) into the bloodstreams of mice, resulted in visibly enlarged hearts with white patches that could be seen by the naked eye, as well as cytokine storms and liver damage, I realized that the two-dose regime and then the “boosters” were slow but progressive ways to damage and then destroy the health of Western patients. The study concluded: “Post-vaccination myopericarditis is reported after immunization with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines.”
And yet with this CCP-overseen finding, that by injecting mammals with the MRNA vaccine, their hearts were visibly damaged, the worldwide injection program kept going.
[https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/74/11/1933/6353927; Intravenous Injection of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA Vaccine Can Induce Acute Myopericarditis in Mouse Model, Can Li, Yanxia Chen, Yan Zhao, David Christopher Lung, Zhanhong Ye, Wenchen Song, Fei-Fei Liu, Jian-Piao Cai, Wan-Man Wong, Cyril Chik-Yan Yip, Jasper Fuk-Woo Chan, Kelvin Kai-Wang To, Siddharth Sridhar, Ivan Fan-Ngai Hung, Hin Chu, Kin-Hang Kok, Dong-Yan Jin, Anna Jinxia Zhang, Kwok-Yung Yuen; Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 74, Issue 11, 1 June 2022, Pages 1933–1950, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab707]
We were told that Pfizer/BioNTech is a German company. But it is actually a German-Chinese company. Since I first found that Pfizer/BioNTech had an MOU with Fosun Pharmaceuticals, a major CCP-linked pharmaceutical company based in Shanghai, to make the Pfizer/BioNTech MRNA vaccines, I knew that with a bit more digging I would find China at the heart of these acts of war.
BioNTech’s SEC filing shows that the MOU with Fosun Pharmaceuticals includes an equity investment by Fosun in BioNTech. In other words, the CCP is an equity investor in BioNTech: “As part of the strategic alliance with Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical (Group) Co., Ltd (“Fosun Pharma”; Stock Symbol: 600196.SH, 02196.HK) whereby the two companies will work together on the development of BNT162 in China, Fosun agreed to make an equity investment which was received in mid-April 2020. The issuance of 1,580,777 ordinary shares with the nominal amount of k€ 1,581 was registered within the commercial register (Handelsregister) as of April 23, 2020.” Not only that but: “Ai-Min Hui, President of Global R&D, and Chief Medical Officer of Fosun Pharma said: ”We are closely working with BioNTech and regulatory authorities to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the vaccine candidate, in order to synchronize the development process in China with other countries, and to bring the vaccine to public as soon as possible, if the vaccine succeeds.” [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1776985/000119312520210694/d54613d424b3.htm]
Fosun is not separate from the CCP; it is the CCP: Fosun acquired almost half of Sinopharm: “In 2003 Fosun Pharmaceutical acquired 49% stake of Sinopharm Group (Chinese: 国药控股). […] In 2008, a year before the initial public offering of Sinopharm Group, Fosun Pharmaceutical owned the direct parent company of Sinopharm Group, Sinopharm Industrial Investment (Chinese: 国药产业投资) instead; the majority owner of the joint venture was state-owned China National Pharmaceutical Group (Sinopharm).” 2003年年报 [2003 Annual Report] (PDF). Fosun Industrial. 24 April 2004. Retrieved 5 August 2018– via Shanghai Stock Exchange website. [^国药集团复星联合成立首家混合所有制药企. 企业观察报 (in Chinese (China)). 4 August 2014. Retrieved 5 August 2018 – via Sina; ^2009年年报 [2009 Annual Report] (PDF). Fosun Pharmaceutical. 25 March 2010. Retrieved 5 August 2018 – via Shanghai Stock Exchange website.; ^“Connection Transaction” (PDF) (Press release). Shanghai: Fosun International. 20 June 2008.]
Sinopharm, of course, as you see above, of which Fosun owns almost half, is owned in turn directly by the Chinese State and thus reports directly to the CCP.
The initial BioNTech/Fosun MOU seems to imply that all of the BioNTech/Fosun joint ventures’ activity is in China, or in regions aligned with or close to China. But is that now the case? Fosun Pharma did not stay in China.
It came here. Fosun Pharmaceuticals is now also Fosun Pharmaceuticals USA, with branches for R and D and product formulation in Boston, MA and Princeton, NJ: [https://fosunpharmausa.com/covid19/pcr/]
It is producing formulations and products in the US for distribution in the US and around the world. Fosun Pharma has built a “global operation strategy” for the manufacture of COVID-19 vaccines, COVID-19 PCR tests and COVID-19 antigen tests:
“Fosun Pharma has built a strong root in China and developed a global operation strategy, with pharmaceutical manufacturing and R&D being the largest and core business segment, […]”
“In 2021, the revenue from new and sub-new products including COMIRNATY® (mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, also known as BNT162b2), […] accounted for over 25% of the revenue in the pharmaceutical manufacturing segment;
· Revenue from regions outside Mainland China and countries overseas reached RMB13,599 million, accounting for 34.86% of the total revenue, marking a step forward on globalization.” [Italics mine].
And more: “Continuously strengthening the global operation capability and making further enhancement for globalization, Fosun Pharma has formed a global operating system for R&D, manufacturing and commercialization, and continuously expands overseas markets. [..] Globalization capability is continuously strengthened. The second headquarters in the United States help to build a global business landscape with full coverage of R&D, manufacturing and commercialization.[…]
“By the end of 2021, Fosun Pharma’s overseas commercialization team with over 1,200 employees has built marketing platforms in the United States, Africa and Europe [italics mine]and has achieved direct sales of formulations to the U.S. market. […] The COVID-19 test kit by Fosun Diagnostics has been sold in over ten countries. […] Gland Pharma, a holding subsidiary in India, received approvals from the US FDA for 13 generic drugs in 2021.
“Leveraging the current global manufacturing capability and world-class manufacturing facilities […] Fosun Pharma has accelerated the acquirement of international GMP certification of domestic production lines, laying a solid foundation for exporting domestic products. In January and March 2022, Fosun Pharmaceutical Industrial obtained the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP)’s license to produce and supply the generic version of Merck’s oral COVID-19 treatment Molnupiravir and Pfizer’s oral COVID-19 treatment Nirmatrelvir, as well as the co-packaged product of Nirmatrelvir and Ritonavir of Pfizer [….]. The license includes both ingredients and the finished drug. Through this license, Fosun Pharma devoted itself further to fighting against the pandemic around the world.”
Fosun Pharma USA offers potential partners: “A global reach with a focus on the United States and China markets”. It offers “US Rights” and “Global Rights” as well as “China Rights.” [https://fosunpharmausa.com/innovative-medicine/]
The FDA Filing for the Fosun Pharma USA facility says the facility is authorized to “develop specifications,” including for the PCR tests and antigen tests it creates, and that the facility can also have US agents: [https://fda.report/Company/Fosun-Pharma-Usa-Inc]
This is crucial. Fosun Pharmaceuticals does not just partner with Pfizer/BioNTech to make the COVID-19 vaccines: they make, as noted, the PCR tests that are the one primary metric that determine the scale of the pandemic in North America and Western Europe and thus the “lockdowns” of whole countries, whole industrial sectors.
A CCP-run company, and CCP-created product, thus, decides — who can go to work or school, who must close his or her shop, who can or cannot travel — in all of Europe and the US: [https://fosunpharmausa.com/covid19/pcr/]. A CCP-run company decides the formulation of the PCR and antigen tests that go deep into the nasopharyngeal cavities of Westerners who are forced, week after week, to test and test and test with these products. This is what is on the Fosun Pharma USA’s product pages:
The following products are developed in the Princeton NJ Fosun Pharma USA facility:
So this CCP-owned hybrid entity is here now and it is creating the diagnostic instruments that determine the scale of the pandemic in the West. The CCP can thus dial it up or down.
It also makes: millions of the Pfizer/BioNTech MRNA injections, the Merck COVID-19 pill Molnupiravir, the Pfizer COVID-19 pill Paxlovid — for which Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla just signed a contract with the US government for 10 million doses and $5.29 billion dollars for 2022 [https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/pfizer-boosts-paxlovid-manufacturing-capacity-as-merck-s-rival-covid-pill-sees] — all this for the US and for ten other countries including the EU.
These are all formulated and distributed by a company leading directly to Chinese Communist Party.
When Pres. Biden does a deal with Pfizer/BioNTech in the millions of dollars, with our tax money, he is giving a substantial portion of the funds to China. When he spends a billion dollars via omnibus bills for PPE, including millions for PCR and antigen tests, he is writing checks to — China.
This is from Fosun Pharmaceutical USA’s website section “R and D”: look at the last three entries:
Is Fosun a squeaky clean CCP-run Pharma enterprise? In 2018 a whistleblower — and in China that is courageous thing to be — broke a scandal revealing that Fosun Pharmaceuticals had “massively” faked its data and also bribed regulators. Facilities were so chaotic that the US FDA sent the company a stern letter. [https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/fosun-pharma-massively-fakes-api-production-data-and-bribes-regulators-whistle-blower].
BioNTech’s SEC filing reports as 100 per cent achieved, a tech transfer to — China. Not to a “Chinese company” or a “Chinese individual” but to the country of — China:
[https://investors.biontech.de/node/12681/html]
Further, the SEC filing explains that it will effect the “technology transfer with China” after marketing approval has been granted. I don’t know what “Technology transfer” or “tech transfer” means in this SEC filing; SEC filing experts who have reviewed it for me have suggested that this can mean IP, manufacturing methodologies, formulas, data, or all four. But surely it is significant that the company BioNTech has declared as 100 % complete or in process, a “Tech transfer” to CHINA. It is not “sharing” the tech or “licensing” the tech — it is transferring the tech. That means that in some capacity, China will be or is in charge of some aspect of BioNTech’s technology, however that is defined here.
So take all of the above, and map it against the 150,000 plus adverse events in the Pfizer documents, the deadly harms to reproduction, the Western baby die-off, the babies in seizures; map it against the population drop, the rise in disabilities, map it against the rigid, cruel vaccine mandates aimed at Western defense forces (Canada’s, and Australia’s and all of Western Europe’s, as well as at the most powerful military in the world, that of the United States) — map it against the vaccine mandates aimed at our police, our health care workers, our firefighters, our pilots, our first responders, our kids, our babies — all this done by a White House captive, via Hunter Biden’s laptop, to the CCP. Add to all of this the evidence of birth rates declining, especially in the West, by 12-20 per cent:
How better to cripple the world’s other superpower than by destroying our American front lines and our American next generation, with tainted, murderous vaccines, flowed easily enough into the West via (not even that many) shell companies and cutouts? How easy to do the same to Western Europe, to Canada and Australia, as a whole?
Take all of the above and consider that the virus originated in China; and now all of the testing apparatuses, as well as millions of the vaccines, the catastrophically damaging or lethal “solutions” to the virus, also all originate from the same folks; the same leadership cadre who brought the world forced abortions, citizens welded into their homes, Uighur concentration camps, and organ harvesting.
I made the case in my new book The Bodies of Others that a transnational group of bad actors – including the WEF, The WHO, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, tech companies and the CCP — used the pandemic to crush humanity and in particular to destroy the West.
With the provenance of the vaccines and tests, you can see yet another mechanism, yet another core methodology of this warfare.
Mapping these points of evidence, I think you may start to see what I see.
This all means, of course, that we are staring into the abyss right now.
Traumatized or not, we all need to snap out of denial.
We let our adversary come too close to us. Into our very bloodstreams.
ICAN has filed a Citizen Petition with the FDA calling on the agency to reverse its reckless course on Covid-19 injections for teenagers. The Petition demands that the FDA revoke its emergency use authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s product in children aged 12 through 15 and deny Moderna any future EUA for children aged 12 through 17.
The document, submitted through ICAN’s legal team, spans 20 pages, cites dozens of medical studies, and includes 94 footnotes and roughly 1,500 pages of sources, but it boils down to a few simple principles: There never was any emergency with this age group in the first place, rendering EUAs illegal under federal law; the clinical trials relied upon to authorize the vaccines were woefully deficient; almost all in the 12-15 age demographic currently have natural immunity to Covid-19; and the injury risks from injection are catastrophically higher than any purported benefit.
The Petition cites a Lancet article of March 2021 that found Covid’s death toll among children was a negligible 0.17 per 100,000 population. Since then, a large U.K. study posted in July 2021 found a Covid-19 fatality rate of just 0.005% among all those under 18. “Based on these facts, the current EUA for Pfizer’s vaccine for this population is without legal foundation or necessity,” the Petition observes, “because COVID-19 does not present a current emergency for children.”
Furthermore, the population has been developing robust natural immunity against the disease. As of February 2022, according to a study published on the CDC’s website, 75% of children aged 12-17 had developed infection-induced antibodies. NIH data showed an even higher percentage of natural protection, at 89.4%, for all children under 18. And that percentage could only have increased since.
But the gaps in FDA logic do not begin and end with its misappropriation of the word “emergency,” nor with its selective blindness on natural immunity. As our Petition reminds the agency, quoting international scientists in an August 2008 PLOS Medicine paper, “inadequately powered studies should themselves be considered a breach of ethical standards.”
The FDA’s authorization for Pfizer’s injection rests on a trial in which only 1,131 children received the experimental product. Yet, even among that small and statistically insignificant group, at least seven recipients “had at least one serious adverse event.” Among them was Maddie de Garay who, at 12 years old, was paralyzed from the waist down after receiving her second shot. Among a multitude of horrific injuries, she became incontinent, and can now only receive nutrition through a feeding tube.
But Pfizer recorded her life-altering reaction as mere “functional abdominal pain” in the safety-evaluation data it turned over to the FDA and has since failed to ensure adequate medical care, including an appropriate diagnosis and treatment.
Nor has the safety profile for the mRNA shots improved since their problematic trials. As early as June 2021, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) examined the growing issue of vaccine-induced myocarditis, where the heart muscle becomes inflamed and thereby weakened, especially in individuals under 30 years old. Moreover, as the Petition points out, “Moderna’s vaccine presents an even higher risk profile to this age group than Pfizer’s vaccine.”
Meanwhile, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), though vastly understating the full extent of injection injuries, had accumulated 31,549 reports of adverse events among children under 18 as of May 6, 2022. Of these, 1,812 were rated as serious and 44 were deaths. This is to say nothing of the long-term effects.
And, if the glaring safety signals were not enough for the FDA to revoke its EUA for minors, the Petition also points out that several studies now show there is virtually no benefit from these shots since their efficacy wanes dramatically within just months or even weeks after inoculation.
The FDA has played very fast and extremely loose with its EUA powers when it comes to children’s health, invoking an emergency that never existed and accepting data that was never adequate. Moreover, it has continued doubling down on its failed approach in spite of the overwhelming case against it. Numerous additional VRBPAC meetings are scheduled to discuss authorizations for additional vaccines and age groups and ICAN plans to file as many petitions as are necessary to address the concerns of each.
The FDA’s increasingly reckless actions have prompted ICAN to file several Petitions with the FDA. These include demands the agency adhere to federal law requiring promotional material for EUA vaccines to “clearly and conspicuously” state the product has not been approved or licensed by FDA, but only authorized for emergency use. We have also called on the FDA to publicly clarify an individual’s statutory right to refuse medical products without coercion, penalty, or retaliation of any kind, and we have demanded that it obtain proper data before vaccine approvals. On all counts, the FDA has failed miserably and ICAN will continue to hold its feet to the fire.
In this short advocacy documentary piece, narrator Lawrence Fox explains a disturbing trend which has crept into children’s education in the West, as he exposes the worrying degree to which politicised, divisive ideologies – including gender theory, critical race theory, queer theory and “transgender toolkits” – are being taught to our children through Personal, Social, Health and Economic education (PSHE). How has this been allowed to happen, and what can parents do about it?
Reclaim the Media has provided the documentary at their YouTube channel (watch above). Because YouTube eventually censors so many videos that challenge the controlled agenda, we are sharing a mirrored copy (courtesy of QR Archive on Odysee) as an alternative platform for viewing the video.
Derrick Broze With Ryan Christian, The Last American Vagabond: Ongoing Multi-State Investigation of ‘Ritualistic Child Sex Abuse’ in Utah
Joining me today is Derrick Broze, here to discuss his ongoing investigation into the Utah County Sheriff’s Office allegations of ‘Ritualistic Child Sex Abuse’, as well as the history of these types of cases in Utah and the Mormon Church specifically.
In a move Children’s Health Defense President Mary Holland called “head-spinning,” the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Friday granted full approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents 12 through 15 years old.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday granted full approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents 12 through 15 years old.
In an FDA press release, the agency said full approval of Comirnaty follows a “rigorous analysis and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness data,” and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine “has been, and will continue to be authorized for emergency use in this age group since May 2021.”
Pfizer’s press release announcing the approval said the Comirnaty vaccine has been available under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) since May 2021 for the adolescent age group.
Yet, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S for any age group and is not the same formula as the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine currently authorized under EUA and being distributed as a “fully approved” vaccine.
“The approval of Comirnaty for adolescents 12 to 15 is head-spinning,” said Mary Holland, president and general counsel for Children’s Health Defense.
Holland added:
“The FDA failed to convene an expert committee and failed to appropriately weigh the risk-benefit profile of this vaccine for this age group. Even Vaccine cheerleader Dr. Paul Offit acknowledged FDA decisions are being made based on political pressure, not science when, in commenting on the agency’s vote last week to allow reformulated booster shots, he said it felt like ‘the fix was in.’”
Holland said that at base, “this is a move by pharma to ensure liability protection” under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Some states likely will attempt to put Comirnaty on the childhood vaccine schedule, despite the myriad known and unknown risks, Holland said.
“Pfizer‘s fraud and collusion with government is becoming more evident by the day,” Holland said. “CHD, already challenging the authorizations for those six months through age 11, will be at the forefront of challenging this approval for teenagers.”
Efficacy claims based on old analysis of 16- to 25-year-olds — before Delta, Omicron variants
Pfizer said Friday’s approval is based on data from a Phase 3 clinical trial of 2,260 participants ages 12 through 15.
About half of the participants, “elicited SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs)” demonstrating “strong immunogenicity in a subset of adolescents one month after the second dose,” Pfizer said.
It is unknown what happened to antibody levels after one month, but peer-reviewed research suggests vaccine protection conferred by second and third doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine wanes rapidly against the Omicron variant.
“Our study found a rapid decline in Omicron-specific serum neutralizing antibody titers only a few weeks after the second and third doses of [the Pfizer-BioNTech] BNT162b2,” said the authors of a May 13 study published in JAMA.
To further support its claim that Comirnaty is effective in the 12 to 15 age group, Pfizer used an old analysis of 16- to 25-year-olds conducted before the Delta and Omicron surges.
“The efficacy analysis was conducted between November 2020 and May 2021, which was before the Delta and Omicron surges,” and the “only SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern identified from the confirmed COVID-19 cases in this age group was Alpha,” Pfizer said in its press release.
FDA experts question neutralizing antibodies as standard for vaccine effectiveness
During a June 28 meeting of the FDA’s Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), vaccine experts raised concerns that neutralizing antibodies did not correlate to clinical protection — noting Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine had a two-fold increase in neutralizing antibody levels compared with Pfizer’s vaccine during clinical trials, but it did not translate into a clinically significant difference in terms of protection against severe disease.
Dr. Ofer Levy, VRBPAC member and infectious disease physician at Boston Children’s Hospital, said during the meeting there is still “no established correlate of protection,” referring to the level of antibodies needed to confer protection.
“You have a lot of data now,” Levy told Pfizer. “What is your relative protection?”
“I would say there is no established correlate of protection,” Kena Swanson, Ph.D., vice president of viral vaccines at Pfizer, told Levy.
Levy said:
“I would like to hear from FDA what their overall approach will be around improving our understanding of correlate protection. We spend a good amount of time reviewing antibody data. We have no doubt antibody data is important. We don’t have a level of antibody that anybody is comfortable stating is correlated [with] protection.
Levy, who said antibodies are important, but T cells are more important, called for federal leadership to establish a “standardization of the T-cell assay and encourage or in fact require the sponsors to gather that information.”
“So what is the effort to standardize the pre-clinical assays?” Levy asked. “This is an effort that’s critical not just now but for future cycles of vaccine revision. If we aren’t able to define a standard for correlate protection we are fighting with one arm behind our back.”
Dr. Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, acknowledged the importance of Levy’s question and said they are “having conversations” with colleagues at the National Institutes of Health and throughout government about how they might move forward, but it is something they “don’t have an answer to yet.”
Marks said as vaccines are developed in the future, it will “become even more important” to define a standard of correlate protection because “we won’t be able to have a large naive population to vaccinate with newer vaccines.”
“We will need to understand the T-cell response better,” Marks said. “I take your point, it’s just that we haven’t solved the problem yet.“
Comirnaty not available in the U.S.
According to Pfizer’s press release, Comirnaty was previously made available to the 12 to 15 age group in the U.S. under EUA and 9 million U.S. adolescents in this age group have completed a primary series.
“The vaccine, sold under the brand name Comirnaty for adults, has been available under an emergency use authorization since May 2021 for the 12-15 age group,” Reuters reported. “It will now be sold under the same brand name for adolescents as well.”
Yet, Pfizer’s information hotline says it has no specific information on when Comirnaty will be available.
The FDA said Friday the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine “has been, and will continue to be, authorized for emergency use in this age group since May 2021.”
The CDC’s website states that Comirnaty is “not orderable.”
A branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services overseeing the Strategic National Stockpile indicated Comirnaty was not available because Pfizer did not have time to change the labels.
According to FDA documents, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S. and nobody has received a fully approved and licensed COVID-19 vaccine.
“Comirnaty has not been made available under EUA,” said Dr. Madhava Setty, physician and senior science editor for The Defender.
Setty added:
“The FDA and Pfizer have already stated very quietly, that they have no intent of manufacturing Comirnaty for distribution. Everyone is getting the non-licensed formulation that carries no liability for pharmaceutical companies.”
The CDC website confirms this, stating the Comirnaty formulation “will not be manufactured or made available in the near term even if authorized.”
CHD challenged FDA on Comirnaty ‘approval’ for adults
As The Defender reported, there were “several bizarre aspects to the FDA approval” that proved confusing — which led to CHD suing the FDA over its approval of Comirnaty.
The FDA acknowledged that while Pfizer had “insufficient stocks” of the newly licensed Comirnaty vaccine, there was “a significant amount” of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine — produced under EUA — still available for use.
The FDA said the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under EUA should remain unlicensed but could be used “interchangeably” with the newly licensed Comirnaty product.
The FDA also said the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine and the existing Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were “legally distinct,” but proclaimed their differences did not “impact safety or effectiveness.”
Yet, there is a “huge real-world difference” between products approved under EUA compared with those the FDA has fully licensed.
EUA products are experimental under U.S. law and cannot be mandated. A licensed vaccine, such as Comirnaty, can be mandated by employers and schools.
Although Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine can be mandated, it has no liability shield. Vials of the branded product, which say “Comirnaty” on the label, are subject to the same product liability laws as other U.S. products.
Only COVID-19 vaccines distributed under EUA — which in the U.S. includes Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson — have liability protection under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act (PREP).
Under PREP, the only way an injured party can sue a pharmaceutical company for an injury caused by an EUA vaccine is if he or she can prove willful misconduct and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.
Comirnaty cannot receive liability protection unless it is fully approved for children and added to the CDC’s immunization schedule bringing it under the auspices of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
Pfizer-BioNTech and Comirnaty vaccines aren’t interchangeable
The FDA on Oct. 29, 2021, authorized a manufacturing change to allow an additional formulation of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine that uses tromethamine (Tris) buffer instead of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) used in the originally authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
The FDA on Dec. 16, 2021, approved a supplement to the Comirnaty BLA to include a new 30 mcg dose formulation that uses the Tris buffer instead of the PBS buffer used in the originally approved vaccine.
The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may contain either the PBS buffer or tris buffer, except for the 5 to 11 age group. The Comirnaty vaccine contains the Tris buffer.
The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine used for the 5 to 11 age group uses a Tris buffer, despite clinical trials having been conducted using Pfizer’s vaccine containing the PBS buffer.
According to Pfizer’s July 8 press release, the FDA relied upon studies conducted prior to the formula change to justify the approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine for adolescents ages 12 to 15.
The type of buffer used in a COVID-19 vaccine can affect the potency of the vaccine, how it is stored and the propensity to develop potential adverse events, TrialSite News reported.
It is unknown if tromethamine will harm an unborn baby, but animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on the fetus, and there are “no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans.”
“The FDA-evaluated manufacturing data [to] support the change in this inactive ingredient and concluded it did not impact the safety or effectiveness of the product,” Marks, said during an October 2021, press briefing.
According to the FDA’s Letter of Authorization, reissued on Oct. 29, “analytical comparability assessments” revealed the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine formulations containing Tris and PBS buffers were “analytically comparable.”
Yet, no human or animal trials were conducted to determine the safety or efficacy of the new formula.
Pfizer Ordered by Uruguayan Judge to Report Composition of Covid-19 Vaccines Including Any Presence of “Graphene Oxide” or “Nanotechnological Elements”
According to a recent ruling by an Uruguayan judge, the government and the pharmaceutical company Pfizer must provide all the information they have on the COVID vaccine’s biochemical composition, including any evidence of “graphene oxide” or “nanotechnological elements,” as well as proof of the vaccine’s efficacy and safety.
Administrative Litigation Court (TCA) Judge Alejandro Recarey made the order in response to a request to suspend the immunization of children from 5 years of age in Uruguay.
According to the court order released on Saturday, Judge Alejandro Recarey ordered the Presidency, the Ministry of Public Health, the State Health Services Administration (ASSE), and Pfizer to present all the information on Covid-19 vaccines within 48 hours, El Observador reported.
“A hearing will be held on Wednesday at 9:00 am where representatives of all the agencies and the company must appear,” the news outlet added.
According to the decision, the Executive and the US laboratory must provide documentation on the composition of the vaccines, including the possible presence of “graphene oxide” or “nanotechnological elements”.
Data is also requested that demonstrates the “harmlessness” of “the substance called messenger RNA” and that proves with studies by the US agency of the United States, the FDA, “the experimental nature” of the vaccines.
The magistrate asks that the authorities “explain whether alternative anticovid-19 therapies have been studied” and “if not, clarify why these solutions were not explored,” according to the document.
The contracts signed between the government and Pfizer are also subject to scrutiny to see if they contain clauses “for civil indemnity or criminal impunity for suppliers regarding the occurrence of possible adverse effects,” among other details.
The court decision also requires explanations as to whether studies have been carried out “aiming to explain the notorious increase in deaths from covid-19 as of March 2021 in relation to the previous year.”
“Very especially, Pfizer will be instructed to state within 48 hours – with the provision of documentary data if applicable – if the company has admitted (…) the verification of adverse effects of vaccines against the so-called Covid-19. In general, and also in detail regarding the child population,” says the document.
Yates Hazlehurst, who developed autism after receiving his childhood vaccines, was the first and only vaccine-injured plaintiff to make it to a jury. The 20-year process revealed major flaws in a system that is supposed to compensate children for vaccine injuries.
In a riveting legal battle spanning two decades, William Yates Hazlehurst (“Yates”) on Feb. 2, 2022, became the first vaccine-injured person with a diagnosis of autism to reach a jury since the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986 (the Vaccine Act) became law.
In a medical malpractice case filed in the Madison County Circuit Court in Tennessee, attorneys for Yates argued the clinic and physician who administered Yates’ vaccines, including the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine on Feb. 8, 2001, should be held liable for medical malpractice and the neurological injuries Yates developed after being vaccinated.
Although the jury decided in favor of the physician — who Yates’ father said failed to adequately inform the parents of the risks of vaccinating Yates while he had an active ear infection — the case exposed major flaws in a system designed to protect children and shield pharmaceutical companies and physicians from liability for vaccine injuries.
“In the fight to end the autism epidemic, we were all hoping for the one knockout punch that would bring the truth to light and help end the autism epidemic,” Yates’ father, Rolf Hazlehurst, said.
“This medical malpractice trial was the only opportunity in the last 35 years for a jury to hear evidence in a court of law regarding whether a vaccine injury can cause neurological injury, including autism.”
Hazlehurst, who is a senior staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), said “unless the Vaccine Act is repealed, my son is probably the only vaccine-injured child with a diagnosis of autism who will ever reach a jury.”
The Hazlehurst case was a medical malpractice case against the doctor who administered the pediatric vaccines that, in the opinion of the world’s top experts, sent Yates, now 22, spiraling into the depths of severe, non-verbal autism.
Although the case was originally filed in 2003, it didn’t receive its day in court for 19 years because a separate case involving Yates’ injury first had to work its way through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).
When Yates’ medical malpractice case was finally heard, the trial exposed alarming evidence about autism and vaccines, the low standard of care practiced by physicians administering pediatric vaccines and financial conflicts of interests between pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines and government agencies entrusted with vaccine safety.
During the trial, the world’s top experts in the field of autism and mitochondrial disorder explained how the administration of “routine” childhood immunizations can cause autism, brain injury, and many other disorders.
According to the National Institute of Mental Health, autism is a neurological and developmental disorder that affects how people interact with others, communicate, learn and behave. Symptoms can be severe and usually manifest before a child turns 3, which coincides with the age children receive the most childhood vaccines.
Increasing evidence indicates a significant proportion of individuals with autism have concurrent diseases such as mitochondrial dysfunction, abnormalities of energy generation, gastrointestinal abnormalities and abnormalities in the regulation of the immune system.
Yates’ medical malpractice trial illuminated how vaccines can cause autism in children with mitochondrial disorder and showed how the Vaccine Act — which is designed to ensure informed consent and compensation to injured children — is an abject failure because it’s largely unenforceable.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. , Lane Hodges and Yates Hazlehurst.
Yates was normal until he received his 12-month vaccines
During the first year of his life, Yates developed typically and met all of his developmental milestones.
“He was a happy, healthy and normal child,” his father said.
After his 6-month shots, Yates experienced a severe screaming episode approximately 24 hours after receiving the DTaP, Prevnar, Hib and Hep B vaccines.
In the days following his vaccinations, Yates began to experience seizure-like shaking episodes.
But his parents didn’t realize their son’s symptoms were consistent with a severe vaccine adverse reaction because they were not given a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) at their pediatrician’s office.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a VIS is an information sheet produced by the CDC that explains both the benefits and risks of a vaccine to recipients.
“Federal law requires that healthcare staff provide a VIS to a patient, parent or legal representative before each dose of certain vaccines,” the CDC website states.
Instead of providing the VIS, Yates’ physician told his parents any adverse event to a vaccine would be “almost immediate” — within 5 to 15 minutes after vaccination.
Before Yates’ first birthday, his mother and aunt took him to the doctor because he had been sick, and his parents wanted to make sure it was okay for Yates to have a birthday party.
Hazlehurst told The Defender this appointment was not a scheduled well-child check. It was a sick visit. At the appointment, Yates was diagnosed with an ear infection and prescribed an antibiotic.
As the pediatrician turned to leave, he stated Yates would receive his shots, as it was close to his first birthday. A woman returned to the room who portrayed herself to be a nurse, but Hazlehurst later found out was only a medical assistant.
Yates’ mother asked the “nurse” whether their son should receive his shots despite being sick and was told he should.
Once again, they were not given a VIS form informing them of the risks of vaccinating Yates while he had a fever and an active ear infection.
“By administering vaccines to a sick child, the doctor and his clinic could charge a “modified double bill” Hazlehurst said.
That day, on Feb. 8, 2001, Yates received the MMR, Prevnar, Hib and Hep B vaccines. Twelve days later, Hazlehurst said his son experienced a high fever, rash and vomiting consistent with a vaccine adverse reaction.
Hazlehurst called the clinic where his son received his vaccine and talked to the doctor on call who asked him which vaccines Yates received. Hazlehurst responded, “whatever you get when you’re a year old.”
Hazlehurst was told his son was having an adverse reaction to the antibiotic and the doctor wrote him a prescription for a different antibiotic and an anti-fungal medication.
Soon after, Yates began to lose the skills he once had and began developing abnormally. He lost his speech, started running wild, was constantly on the go and would knock things off the table.
“He was visually ‘stimming’ off the falling objects and running with his head down for the visual stimulation,” Hazlehurst said.
He explained:
“It was not like he got the shots and boom, the next day he was autistic. That’s not the way it happened. The mitochondria produce the energy to the connecting tissue in the cells in the brain, and if they don’t get enough energy for a short period of time (as short as 6 seconds), cellular death occurs.
“The brain keeps developing, but it cannot develop normally because the connecting cellular tissue has been damaged. That’s why it takes time to manifest. It’s like watching grass grow. It’s happening, but you don’t realize it’s happening.”
Yates’ condition worsened. He developed an obsession with spinning objects, became a picky eater, started hand-flapping and toe-walking, became unable to sleep and exhibited gastrointestinal and multiple other medical and neurodevelopmental issues, Hazlehurst said.
Hazlehurst searches for answers to his son’s autism
According to federal law, there are specific recording requirements for vaccine medical records, and healthcare providers must provide records to a parent upon request.
Hazlehurst, on June 21, 2002, requested a copy of his son’s original vaccine records so other physicians could evaluate, diagnose and treat Yates.
Hazlehurst had questions about the American Academy of Pediatrics’ standard of care and wanted to know why his son was vaccinated while he was sick with a fever.
In response to Hazlehurst’s request and questions about Yates’ care, the pediatrician rushed out of the room and called his attorney, Hazlehurst said.
The doctor and clinic denied Hazlehurst’s requests to review and receive copies of his son’s original vaccine records, forcing him to petition the court for Yates’ records.
The court granted the request, and the local sheriff’s department seized Yates’ medical records from the doctor’s clinic.
Hazlehurst quickly realized there were problems with his son’s vaccine record, which was on an unsigned consent form that had a billing code sticker placed over the language regarding the risks and benefits of vaccines and vaccine information materials.
Hazlehurst said he never received a VIS form and Yates had been vaccinated without informed consent.
Hazlehurst files claim with the NVICP for son’s vaccine injury
Hazlehurst, like many parents of vaccine-injured children, pursued a claim with the NVICP as federal law requires. The process took nine years — from 2002 to 2011.
In order to bring a case in a court of law, the parents of a vaccine-injured child must first file their case with the NVICP.
The NVICP is a special, no-fault tribunal housed within the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that handles injury claims for 16 federally recommended vaccines. To date, the court has awarded more than $4 billion to thousands of people for vaccine injuries.
In the NVICP, America’s legal system is replaced by a “special master.” The special masters who review claims are government-appointed attorneys, many of whom are former U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys.
Under the NVICP, the parents of vaccine-injured children are forced to sue the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for compensation. HHS is represented by DOJ attorneys.
It is exceptionally difficult to obtain compensation within the NVICP, Hazlehurst said. The proceedings are often turned into drawn-out, contentious expert battles and the backlog of cases is substantial. Because of this, a single case can drag on for over a decade.
Payouts, including attorneys’ fees, are funded by a 75-cent tax per vaccine. There is a $250,000 cap on pain and suffering and death benefits.
The Vaccine Act established the NVICP, and the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision Bruesewitz et al v. Wyeth et al later guaranteed vaccine manufacturers, doctors and other vaccine administrators almost always have no legal accountability or financial liability in civil court when a government-recommended or mandated vaccine(s) causes permanent injury or death, Hazlehurst said.
The NVICP ultimately denied Yates’ claim, but his case against HHS became a central part of the U.S Supreme Court’s decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth.
Yates’ case in the NVICP was part of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP), in which 5,400 claims submitted to the NVICP were consolidated to determine if vaccines cause autism and if so, under what conditions.
“HHS whittled down the thousands of cases to six “test cases,” one of which was Yates’ case,” Hazlehurst said. “If HHS could find a way to deny NVICP compensation to the test cases, the agency would be able to deny compensation to all 5,400 families.”
Hazlehurst said HHS and the DOJ “took advantage of the fact that the rules of evidence, discovery and civil procedure mechanisms available in a regular court do not apply in the so-called vaccine court, and perpetrated fraud upon the special masters, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court.”
The special masters on Feb. 12, 2009, in the so-called vaccine court, denied Yates’ petition for compensation and those of the five remaining OAP “test cases” involving children who developed autism after receiving their pediatric vaccines.
HHS makes key concession in Hannah Poling case
The potential fourth test case — Hannah Poling’s — was quietly conceded in 2007, in a corrupt coverup to conceal the opinion of the HHS expert witness, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, the world’s leading expert in autism research, Hazlehurst said.
When Poling was 19 months old, she was vaccinated against nine diseases at one doctor’s visit: measles, mumps, rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus and Haemophilus influenzae type b. In total, she received five vaccines.
Prior to receiving her vaccines, Poling was described as normal, happy, healthy, interactive, playful and communicative. But two days after being vaccinated, she was lethargic, irritable and febrile, and within 10 days she developed a rash consistent with vaccine-induced chicken pox.
Over the course of several months, Poling stopped eating, didn’t respond when spoken to, began showing signs of autism, developed neurological and psychological disorders and was diagnosed with encephalopathy caused by an underlying mitochondrial disorder.
In 2003, Poling’s father, Jon, a physician and trained neurologist, and mother, Terry, an attorney and nurse, filed an autism claim against HHS under the NVICP for their daughter’s injuries.
During the OAP, in the Poling case, the government quietly conceded vaccines caused “regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”
According to CBS News, Poling received more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care, lost earnings and pain and suffering for the first year alone. After the first year, the family was supposed to receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Poling’s care, which is estimated to amount to $40 million over her lifetime.
Jon Poling on March 6, 2008, said, “the results, in this case, may well signify a landmark decision with children developing autism following vaccinations.”
Prior to the Poling case, federal health agencies and professional organizations had reassured the public vaccines didn’t cause autism. The Poling case challenged that narrative, which is why the case was conceded and in essence sealed.
HHS’ concession that Poling developed autism as a result of a vaccine injury briefly became international news. Yet, only a handful of people knew why the government conceded Hannah’s case.
When news of the concession in Poling v. HHS was made public in March 2008, Dr. Julie Gerberding, then-director of the CDC, in an interview with CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta said:
“We all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids, so if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines, then if you are predisposed with a mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage — some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.”
If HHS had not conceded her case, the truth as to how vaccines cause autism in some children with an underlying mitochondrial disorder would have been exposed by the world’s leading expert witnesses in the spotlight of the OAP, Hazlehurst said.
“The vaccinations Hannah received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”
Zimmerman was an expert witness for the government defending vaccines in the NVICP. In 2007, during the hearing in the first test case, he told the government vaccines could cause autism in “exceptional” cases, but said the government later hid that information and misrepresented his expert opinion.
In a 2018 letter, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD chairman and chief legal counsel, and Hazlehurst meticulously described the DOJ’s fraud pertaining to the misrepresentation of Zimmerman’s opinions in the OAP and requested an investigation.
“The Office of Inspector General passed the buck to the DOJ Department of Ethics,” Hazlehurst said. “The DOJ investigated itself and wrote a highly misleading letter absolving itself of any wrongdoing.”
“Shortly after I clarified my opinions with the DOJ attorneys, I was contacted by one of the junior DOJ attorneys and informed that I would no longer be needed as an expert witness on behalf of H.H.S. The telephone call … occurred after the above-referenced conversation on Friday, June 15, 2007, and before Monday, June 18, 2007. To the best of my recollection, I was scheduled to testify on behalf of H.H.S. on Monday, June 18, 2007.”
As a result of his firing, Zimmerman was not present for the Hazlehurst OAP proceedings, which allowed DOJ attorneys to misrepresent Zimmerman’s statements related to a separate autism case and apply them to all cases of autism, including Yates’ case.
Over the years Hazlehurst has repeatedly stated, “I want to be very clear, neither the Polings nor Dr. Zimmerman did anything wrong.”
“But,” he added, “if I did to a criminal, in a court of law, what the United States Department of Justice did to vaccine-injured children, I would be disbarred and I would be facing criminal charges.”
Zimmerman did testify as an expert witness on behalf of Yates in the medical malpractice case filed against Yates’ doctor, which was finally heard by a Tennessee court in February 2022.
Research by Zimmerman and others determined that at least 30%-40% of children with a diagnosis of regressive autism suffer from a mitochondrial disorder, which is a condition with which Yates was later diagnosed.
Yates in ‘perfect position’ to file lawsuit after exhausting remedies in NVICP
After exhausting all remedies under the NVICP — a process that took 25 years — the legal floodgates were then open, Hazlehurst said.
But because no one could sue the vaccine manufacturer, the only vaccine-injured child — out of thousands of cases originally included in the OAP — left with legal standing was Yates Hazlehurst and his claim of medical malpractice against the pediatrician who oversaw the administration of his vaccines.
Ultimately, the same medical experts, including Zimmerman and Dr. Richard Kelley, former director of the Genetics Department at Johns Hopkins Medical Institute — whose testimony HHS and the DOJ relied on in the Poling concession — concluded that what happened to Hannah Poling is what also happened to Yates Hazlehurst.
In an affidavit which was not admissible in the 2022 medical malpractice trial, Kelley stated:
“I also find, with a high degree of medical certainty, that the set of immunizations administered to Yates at 11 months while he was ill was the immediate cause of his autistic regression because of the effect of these immunizations to further impair the ability of his weakened mitochondria to supply adequate amounts of energy for the brain, the highest energy-consuming tissue in the body.”
Zimmerman’s expert opinion on the cause of Yates’ neurological condition was consistent with Kelley’s opinion.
Throughout the medical malpractice case, opposing counsel representing the pediatrician continuously echoed the CDC slogan, “vaccines do not cause autism.”
Hazlehurst said:
“In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff has the burden of proof that the defendant deviated from the local “standard of care” or the defendant failed to obtain informed consent and that the deviation from the standard of care or failure to obtain informed consent caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
“The plaintiff must prove the standard of care, breach of the standard of care, the standard for informed consent and lack of informed consent through the testimony of an expert witness.”
“The issue of informed consent was hotly contested,” Hazlehurst added. “To a large degree, the trial was about whether and to what extent the federal laws applied at all to the standard of care.”
Yates’ father alleged the pediatrician deviated from the standard of care by administering vaccinations when his son had contraindications to being vaccinated.
Hazlehurst alleged the standard of care would include taking a sick baby’s temperature before administering vaccinations and believes the doctor failed to recognize that the “shaking episodes” as recorded in the medical records were consistent with a vaccine adverse reaction that should have been considered before further vaccinations were administered.
“Most people would be shocked if they witnessed the evidence presented by the defense to the jury as to just how low the requirements for informed consent and the standard of care are for the administration of childhood immunizations,” Hazlehurst said.
The defense experts testified the standard of care did not require taking a sick baby’s temperature before administering a vaccine, that he could be vaccinated even while ill and with an active bilateral ear infection, while on antibiotics and after suffering screaming and shaking episodes following previous vaccinations, he added.
Yates prohibited from presenting key expert witnesses
Medical malpractice cases are very difficult to win, and finding a pediatrician who is willing to testify in a vaccine injury case like Yates’ is extremely difficult, Hazlehurst said.
“Through the course of Yates’ long medical and legal journey, several doctors expressed that Yates should not have been vaccinated in his condition,” Hazlehurst told The Defender.
“However, they would not agree to testify. Most of the experts who refused to testify expressed fear of the negative professional consequences if they testified in an autism case,” he said.
Yates was also limited on the expert witnesses he could call due to Tennessee rules that determine which experts may testify about the local standard of care.
“These rules along with an extreme reluctance of pediatricians to testify in an autism case severely limited Yates’ ability to prevail,” Hazlehurst said.
Although Zimmerman was able to testify in Yates’ medical malpractice case, Kelley was not allowed to testify as to the standard of care and was not allowed to give an opinion as to how the defendant was negligent or why Yates should not have been vaccinated.
“The court granted an exception to allow Dr. Kelley’s causation testimony because his testimony was so highly specialized that another expert witness in the field of genetic metabolic disorders was obviously not available in Tennessee or a contiguous state, but his opinion as a pediatrician was not allowed,” Hazlehurst said.
Hazlehurst attempted to compel the CDC to allow whistleblower Dr. William Thompson, a senior scientist at the CDC, to testify in Yates’ case, but the agency prevailed and blocked Thompson from testifying.
Thompson in 2014 admitted to omitting “statistically significant information” in a 2004 study he co-authored with other CDC scientists that claimed the MMR vaccine does not cause autism.
But the omitted data suggested that a sub-group of males who received the MMR vaccine were at a significantly increased risk of autism.
“Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed,” Thompson said in a statement.
“Any reference to Dr. William Thompson or the CDC whistleblower was later specifically excluded by the court in Yates’ medical malpractice trial,” Hazlehurst said.
“Likewise, the jury was not allowed to hear any reference to the concession in the Poling case and specifically the comments of Gerberding,” who in 2010 left the CDC and became the chief patient officer and executive vice president of Merck — the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine.
Due to the substantial length of time between the alleged malpractice and trial, several expert and fact witnesses passed away.
A critical fact witness and two doctors willing to testify on Yates’ behalf, passed away before trial. Two other doctors who initially gave sworn testimony as to negligence and causation backed out, leaving Yates without the experts needed to bolster his position.
The same was not true for the defendant, who had no difficulty finding expert witnesses to testify on his behalf, Hazlehurst said.
“The array of experts the defense called left little doubt as to the importance of this potentially precedent-setting case and raised the question of what forces were at play behind the scene,” he said.
“Yates was not just up against the local doctor and clinic, and David does not always beat Goliath,” Hazlehurst said.
The verdict in Yates’ medical malpractice case
At the end of the trial, the jury answered two questions based on the evidence it was allowed to consider and the instructions provided by the court.
Yates’ attorneys asked for a jury instruction quoting the language in the Vaccine Act that a VIS must be given to the parents of the child prior to the administration of a vaccine.
Although the judge originally approved the instruction prior to the start of the trial, the judge later reversed his decision and removed the critical instruction before jury deliberation, Hazlehurst said.
The first question the jury answered was, “Did the defendants provide the requisite information to Yates Hazlehurst’s parents to allow Yates Hazlehurst’s parents to formulate an intelligent and informed decision on authorizing or consenting to Yates Hazlehurst receiving his childhood immunizations on February 8, 2001?”
The jury answered, “yes.”
The second question the jury answered was, “Did the defendants deviate from the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in this medical community or a similar medical community in his/their treatment of Plaintiff Yates Hazlehurst when administering vaccines to Yates Hazlehurst on February 8, 2001?”
The jury answered, “no.”
Although the jury never addressed the issue of whether a vaccine can cause neurological injury, including autism, valuable evidence was discovered and preserved during Yates’ legal battle.
The world’s top experts in the field of autism and mitochondrial disorder, on video, explained how the administration of “routine childhood immunizations” can cause autism, Hazlehurst told The Defender.
“These were the same medical experts who compelled HHS and DOJ to secretly concede the case of Hannah Poling during the OAP in the so-called vaccine court,” he said.
The trial exposed compelling evidence of the incredibly low standard of practice being taught to medical students and doctors and illuminates how the laws contained in the Vaccine Act — designed to ensure a patient receives informed consent — are unenforceable and largely meaningless, Hazlehurst said.
Many of the reasons Yates lost his case are the same reasons underlying the autism epidemic, he added.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Aud Hazlehurst, Yates Hazlehurst, Lane Hodges, Rolf Hazlehurst, Anne Hazlehurst Garrard, David Riley, Marry Garrard, Anne Elizabeth Garrard, Tammy McCoy and Kevin Cox.
Hazlehurst told The Defender he has sincere gratitude to everyone who has helped Yates over the past 20 years in both his medical and legal struggles.
“Regardless of the jury verdict, exposing the evidence which came to light in the legal cases of Yates Hazlehurst will be a powerful tool towards the ultimate goal of bringing the truth to light and ending the autism epidemic,” he said.
CHD and Hazlehurst said they will continue to fight for vaccine-injured children.
In the words of Winston Churchill, “Now is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning,” Hazlehurst said.
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.
In a groundbreaking article for Children of God For Life, titled “Forsaking God For the Sake of Science,” [1] [1b] Debra Vinnedge outlines how the Rockefeller-Harriman eugenics movement gave rise to the practice of medical abortions for research purposes, including live births during which the infant was murdered and its organs harvested:
“…Abortion wasn’t legal yet; this was 1936. But abortion was most certainly legal and acceptable [to eugenicists] if it meant ending the life of a child who would be born to a ‘feeble-minded’ woman, one who might end up less than perfect or who might have to rely on society to pay for their care.”
And therefore, why not perform abortions for medical research? Behind closed doors, out of view, this was happening in several countries, including the US.
Consider this research report: “Human embryos of two and one-half to five months gestation were obtained from the gynaecological department of the Toronto General Hospital…No macerated specimens were used and in many of the embryos the heart was still beating at the time of receipt in the virus laboratory.”
Here is the citation [2]: Joan C. Thicke, Darline Duncan, William Wood, A. E. Franklin and A. J. Rhodes; Cultivation of Poliomyelitis Virus in Tissue Culture; Growth of the Lansing Strain in Human Embryonic Tissue, Canadian Journal of Medical Science, Vol. 30, pg 231-245. [June 1952]
The authors are certainly describing an infant who was taken from the womb alive, and after cells were harvested, was killed. For research on “growing virus in cell culture.”
Here is another research report that indicates the infant was born alive, its tissues taken, and then killed:
“Embryos of between 12-18 weeks gestation have been utilized. Rarely tissues were obtained from stillborn fetuses, or from premature infants at autopsy…In the experiments 3 sorts of embryonic materials were used: elements of skin, connective tissue, muscle; intestinal tissue; brain tissue…Whenever possible the embryo was removed from the amniotic sac.., transferred to a sterile towel and kept at 5 C until dissected.”
The citation [3]: Thomas H. Weller, John F. Enders, Studies on the Cultivation of Poliomyelitis Viruses in Tissue Culture : I. The Propagation of Poliomyelitis Viruses in Suspended Cell Cultures of Various Human Tissue; Journal of Immunology 1952;69;645-671. [June 1952]
Again, the infant’s tissue was used, in the lab, to “grow virus in cell culture.” The cells were from the infant.
My readers know that, for the past year, I’ve been exposing virologists’ absurd claims that they’re isolating viruses in their labs. [4] [4b] [4c]
In fact, they create soups in dishes, containing toxic drugs and chemicals, monkey cells and human cells, and a mucus sample from a patient. When the cells start dying, they claim this is proof the virus is in the mucus, in the soup, and is deadly.
Of course, this is nonsense, because the toxic drugs and chemicals are perfectly capable of killing the cells; and the cells in the soup are being starved of nutrients, which would also lead to cell-death.
The isolation of viruses is no isolation at all. It’s a fraud.
But it never occurred to me, until now, that some of these human cells in the soup in the lab came from infants, taken from the mother’s womb alive, for harvesting, who were then killed.
This completes a circle of evil.
Of course, out of the virological research fraud and infant murder come THE VACCINES, including the COVID vaccines, which are causing huge numbers of injuries and deaths across the world.
People of faith everywhere must see that declaring a religious exemption from the shots is a DUTY, whether or not the authorities allow the exemption.
The last time I looked, appealing to Pontius Pilate for an exemption didn’t work, and the status of Anthony Fauci is not higher than the Authority to whom, at minimum, four billion people of faith pray.
49 states have decided to follow the federal government’s lead in ordering COVID injections for children under 5, despite glaring evidence of a failed pharmaceutical product that doesn’t serve any benefit to them whatsoever, and has the potential to cause serious side effects.
On Friday, the FDA authorized mRNA COVID shots (both Pfizer and Moderna) under emergency use for children under 5 down to 6 months of age. The approval made its way through the halls of the federal bureaucracy, regardless of any studies showing a positive benefit for injecting young children with mRNA shots, which, even in adults, do not effectively prevent coronavirus infection.
So you’ve had your eight-month-old baby injected with the COVID vaccine.
Of course.
And the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t exist.
I’ve heard that. But it’s not the issue for us.
What is the issue for you?
Making a fashion statement.
How so?
We need to stay in the forefront of trends.
Why?
Why wouldn’t we?
Have you seen the federal database that records vaccine injury and death reports?
Of course.
So you know your baby could die from the shot.
Yes.
And that doesn’t matter to you.
Not as much as being able to tell our friends we had our baby vaccinated.
You, as parents—
That’s a misunderstood term. We don’t consider ourselves parents. The State is the parent. We’re the monitors.
Monitors?
We observe, and carry out limited functions.
Even if you assume the virus exists, the chances of your baby catching it and becoming ill are incredibly tiny.
That’s right. But this isn’t what we’re about. As I said, we’re keeping pace with fashion.
Are you human?
It depends on how you define the term. Humans are biological machines. Most people believe in something beyond that, but the content of belief is predetermined by a person’s upbringing, genes, conditioning, and so on.
Have you ever questioned vaccine science?
There’s nothing to question. We understand science. I have a PhD in psychology, and my husband is a software engineer. My IQ is 141. My husband’s is 136. We’re equipped to deal with vaccine issues.
If your baby died from the shot, would you mourn?
Yes. We would post photos and statements on our Facebook page.
—No doubt, some people would take offense at this “interview.” How could I? Here’s how. I wrote it. I wrote it because the government and Pfizer and Moderna—no matter how they interpret COVID and “the virus”—are moving ahead to inject as many babies as possible—which is a crime of mass assault and mass murder. Many parents will go along with it.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is likely to grant Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s BioNTech SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for children ages 6 months through 4 years and Moderna’s COVID-19 mRNA vaccine for infants and children ages 6 months through 5 years and 6 years through 17 years in their upcoming meetings today and tomorrow (June 14-15).
CHD is poised to take legal action against the FDA should they grant these emergency use authorizations. We seek to hold FDA accountable for recklessly endangering our children with products that have little, no or even negative net efficacy. These products may put them, without warning, at risk of many adverse health consequences, including heart damage, stroke, other thrombotic events and future reproductive harm.
Our children need your help! On Tuesday and Wednesday, June 14 and 15, the FDA VRBPAC committee is likely to make a catastrophic decision by voting to grant Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) to allow for infants and young children to receive Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID shots.
Please take 30 seconds to tell your lawmakers to STOP the FDA from granting EUAs for COVID vaccines in babies and children by sending Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s letter to FDA VRBPAC committee members. His letter lays out all of the available science and data that proves vaccinating children for COVID is not only unnecessary, but will recklessly endanger their lives. There is no emergency whatsoever for children from COVID, therefore there is no justification for issuing an Emergency Use Authorization.
Time and mounting evidence have continued to prove that children have essentially zero risk of dying from COVID (99.995% recovery rate), and the vast majority of kids have little to no symptoms. There is no statistically valid evidence that shows the Pfizer and Moderna COVID injections are able to prevent severe disease or deaths in children at all. These shots have a worse safety record than all previous vaccines combined, and have been found to cause serious injuries including myocarditis, encephalopathy, blood clots, diabetes, neurological issues and death.
The United States Government, at the behest of Pharma oligarchs and government employees who own stock in the Pharma companies, hopes to approve an amendment to the EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) to inject babies 6-months-old to toddlers 4-years-old with the C19 faux-vaccine.
Before the committee meets to recommend the amendment, the FDA allows people to comment on the FDA government web site. One such comment was provided to this author and is offered to you below. The United States of America is indeed facing a government #ClotShot plot.
This comment is NOTICE of possible criminal liability to Lauren K. Roth and members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee who owe duties of care, diligence, good faith, and loyalty in recommending “for” or “against” the EUA amendment for COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in children 6 months through 4 years of age.
Only two deaths are listed herein to establish knowledge. If the amendment is approved, it will have been done by committee members “knowing” of felony crimes in context.
Your investigation of these deaths should include death certificates, autopsy records, witness interviews, and immunization records.
Massachusetts Death Certificate 2022 SFN 5980 is a 7yo girl died January 18, 2022 listed as died from U071 “COVID-19”, B49 “unspecified mycosis”, J450 “predominantly allergic asthma”, and R091 “pleurisy”.
VAERS_ID 2038120 is a 7yo girl in Massachusetts, who received her 2nd dose 1/13/2022 and was reported to VAERS 1/15/2022. PRIOR_VAX states, “Severe nausea and vomiting from 5min post vaccination and for the next 8-10 hours.” SYMPTOM_TEXT states, “Spiked a 103 fever, severe stomachache, has not had a bowel movement since the day before vaccination, which makes today 3 days without one. First vaccine caused severe nausea and vomiting from 5minutes post injection and for the next 8-10 hours.”
This little girl suffered immeasurably 4 to 5 days as her intestines shut down due likely to impeded blood vessels servicing intestines.
Massachusetts Death Certificate 2021 SFN 56611 is a 48yo man died 11/16/2021 listed as died from U071 “COVID-19” and E669 “OBESITY”.
SFN 56611 is known to have died less than 24 hours after inoculation.
In both cases, the Medical Examiners listed the cause of death as “COVID-19”, when it was clearly not COVID-19. And in both cases, the Medical Examiners omitted listing causes Y590 “Viral vaccines“ and T881 “Other complications following immunization, not elsewhere classified”, when these clearly were proximate and actual causes.
Death certificates from the state of Massachusetts are sent to the CDC, a federal entity. Thus, fraud on a state death certificate is a federal crime as it affects federal death records. Several federal felony crimes apply in this instance and are listed below.
If you dismiss this NOTICE and recommend the EUA amendment without first investigating these two deaths, you become liable for inchoate crimes and the felony crime of “misprision of felony.” If a single person subsequently dies as a result of the amendment, all the elements will have been satisfied for you to face felony murder charges or involuntary manslaughter. Qualified immunity is not a valid defense.
18 USC § 4 – Misprision of felony
“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony …, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some … civil or military authority …, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
Felony murder is a homicide that occurs during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony, showing a conscious disregard for human life. A jury decides whether recommending an injection, that you “know” caused death, and that you refused to investigate while “knowing” it caused death, is inherently dangerous.
Here are a few federal statutes likely violated by Medical Examiners in Massachusetts. You are duty-bound to call for investigation of:
18 USC § 4 Misprision of felony
18 USC § 286 Conspiracy to defraud the government with respect to claims
18 USC § 287 False fictitious or fraudulent claims
18 USC § 371 Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
18 USC § 1035 False statements relating to health care matters
18 USC § 1040 Fraud in connection with major disaster or emergency benefits
There were found sixty likely C19 vaccine deaths in a 25-minute perusal of the 2021 and 2022 death certificates, which extrapolates to hundreds, probably thousands of C19 vaccine deaths in Massachusetts.
Refusal to investigate these fraudulent records is a crime that, because of the felony murder aspect, has no statute of limitations. Five, ten, or twenty years from now, if a federal prosecutor were to learn of this NOTICE, he or she would have significant evidence to bring charges for felony murder.
In summary, this NOTICE places you in a position requiring you to investigate these deaths prior to recommending the amendment. If you dismiss this NOTICE, you may be criminally liable for involuntary manslaughter, felony murder, and a list of federal crimes and inchoate crimes.
Please make the appropriate decision for yourselves and for the children of the United States of America.
First New England Journal of Medicine Pfizer Study Reveals 80% Miscarriage Rate in Recipients in their First or Second Trimester — Dr. Christiane Northrup also reports rising number of stillbirths on ‘Friday Roundtable’ Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda Q+A
A film by award-winning filmmaker Andy Wakefield, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Children’s Health Defense. Watch the chilling tale of African women whose fertility was tragically stripped away through an experimental tetanus vaccination program. Are women everywhere next?
“When they’re through with Africa, they’re coming for you.” ~ Dr. Stephan Karanja
The chilling, harrowing story of how a World Health Organization (WHO) population control experiment, under the guise of a vaccination program, resulted in the sterilization of millions of women in Africa without their knowledge or consent.
How the ability to carry a pregnancy to term has been tragically stripped away from these women as their government attempts to cover up the evidence.
About a brave, Kenyan doctor — Dr. Stephen Karanja — who warned the world that once they’re done with Africa, they’re coming for the children and everyone else.
Perspectives from leading experts expressing their concerns regarding other vaccines that could cause infertility in women around the world, including the COVID shot.
I’ve heard people say that there are no differences between male and female. Those people are idiots.”
Thus begins Daily Wire host Matt Walsh’s new “What Is a Woman?” documentary, which highlights the left’s ever-growing reluctance and inability to define gender. Think that defining the qualities of men and women is easy for most people today? Think again.
While some may struggle to “figure out” women, Walsh identifies that Western culture’s obsession with gender identity has paralyzed people from defining what a woman is. As the documentary progresses, we see further evidence that the transgender narrative has not only rejected the definitions of “man” and “woman” as insensitive and transphobic, but has dismantled the very concept of universal truth and reality.
Fittingly released on the first day of Pride Month, Walsh’s documentary is a thought-provoking, humorous, yet often emotional and disturbing film that illuminates the contradictory and dangerous narrative of the transgender agenda.
In the documentary, Walsh interviews “the experts,” such as “gender-affirming” therapists, sex-change surgeons, and gender ideology professors (most of whom are transgender themselves or members of the LGBTQ+ community), asking them, “What is a woman?”
The majority of responders say they have no idea how to define womanhood or refuse to answer the question, calling it bigoted and pointless. Not only are they unable to provide a simple definition of a woman, but they find the entire concept offensive and transphobic.
The documentary begins on a humorous note, as Walsh asks a family therapist, “How do I know if I’m a woman? I mean, I like scented candles and I watch ‘Sex and the City.’”
“What a great question!” the therapist (who has every indication of being a woman) says, nodding and smiling encouragingly.
“So, what is a woman?” Walsh asks. A disconcerted look enters the counselor’s eye: “Great question! But I’m not a woman, so I can’t really answer that.”
“I thought therapy would make me less confused,” Walsh said. Us too, Matt.
So, he takes to the streets to ask the common American if they can solve this conundrum. Surprisingly, most of the interviewees responded to the “What is a woman?” question with a blank stare and nervous laughter. Most said it couldn’t be defined and said they would accept Walsh as a woman if that’s what he believed he was.
Especially entertaining is Walsh’s trip to the Women’s March—surely they’ll know what a woman is if they’re marching for them, right? But no, the marching women either ignored Walsh or yelled, “Why are you here?”—insinuating that he was a man (without even asking his gender identity, the audacity!) and that a man had no right to attend a women’s march. “How can you have a women’s march if you don’t know what a woman is?” he asked. Touché.
What is the female gender, according to the transgender community? Walsh spoke with a transgender surgeon who differentiated between sex and gender, saying that sex-change surgery is “altering the physical characteristics of an individual to fit better with a gender identity that is female.”
In that case, what is a woman, according to this surgeon? “A woman is a combination of your physical attributes, what you’re showing to the world and the gender clues you give, and hopefully those match your gender identity.”
As if the issue couldn’t get any more confusing, Walsh speaks with a pediatrician and professor who has worked in Planned Parenthood and advocates for “gender and reproductive justice.” She provides “gender affirmation care,” saying that a good doctor is there to listen to the patient and act on what they’re expressing.
Walsh asked whether it was ethical for minors to be making life-altering decisions such as taking puberty blockers or opposite sex hormones, since children often have a fantastical, unrealistic interpretation of reality, such as believing in Santa Claus.
“Well, he’s real to them,” the pediatrician said. “But the fact that Santa exists isn’t true,” Walsh countered. “Whose truth are you talking about? It’s very real to the child,” the pediatrician responded.
The documentary makes it clear that Americans can no longer ignore the transgender movement. It is permeating every aspect of society, politics, and education and now targets children as young as preschoolers.
The push for children to define their own realities and irreversibly change their bodies is perhaps what is most disturbing about the transgender agenda. In what other sphere of medicine do patients, especially young children, prescribe both their malady and remedy to the affirmation and acceptance of a counselor or physician? As clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson said to Walsh, “It’s not my job to affirm as a therapist, you come to see me because there’s something wrong.
The fact that the transgender agenda is increasingly targeting young children is what psychiatrist Miriam Grossman finds most disturbing. Grossman explains to Walsh the history of the transgender and sex-ed movement and highlights the unethical, traumatic techniques and flawed studies that have shaped it over the years. “It’s unspeakable what these people have done to our children,” she says.
Not only is the transgender movement harming women’s sports, exposing children to inappropriate material, and encouraging them to reject science and universal truth, it is also irreparably damaging children’s bodies and destroying their futures.
The most moving and persuasive interview occurred with Scott Newgent, a biological female who transitioned to a male as an adult but passionately argues against the rise in gender surgery among children and the subjectivity of gender. “I’m a biological woman that medically transitioned to appear like a man through synthetic hormones and surgery,” Newgent said. “I will never be a man. Is it transphobic for me to tell the truth?”
Newgent describes the details and horrific side effects of gender-reassignment surgery that are so conveniently hidden from public discourse. Having undergone multiple surgeries, illnesses, and painful, permanent side effects, Newgent told Walsh, “Nobody would help me, including the doctor who did this to me, because I lost my insurance. I probably won’t live very long.”
Newgent said the possible risks and side effects were never discussed when considering gender-reassignment surgery, and warns parents and anyone considering sex-change surgery that “the truth is that medical transition is experimental.”
Revealing an arm mutilated from skin grafts, Newgent broke down in tears on camera, exclaiming in horror that minor children are regularly operated on without any discussion of the risks and permanence of the surgery, or any discussion as to whether children should ethically be allowed or able to consent to such procedures.
“We’re butchering a generation of children because no one’s willing to talk about anything,” Newgent said. “This is wrong on so many levels. Kids aren’t able to consent.”
The transgender movement is ultimately an attack on scientific fact, the concept of reality, and the meaning of language. No longer are words allowed to mean one thing. No longer is the word “truth” socially acceptable, because who are we to deny “your reality” or “your truth”?
A professor of women (whatever those are, anyway), gender, and sexuality responded to Walsh’s statement that he was seeking the truth with, “I’m really uncomfortable with that language of ‘getting to the truth’ because it sounds deeply transphobic to me. The word ‘truth’ is condescending and rude.”
Sensing that this concept is a purely Western phenomenon, Walsh heads to Nairobi to immerse himself in the customs of a local tribe. In this culture, gender norms and roles are crucial to the survival of the tribe. The men protect and provide, and the women maintain the home and nurture the children. It’s an honor to be a man or a woman in this tribe, and every member knows their distinct duties and privileges.
A group of men laugh in disbelief when Walsh asks what they would do if a man wanted to look and act like a woman—the entire concept is ridiculous and unheard of. “The Maasai people don’t think much about gender,” Walsh observes on the way back home to America, “but they have a firm sense of their identity.”
Instead of solving gender dysphoria and body image discomfort, Americans’ infatuation with identity has only created greater societal instability and refused to answer the most foundational of questions. “What Is a Woman?” succeeds in highlighting the inconsistencies and dangerous agenda of the transgender movement.
Walsh’s angle is particularly effective, as he gives the majority of the screentime to pro-trans activists and medical professionals. The lack of data or persuasive argument for the trans community isn’t the producers’ fault, the “experts” simply couldn’t provide any. Walsh’s sarcastic, borderline dark sense of humor in the delightfully ridiculous street interviews breaks up the more serious, unsettling information and gives a sense of hope and common sense to the insanity that’s been normalized.
Bold, humorous, thought-provoking, and undeniably chilling, “What Is a Woman?” equips its audience to better face the ever-growing reality of the transgender agenda and its far-reaching effects through civil discourse, empathy, and a firm grasp of truth, science, and reality.
At the end of the film, it’s Walsh’s wife who’s the true MVP. “Hey honey, what’s a woman?” Walsh asks. “An adult human female,” she responds.
TCTL editor’s note: “What Is a Woman” by Matt Walsh has been mirrored on various video platforms. Here it is found at Open Library of Knowledge at Odysee:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is declaring war on our children and it’s on each of us to be unrelenting as we defend the next generation from Big Pharma and its allies. We must stop the FDA’s attack, beginning with a campaign to end unethical and unsubstantiated Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) that will subject our younger and most vulnerable children to the unnecessary risks of COVID shots.
The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) is scheduled to meet on four separate occasions in June to discuss additional EUAs that would provide cradle-to-grave COVID shots and consider a “Future Framework” that will permanently lower the bar for safety and efficacy going forward.
Their itinerary is as follows:
June 7 — Emergency Use Authorization for Novavax’s COVID shot for adults.
June 14 — Amendment to Moderna EUA to include primary series to children and adolescents 6 through 17 years of age.
June 15 — Amendment to Moderna’s EUA to include primary series for children 6 months to 5 years and amendment to Pfizer’s EUA to include the primary series to children 6 months through 4 years of age.
June 28 — Proposed “Future Framework” for COVID shots.
Dr. Toby Rogersaptly calls the June meetings a “blitzkrieg” because it is an overwhelming all-out attack (on informed consent) designed to create psychological shock and demoralizing chaos. But we can change the outcome by arming up with real data and creating a blitzkrieg of our own.
We need Defenders like YOU to hold the line and stop the approval of EUA amendments that profoundly impact the health and safety of our kids. Tell VRBPAC members that:
There is no COVID emergency for children.
Children under 18 with no comorbidities have virtually no risk of death from COVID. They have a 99.995% recovery rate and the vast majority of children have minimal symptoms. A study published in Nature described how children between 3 and 11 years of age mount effective, robust and sustained immune responses to COVID. The CDC’s own data show that at least 75.2% of children ages 0 to 11 years and 74.2% of adolescents ages 12 to 17 years already have superior natural immunity.
mRNA shots offer little in the way of protection.
There is no clinically significant health benefit from the mRNA vaccines. Moderna’s own press release acknowledges that “the absence of any severe disease, hospitalization or death in the study precludes the assessment of vaccine efficacy against these endpoints.” Preliminary data showed the shots were only about 44% effective at preventing symptomatic infection in children 6 months to 2 years old, and 37% effective in children ages 2 to 5 years old — both below the 50% level that regulators had generally called the minimum level for EUA approval in 2020. In New York, officials observed that Pfizer’s efficacy against Omicron plummeted from 68% to 12% after 7 weeks in children ages 5 to 11.
Injuries from COVID shots in children are catastrophic.
Vaccinated children face a substantial risk of myocarditis. Moderna’s EUA application, originally filed in June 2021, has already been held up because of a clear safety signal for myocarditis, which has prompted a number of European countries to prohibit its use in young people. Additionally, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has over 48,500 reports of adverse events in children, including 112 deaths (as of May 20, 2022) and a growing number of reports of encephalopathies, clotting issues, diabetes and neurological issues in children following COVID shots.
The FDA is poised to make decisions regarding our children and the future of this country that may have a devastating impact on children’s health.
Please send a message to FDA and CDC officials, VRBPAC members and elected representatives demanding that they reject the Pfizer and Moderna EUA applications for children and ensure our government agencies are following the science.
Thoughts of people around the world will lie with bereaved families affected by the latest school shooting at Robb Elementary School in Texas.
As the search for answers begin, the cause of violent behaviour will once again go under the spotlight, along with the gun laws in the United States.
While there is never one simple explanation for what drives a human being to commit such unspeakable acts, all too often one common denominator has surfaced in hundreds of cases—prescribed psychiatric drugs that are documented to cause mania, psychosis, violence, suicide and in some cases, homicidal ideation.
The general public remain uninformed about the well-documented links between psychiatric drugs and violence. At least 37 school shootings and or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 175 wounded and 82 killed. Following the latest shooting, another 21 deaths are going to be added to the abysmal death toll.
International drug regulatory warnings and studies reveal the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of violence and homicide. There are also hundreds of cases where high profile acts of violence and mass murder were committed by individuals under the influence of psychiatric drugs.
Despite 27 international drug regulatory warnings on psychiatric drugs, there has yet to be a federal investigation on the link between the drugs and acts of senseless violence.
While psychiatrists are aware of the dangers associated with their prescribing habits, they continue their routine pattern of denial while the patient is left uninformed about the dangers linked to the psychiatric drugs being recommended.
Professor David Healy, a psychiatrist and pharmacologist says, “Violence and other potentially criminal behaviour caused by prescription drugs are medicine’s best kept secret.”
We cannot allow this to be the norm and we must not remain silent on this issue. The dangers of psychiatric drugs have been known for decades so, as responsible citizens, we have to continue to repeat this message so that the populace is informed and so that school shootings become confined to the history books rather than being the headlines.
Children’s Health Defense seeks help from parents in 13 Texas counties, after a U.S. District Court on Tuesday granted CHD 45 days to amend its lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization of COVID-19 vaccines for children ages 5 to 11.
A U.S. District Court on Tuesday gave Children’s Health Defense (CHD) 45 days to amend its lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of COVID-19 vaccines for children ages 5 to 11.
CHD’s lawsuit, filed Jan. 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleges, among other things, that the FDA — under pretext of EUA powers — “authorized a dangerous drug for minor children as young as 5 years old to address COVID-19, which poses less risk to a 5-year-old than the ordinary flu.”
CHD last month filed a motion to stay asking the court to suspend the FDA’s authorization of the vaccine for young children pending judicial review of the lawsuit.
During Tuesday’s hearing Judge Alan Albright heard arguments on CHD’s motion to stay and also on the FDA’s motion to dismiss CHD’s lawsuit.
Judge Alan Albright denied CHD’s request to suspend authorization of the vaccines until the lawsuit is resolved, stating he was skeptical of CHD’s organizational standing and the standing of the two parents named in the suit, given the lack of any children’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate in the district at this time.
Judge Albright said for CHD to have standing, it must show “diversion of resources.”
For the parents named in the complaint — Deborah L. Else and Sacha Dietrich — to have standing, they must show their children are at demonstrable risk of vaccination against the parents’ wishes.
Attorney Robert Barnes, arguing for CHD, said if the FDA’s interpretation of standing were correct, then no one could sue the FDA because it would mean the FDA is completely insulated from judicial scrutiny.
Barnes also argued the harm to plaintiffs is not simply the threat of vaccination, but includes the FDA’s false assertions that the vaccines are safe, effective and actually vaccines, i.e. products that prevent infection and transmission.
U.S. Department of Justice attorney James Harlow, arguing on behalf of the FDA, said the agency cannot mandate products and that products authorized for emergency use clearly permit patients to accept or reject them.
Harlow also argued that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issued an executive order prohibiting COVID-19 mandates at schools, thus undermining an argument for any threat.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Albright said given the importance of the case, he wanted to give CHD and plaintiffs Else and Dietrich the opportunity to assert standing, and would give them 45 days to amend their lawsuit.
The judge also provided a roadmap for how to amend the case.
CHD is seeking help from the public in order to provide the court the necessary evidence to prove standing in its case against the FDA.
Parents in 13 counties in the Western District of Texas who have information about coercive COVID-19 vaccine policies for children or adolescents are asked to submit that information to chd@childrenshealthdefense.org with subject line “CHD v. FDA.”
The 13 counties are: Bell, Bosque, Coryell, Falls, Freestone, Hamilton, Hill, Leon, Limestone, McLennan, Milam, Robertson and Somervell.
CHD is especially interested in these types of situations occurring in the counties listed above:
Hospitals or medical facilities that require COVID-19 vaccination for treatment
Children in foster care, correctional settings or other institutional settings who are required to receive COVID-19 vaccinations
Vaccination clinics or vaccination stations in schools or youth facilities promoting COVID-19 vaccines for kids
Evidence of school pressure to vaccinate children even without an explicit mandate
After-school programs or extra-curricular activities requiring COVID-19 vaccines.
CHD in May 2021 filed a citizen petition with the FDA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services outlining the arguments against EUA and/or licensing of COVID-19 vaccines.
The FDA on Tuesday granted Pfizer’s request for EUA of a third COVID-19 shot for children ages 5 to 11, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday signed off on the shots.
VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show 1,261,149 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID-19 vaccines, including 27,968 deaths and 228,477 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 6, 2022.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,261,149 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 6, 2022, 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 27,968 reports of deaths — an increase of 210 over the previous week — and 228,477 serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 1,774 compared with the previous week. There were 5,794 additional total adverse events reported to VAERS over the previous week.
Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. 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 12,899 U.S. deaths reported as of May 6, 16% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 20% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 59% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 578 million COVID-19 vaccine doses had been administered as of May 6, including 341 million doses of Pfizer, 218 million doses of Moderna and 19 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
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.
20 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).
The CDC uses a narrowed case definition of “myocarditis,” which excludes cases of cardiac arrest, ischemic strokes and deaths due to heart problems that occur before one has the chance to go to the emergency department.
The Defender has noticed over previous weeks that reports of myocarditis and pericarditis have been removed by the CDC from the VAERS system in this age group. No explanation was provided.
65 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.
650 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 638 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
166 reports of blood clotting disorders with all cases attributed to Pfizer.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to May 6, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:
20% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
54% of those who died were male, 41% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
Pfizer’s COVID efficacy fades rapidly just weeks after second and third doses
Second and third doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine provide protection against the Omicron variant for only a few weeks, according to peer-reviewed research published today in JAMA Network Open.
“Our study found a rapid decline in Omicron-specific serum neutralizing antibody titers only a few weeks after the second and third doses of [the Pfizer-BioNTech] BNT162b2,” the authors of the research letter wrote.
The authors said their findings “could support rolling out additional booster shots to vulnerable people as the variant drives an uptick in new cases across the country,” Forbes reported.
Danish researchers studied adults who received two or three doses of BNT162b2 between January 2021 and October 2021, or were previously infected prior to February 2021 and then vaccinated.
They found that after an initial increase in Omicron-specific antibodies after the second Pfizer shot, levels dropped rapidly, from 76.2% at week 4, to 53.3% at weeks 8 to 10, and 18.9% at weeks 12 to 14.
After the third shot, neutralizing antibodies against Omicron fell 5.4-fold between week 3 and week 8.
COVID vaccines for kids under 6 won’t have to meet FDA 50% efficacy standard
The FDA’s top vaccine official told a congressional committee on May 6 that COVID-19 vaccines for kids under 6 will not have to meet the agency’s 50% efficacy threshold for blocking symptomatic infections required to obtain Emergency Use Authorization.
“If these vaccines seem to be mirroring efficacy in adults and just seem to be less effective against Omicron like they are for adults, we will probably still authorize,” Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA told the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis.
The FDA is reviewing data from Moderna’s two-shot vaccine for infants and toddlers 6 months to 2 years old, and for children 2 to 6 years old. The company asked the FDA on April 28 to approve its COVID-19 mRNA-1273 vaccine for children, citing different efficacy numbers than it disclosed in March.
The FDA is still awaiting data on Pfizer and BioNTech’s three-dose regimen for children under age 5 after two doses of its pediatric vaccine failed to trigger an immune response in 2-, 3- and 4-year-olds comparable to the response generated in teens and adults.
COVID vaccine injury ends surgeon’s 20-year career
In an interview on CHD.TV’s “The People’s Testaments,” Dr. Joel Wallskog described how he was diagnosed with transverse myelitis after getting the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, and why he now devotes his time to helping others injured by the vaccine.
In September 2020, Wallskog said, staff members in the clinic he referred patients to began coming down with COVID-19. Although Wallskog did not feel ill, he got an antibody test and it was positive.
When a close friend came down with COVID-19 and had to be intubated, Wallskog decided he should get vaccinated, despite reservations and having already acquired natural immunity.
About a week after receiving his vaccine, Wallskog’s feet became numb and he developed “electrical sensations” down his legs when he bent his head forward. When he began having trouble standing, he ordered emergent MRIs and was found to have a lesion on his spinal cord.
A neurologist diagnosed Wallskog with transverse myelitis, a disorder caused by inflammation of the spinal cord.
Despite various treatments and rest, Wallskog suffers pain and numbness and is unable to stand long enough to perform surgery. His career came to an end in early 2021.
Rheumatologist: 40% of 3,000 vaccinated patients reported vaccine injury
Dr. Robert Jackson, a practicing rheumatologist for 35 years said 40% of the vaccinated patients in his practice reported a vaccine injury, and 5% are still injured. Jackson has more than 5,000 patients, about 3,000 of whom received a COVID-19 vaccine.
Jackson said he’s had 12 patients die following the shot, whereas he normally sees one or two deaths in his patient base a year. About 5% of his patients developed a new condition that makes them susceptible to blood clotting.
Jackson’s observations are consistent with a study published in the BMJ that assessed the safety of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in people with inflammatory/autoimmune rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease from the EULAR Coronavirus Vaccine (COVAX) physician-reported registry.
The study showed 37% of 5,121 participants had adverse events and 4.4% of patients had a flare-up of their disease after vaccination.
An estimated 21 million American adults experienced at least one major depressive episode in 2020. The highest rates reported for the past several years have consistently been among those aged between 18 and 25
The vast majority are prescribed antidepressant drugs, despite the fact there’s virtually no evidence to suggest they provide meaningful help, and plenty of evidence showing the harms are greater than patients are being told
Hundreds of thousands of toddlers are also being medicated with powerful psychiatric drugs, raising serious ethical questions, along with questions about the future mental and physical health of these children
There’s no scientific evidence to suggest depression is the result of a chemical imbalance in your brain. A lot of the evidence suggests unhealthy living conditions are at the heart of the problem
Antidepressants are not beneficial in the long term and antipsychotic drugs worsen outcomes over the long term in those diagnosed with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia
This article was previously published September 19, 2019, and has been updated with new information.
In the U.S., an estimated 21 million American adults experienced at least one major depressive episode in 2020.1 The reported numbers for the past several years2 have consistently been highest among those aged between 18 and 25.3 However, not only is there evidence that depression is vastly overdiagnosed, but there’s also evidence showing it’s routinely mistreated.
With regard to overdiagnosis, it’s been ongoing for a long time, with one 2013 study4 finding only 38.4% of participants with clinician-identified depression actually met the DSM-4 criteria for a major depressive episode, and only 14.3% of seniors 65 and older met the criteria.
As for treatment, the vast majority are prescribed antidepressant drugs, despite the fact there’s little to no evidence to suggest they provide meaningful help, and plenty of evidence showing the harms are greater than patients are being told.
According to a 2017 study,5 1 in 6 Americans between the ages of 18 and 85 were on psychiatric drugs, most of them antidepressants, and 84.3% reported long-term use (three years or more). Out of 242 million U.S. adults, 12% were found to have filled one or more prescriptions for an antidepressant, specifically, in 2013. By 2021 in the midst of the pandemic, 1 in 4 Americans over age 18, or 50 million persons, were on prescription mental health drugs.6
According to data7 presented by a watchdog group in 2014, hundreds of thousands of toddlers are also being medicated with powerful psychiatric drugs, raising serious ethical questions, along with questions about the future mental and physical health of these children.
And, a study published in The BMJ in 20138 found that “In utero exposure to both SSRIs and non-selective monoamine reuptake inhibitors (tricyclic antidepressants) was associated with an increased risk of autism spectrum disorders, particularly without intellectual disability” in the offspring.
Studies are also shedding much needed light on the addictive nature of many antidepressants, and demonstrate that the benefits of these drugs have been overblown while their side effects — including suicidal ideation — and have been downplayed and ignored for decades, placing patients at unnecessary risk.
The Chemical Imbalance Myth
One researcher responsible for raising awareness about these important mental health issues is professor Peter C. Gøtzsche, a Danish physician-researcher and outspoken critic of the drug industry (as his book, “Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare,”9 suggests).
Gøtzsche helped found the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993 and later launched the Nordic Cochrane Centre. In 2018, he was expelled by the Cochrane governing board following the publication of a scathing critique of a Cochrane review of the HPV in which he and his coauthors pointed out several methodological flaws and conflicts of interest.
Over the past several years, Gøtzsche has published a number of scientific papers on antidepressants and media articles and a book discussing the findings. In a June 28, 2019 article,10 Gøtzsche addresses “the harmful myth” about chemical imbalances — a debunked hypothesis that continues to drive the use of antidepressants to this day. He writes, in part:11
“Psychiatrists routinely tell their patients that they are ill because they have a chemical imbalance in the brain and they will receive a drug that fixes this …
Last summer, one of my researchers and I collected information about depression from 39 popular websites in 10 countries, and we found that 29 (74%) websites attributed depression to a chemical imbalance or claimed that antidepressants could fix or correct that imbalance …
It has never been possible to show that common mental disorders start with a chemical imbalance in the brain. The studies that have claimed this are all unreliable.12
A difference in dopamine levels, for example, between patients with schizophrenia and healthy people cannot tell us anything about what started the psychosis … [I]f a lion attacks us, we get terribly frightened and produce stress hormones, but this does not prove that it was the stress hormones that made us scared.
People with psychoses have often suffered traumatic experiences in the past, so we should see these traumas as contributing causal factors and not reduce suffering to some biochemical imbalance that, if it exists at all, is more likely to be the result of the psychosis rather than its cause.13
The myth about chemical imbalance is very harmful. It makes people believe there is something seriously wrong with them, and sometimes they are even told that it is hereditary.
The result of this is that patients continue to take harmful drugs, year after year, perhaps even for the entirety of their lives. They fear what would happen if they stopped, particularly when the psychiatrists have told them that their situation is like patients with diabetes needing insulin.”
Real Cause of Depression Is Typically Ignored
According to Gøtzsche, there is no known mental health issue that is caused by an imbalance of brain chemicals. In many cases, the true cause is unknown, but “very often, it is a response to unhealthy living conditions,” he writes.14
He also cites the book,15 “Anxiety — The Inside Story: How Biological Psychiatry Got It Wrong,” written by Dr. Niall McLaren, in which the author shows that anxiety is a major factor in and trigger of most psychiatric disorders.
“A psychiatrist I respect highly, who only uses psychiatric drugs in rare cases … has said that most people are depressed because they live depressing lives,” Gøtzsche writes.
“No drug can help them live better lives. It has never been shown in placebo-controlled trials that a psychiatric drug can improve people’s lives — e.g., help them return to work, improve their social relationships or performance at school, or prevent crime and delinquency. The drugs worsen people’s lives, at least in the long run.16“
Gøtzsche rightfully points out that antipsychotic drugs create chemical imbalances; they don’t fix them. As a group, they’re also somewhat misnamed, as they do not address psychotic states. Rather, they are tranquilizers, rendering the patient passive. However, calming the patient down does not actually help them heal the underlying trauma that, in many cases, is what triggered the psychosis in the first place.
As noted in one 2012 meta-analysis17 of studies looking at childhood trauma — including sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional/psychological abuse, neglect, parental death and bullying — and subsequent risk of psychosis:
“There were significant associations between adversity and psychosis across all research designs … Patients with psychosis were 2.72 times more likely to have been exposed to childhood adversity than controls … The estimated population attributable risk was 33% (16%-47%). These findings indicate that childhood adversity is strongly associated with increased risk for psychosis.”
Economy of Influence in Psychiatry
A related article,18 written by investigative journalist Robert Whitaker in 2017, addresses the “economy of influence” driving the use of antidepressant drugs in psychiatric treatment — and the “social injury” that results. As noted by Whitaker, mental disorders were initially categorized according to a disease model in 1980 by the American Psychiatric Association.
“We’re all familiar with the second ‘economy of influence’ that has exerted a corrupting influence on psychiatry — pharmaceutical money — but I believe the guild influence is really the bigger problem,” he writes.
Whitaker details the corruption within the APA in his book “Psychiatry Under the Influence,” one facet of which is “the false story told to the public about drugs that fixed chemical imbalances in the brain.” Other forms of corrupt behavior include:
The biased designs of clinical trials to achieve a predetermined result
Spinning results to support preconceived conclusions
Hiding poor long-term outcomes
Expanding diagnostic categories for the purpose of commercial gain
Creating clinical trial guidelines that promote drug use
In his article, Whitaker goes on to dissect a 2017 review19 published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, which Whitaker claims “defends the profession’s current protocols for prescribing antipsychotics, which includes their regular long-term use.”
As Whitaker points out, there’s ample evidence showing antipsychotic drugs worsen outcomes over the long term in those diagnosed with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia.
The review in question, led by American psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey A. Lieberman, was aimed at answering persistent questions raised by the mounting of such evidence. Alas, their conclusions dismissed concerns that the current drug paradigm might be doing more harm than good.
“In a subsequent press release and a video for a Medscape commentary, Lieberman has touted it as proving that antipsychotics provide a great benefit, psychiatry’s protocols are just fine, and that the critics are ‘nefarious’ individuals intent on doing harm,” Whitaker writes.20
The Scientific Bias of Psychiatric Treatment
Five of the eight researchers listed on the review have financial ties to drug companies, three are speakers for multiple drug companies and all eight are psychiatrists, “and thus there is a ‘guild’ interest present in this review, given that they are investigating whether one of their treatments is harmful over the long-term,” Whitaker notes.21
Not surprisingly, the review ignored studies showing negative effects, including studies showing antipsychotics have a detrimental effect on brain volume. What’s more, while withdrawal studies support the use of antipsychotics as maintenance therapy over the long term, these studies do not address how the drugs affect patients’ long-term health.
“They simply reveal that once a person has stabilized on the medication, going abruptly off the drug is likely to lead to relapse,” Whitaker writes.22“The focus on long-term outcomes, at least as presented by critics, provides evidence that psychiatry should adopt a selective-use protocol.
If first-episode patients are not immediately put on antipsychotics, there is a significant percentage that will recover, and this ‘spontaneous recovery’ puts them onto a good long-term course. As for patients treated with the medications, the goal would be to minimize long-term use, as there is evidence that antipsychotics, on the whole, worsen long-term outcomes.”
Vast Majority of Psychotic Patients Are Harmed, Not Helped
In his deconstruction of Lieberman’s review, Whitaker details how biased thinking influenced the review’s conclusions. It’s a rather long article, but well worth reading through if you want to understand how a scientific review can be skewed to accord with a preconceived view.
Details I want to highlight, however, include findings relating to the number needed to treat (NNT) and the percentage of patients harmed by the routine use of antipsychotic drugs as a first-line treatment.
As noted by Whitaker, while placebo-controlled studies reveal the effectiveness of a drug compared to an inert substance, they do not effectively reveal the ratio of benefit versus harm among the patient population. NNT refers to the number of patients that have to take the drug in order to get one positive response.
A meta-analysis cited in Lieberman’s review had an NNT of 6, meaning that six patients must take the drug in order for one to benefit from the treatment. The remaining five patients — 83% — are potentially harmed by the treatment. As noted by Whitaker:23
“The point … is this: reviewers seeking to promote their drug treatment as effective will look solely at whether it produces a superior response to placebo. This leads to a one-size-fits-all protocol.
Reviewers that want to assess the benefit-harm effect of the treatment on all patients will look at NNT numbers. In this instance, the NNT calculations argue for selective use of the drugs …”
Antidepressants Are Not Beneficial in the Long Term
While typically not as destructive as antipsychotics, antidepressants also leave a trail of destruction in their wake. A systematic review24 by Gøtzsche published in 2019 found studies assessing harm from selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) fail to provide a clear and accurate picture of the harms, and therefore “cannot be used to investigate persistent harms of antidepressants.”
In this review, Gøtzsche and colleagues sought to assess “harms of SSRIs … that persist after end of drug intake.” The primary outcomes included mortality, functional outcomes, quality of life and core psychiatric events. In all, 22 papers on 12 SSRI trials were included. Gøtzsche found several distinct problems with these trials. For starters, only two of the 12 trials had a drop-out rate below 20%.
Gøtzsche and his team also note that “Outcome reporting was less thorough during follow-up than for the intervention period and only two trials maintained the blind during follow-up.” Importantly, though, all of the 22 papers came to the conclusion that “the drugs were not beneficial in the long term.”
Another important finding was that all trials either “reported harms outcomes selectively or did not report any,” and “Only two trials reported on any of our primary outcomes (school attendance and number of heavy drinking days).”
A few years later, in April 2022, a study using data from the United States’ Medical Expenditures Panel Survey for patients who had depression found, “The real-world effect of using antidepressant medications does not continue to improve patients” health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over time.25
Antidepressants Are More Addictive Than Admitted
In a June 4, 2019, article,26 “The Depression Pill Epidemic,” Gøtzsche writes that antidepressant drugs:
“… do not have relevant effects on depression; they increase the risk of suicide and violence; and they make it more difficult for patients to live normal lives.27 They should therefore be avoided.
We have been fooled by the drug industry, corrupt doctors on industry payroll, and by our drug regulators.28 Surely, many patients and doctors believe the pills are helpful, but they cannot know this, because people tend to become much better with time even if they are not treated.29
This is why we need placebo-controlled trials to find out what the drugs do to people. Unfortunately, virtually all trials are flawed, exaggerate the benefits of the drugs, and underestimate their harms.”30
Addictive Nature of Antidepressants Skews Results
In his article,31 Gøtzsche reviews several of the strategies used in antidepressant drug trials to exaggerate benefits and underestimate the harms. One little-known truth that helps skew study results in the drug’s favor is the fact that antidepressants tend to be far more addictive than officially admitted. He explains how this conveniently hides the skewing of results as follows:32
“Virtually all patients in the trials are already on a drug similar to the one being tested against placebo. Therefore, as the drugs are addictive, some of the patients will get abstinence symptoms … when randomized to placebo …
These abstinence symptoms are very similar to those patients experience when they try to stop benzodiazepines. It is no wonder that new drugs outperform the placebo in patients who have experienced harm as a result of cold turkey effects.
To find out how long patients need to continue taking drugs, so-called maintenance (withdrawal) studies have been carried out, but such studies also are compromised by cold turkey effects. Leading psychiatrists don’t understand this, or they pretend they don’t.
Most interpret the maintenance studies of depression pills to mean that these drugs are very effective at preventing new episodes of depression and that patients should therefore continue taking the drugs for years or even for life.”
Scientific Literature Supports Reality of User Complaints
Over the years, several studies on the dependence and withdrawal reactions associated with SSRIs and other psychiatric drugs have been published, including the following:
•In a 2011 paper33 in the journal Addiction, Gøtzsche and his team looked at the difference between dependence and withdrawal reactions by comparing benzodiazepines and SSRIs. Benzodiazepines are known to cause dependence, while SSRIs are said to not be addictive.
Despite such claims, Gøtzsche’s team found that “discontinuation symptoms were described with similar terms for benzodiazepines and SSRIs and were very similar for 37 of 42 identified symptoms described as withdrawal reactions,” which led them to conclude that:
“Withdrawal reactions to selective serotonin re‐uptake inhibitors appear to be similar to those for benzodiazepines; referring to these reactions as part of a dependence syndrome in the case of benzodiazepines, but not selective serotonin re‐uptake inhibitors, does not seem rational.”
•Two years later, in 2013, Gøtzsche’s team published a paper34 in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, in which they analyzed “communications from drug agencies about benzodiazepine and SSRI withdrawal reactions over time.”
By searching the websites of drug agencies in Europe, the U.S., U.K. and Denmark, they found that it took years before drug regulators finally acknowledged the reality of benzodiazepine dependence and SSRI withdrawal reactions and began informing prescribers and patients about these risks.
A significant part of the problem, they found, is that drug agencies rely on spontaneous reporting of adverse effects, which “leads to underestimation and delayed information about the problems.”
In conclusion, they state that “Given the experience with the benzodiazepines, we believe the regulatory bodies should have required studies from the manufacturers that could have elucidated the dependence potential of the SSRIs before marketing authorization was granted.”
•A 2019 paper35 in the Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences journal notes “It took almost two decades after the SSRIs entered the market for the first systematic review to be published.” It also points out that reviews claiming withdrawal effects to be mild, brief in duration and rare “was at odds with the sparse but growing evidence base.”
In reality, “What the scientific literature reveals is in close agreement with the thousands of service user testimonies available online in large forums. It suggests that withdrawal reactions are quite common, that they may last from a few weeks to several months or even longer, and that they are often severe.”
Antidepressants Increase Your Risk of Suicide and Violence
In his June 2019 article,36 Gøtzsche also stresses the fact that antidepressants can be lethal. In one of his studies,37 published in 2016, he found antidepressants “double the occurrence of events that can lead to suicide and violence in healthy adult volunteers.”
Other research38 has shown they “increase aggression in children and adolescents by a factor of 2 to 3 — an important finding considering the many school shootings where the killers were on depression pills,” Gøtzsche writes.
In middle-aged women with stress urinary incontinence, the selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) duloxetine, which is also used to treat incontinence, has been shown to double the risk of a psychotic episode and increase the risk of violence and suicide four to five times,39 leading the authors to conclude that harms outweighed the benefits.
“I have described the dirty tricks and scientific dishonesty involved when drug companies and leading psychiatrists try convincing us that these drugs protect against suicide and other forms of violence,”40 Gøtzsche writes.41“Even the FDA was forced to give in when it admitted in 2007, at least indirectly, that depression pills can cause suicide and madness at any age.
There is no doubt that the massive use of depression pills is harmful. In all countries where this relationship has been examined, the sharp rise in disability pensions due to psychiatric disorders has coincided with the rise of psychiatric drug usage, and depression pills are those which are used the most by far. This is not what one would expect if the drugs were helpful.”
Drugmaker Lied About Paxil’s Suicide Risk
In 2017, Wendy Dolin was awarded $3 million by a jury in a lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Paxil. Dolin’s husband committed suicide six days after taking his first dose of a Paxil generic, and evidence brought forth in the case convincingly showed his suicide was the result of the drug, not emotional stress or mental illness.42
The legal team behind that victory, Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman, also represented other victims of Paxil-induced violence and death. At the time, attorney R. Brent Wisner said:43
“The Dolin verdict sent a clear message to GSK and other drug manufacturers that hiding data and manipulating science will not be tolerated … If you create a drug and know that it poses serious risks, regardless of whether consumers use the brand name or generic version of that drug, you have a duty to warn.”
GSK’s own clinical placebo-controlled trials actually revealed subjects on Paxil had nearly nine times the risk of attempting or committing suicide than the placebo group. To gain drug approval, GSK misrepresented this shocking data, falsely reporting a higher number of suicide attempts in the placebo group and deleting some of the suicide attempts in the drug group.
An internal GSK analysis of its suicide data also showed that “patients taking Paxil were nearly seven times more likely to attempt suicide than those on placebo,” Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman reports, adding:44
“Jurors in the Dolin trial also heard from psychiatrist David Healy, one of the world’s foremost experts on Paxil and drugs in its class … Healy told the jurors that Paxil and drugs like it can create in some people a state of extreme ’emotional turmoil’ and intense inner restlessness known as akathisia …
‘People have described it like a state worse than death. Death will be a blessed relief. I want to jump out of my skin,’ Dr. Healy said. Healthy volunteer studies have found that akathisia can happen even to people with no psychiatric condition who take the drug …
Another Paxil side effect known to increase the risk of suicide is emotional blunting … apathy or emotional indifference … [E]motional blunting, combined with akathisia, can lead to a mental state in which an individual has thoughts of harming themselves or others, but is ‘numbed’ to the consequences of their actions. Drugs in the Paxil class can also cause someone to ‘go psychotic, become delirious,’ Dr. Healy explained.”
Hundreds of Thousands of Toddlers on Psychiatric Drugs
Considering the many serious psychological and physical risks associated with psychiatric drugs, it’s shocking to learn that hundreds of thousands of American toddlers are on them. In 2014, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, a mental health watchdog group, highlighted data showing that in 2013:45
274,000 babies aged 1 and younger were given psychiatric drugs — Of these, 249,699 were on anti-anxiety meds like Xanax; 26,406 were on antidepressants such as Prozac or Paxil, 1,422 were on ADHD drugs such as Ritalin and Adderall, and 654 were on antipsychotics such as Risperdal and Zyprexa
In the toddler category (2- to 3-year-olds), 318,997 were on anti-anxiety drugs, 46,102 were on antidepressants, 10,000 were prescribed ADHD drugs and 3,760 were on antipsychotics
Among children aged 5 and younger, 1,080,168 were on psychiatric drugs
These are shocking figures that challenge logic. How and why are so many children, babies even, on addictive and dangerously mind-altering medications? Considering these statistics are 6 years old, chances are they’re even higher today. Just what will happen to all of these youngsters as they grow up? As mentioned in the article:46
“When it comes to the psychiatric drugs used to treat ADHD, these are referred to as ‘kiddie cocaine’ for a reason. Ritalin (methylphenidate), Adderall (amphetamine) and Concerta are all considered by the federal government as Schedule II drugs — the most addictive.
ADHD drugs also have serious side effects such as agitation, mania, aggressive or hostile behavior, seizures, hallucinations, and even sudden death, according to the National Institutes of Health …
As far as antipsychotics, antianxiety drugs and antidepressants, the FDA and international drug regulatory agencies cite side effects including, but not limited to, psychosis, mania, suicidal ideation, heart attack, stroke, diabetes, and even sudden death.”
Children Increasingly Prescribed Psych Drugs Off-Label
Making matters even worse, recent research shows the number of children being prescribed medication off-label is also on the rise. An example offered by StudyFinds.org,47 which reported the findings, is “a doctor recommending antidepressant medication for ADHD symptoms.”
The study,48 published in the journal Pediatrics, looked at trends in off-label drug prescriptions made for children under the age of 18 by office-based physicians between 2006 and 2015. Findings revealed:
“Physicians ordered ≥1 off-label systemic drug at 18.5% of visits, usually (74.6%) because of unapproved conditions. Off-label ordering was most common proportionally in neonates (83%) and in absolute terms among adolescents (322 orders out of 1000 visits).
Off-label ordering was associated with female sex, subspecialists, polypharmacy, and chronic conditions. Rates and reasons for off-label orders varied considerably by age. Relative and absolute rates of off-label orders rose over time. Among common classes, off-label orders for antihistamines and several psychotropics increased over time …
US office-based physicians have ordered systemic drugs off label for children at increasing rates, most often for unapproved conditions, despite recent efforts to increase evidence and drug approvals for children.”
The researchers were taken aback by the findings, and expressed serious concern over this trend. While legal, many of the drugs prescribed off-label have not been properly tested to ensure safety and efficacy for young children and adolescents.
As noted by senior author Daniel Horton, assistant professor of pediatrics and pediatric rheumatologist at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, “We don’t always understand how off-label medications will affect children, who don’t always respond to medications as adults do. They may not respond as desired to these drugs and could experience harmful effects.”
In 2020 mental health experts and reviewers were still at-odds over prescribing these drugs for children, yet hesitant to call a stop to it:49
“Antidepressants are prescribed for the treatment of a number of psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents, however there is still controversy about whether they should be used in this population …
Treatment decisions should be tailored to patients on an individual basis, so we recommend clinicians, patients and policy makers to refer to the evidence provided in the present meta-review and make decisions about the use of antidepressants in children and adolescents taking into account a number of clinical and personal variables.”
Educate Yourself About the Risks
If you, your child or another family member is on a psychiatric drug, I urge you to educate yourself about the true risks and to consider switching to safer alternatives. When it comes to children, I cannot fathom a situation in which a toddler would need a psychiatric drug and I find it shocking that there are so many doctors out there that, based on a subjective evaluation, would deem a psychiatric drug necessary.
Psychological obedience training is being used to control the global population, from cradle to grave. The technocratic elite are after our children, and they’re using a variety of psychological tools to shape and mold them.
The more we know about their strategies, the better we can protect ourselves and our children from these predators
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (HR 3684) grants control over what and when you drive to the transportation system. It will control the type of vehicle you can use and when you can drive. It will control the vehicle-to-grid 5G technology and its kill switches (which will be built in). The bill also includes an integrated payment system and a per-mile driving fee
The effort to control you starts from birth. Social emotional learning (SEL) is a programming effort that uses the relabeling and changing of words to alter perception of reality and mold children’s beliefs and behaviors Companies are collecting and analyzing your child’s personal data to build their social credit score. In addition to demographics and grades, the data collection also includes behavioral information, such as scientific, financial, cultural and civic literacy, and competencies such as critical thinking skills, problem solving, creativity, communication and collaboration, plus character qualities such as curiosity, initiative, persistence, grit, adaptability, leadership, social and cultural awareness
Unless we refuse to comply or participate, our social credit scores and climate scores will soon dictate everything we can and cannot do in life
In the video below, finance expert Catherine Austin Fitts, Polly Tommey and Carolyn Betts interview investigative journalist Corey Lynn, who runs a blog called “Corey’s Digs.” She’s also the author of “Global Landscape on Vaccine ID Passports,” available from her website.1
In this interview, Lynn discusses how psychological obedience training is being used to control the global population from cradle to grave. She reviews programs that mine your personal data and indoctrinate users to become reliant on digital currency, and offers practical advice for those who recognize the dangers and want to break free.
As noted by Tommey, the technocratic elite are after our children, and they’re using a variety of psychological tools to shape and mold them into obedient and clueless serfs. The more we know about their strategies, the better we can protect our children from these predators.
What the Infrastructure Bill Is Actually Funding
Lynn starts off with a potent example of how the U.S. government is using our own money to build the prison walls around us. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (HR 3684) was passed by Congress and signed by President Biden in November 2021.
This $1.2 trillion spending bill includes a number of questionable and outright nefarious allocations. Importantly, this bill grants control over what and when you drive to the transportation system. It will control the type of vehicle you can use and when you can drive, Lynn explains.
It will control the vehicle-to-grid 5G technology and its kill switches (which will be built in). The bill also includes an integrated payment system and a per-mile driving fee. Twenty-seven pilot programs are also listed that will given them even more control over your transportation in the future.
As noted by Lynn, “Our taxpayer dollars are going to build our control grid.” For more information, see her article, “A Clearer Breakdown of What This Infrastructure Bill Is Really Funding.”2
Social Emotional Learning Is Programming
The effort to control you starts from birth. Lynn reviews the use of social emotional learning (SEL), which uses the relabeling and changing of words to alter our perception of reality and mold children’s beliefs and behaviors.
“The Department of Education was created in 1979, and ever since then, they’ve been building up to Common Core, building in all these Marxist agendas and pulling in critical race theory (CRT),” Lynn says.
“It’s a psychological agenda. It’s not a single curriculum. This is [about] ideologies and behaviors and thought processes, it’s obedience training and conditioning that starts in preschool, and it’s embedded throughout the day. So, it’s a whole mind control system.
They’re creating what the World Economic Forum (WEF) likes to refer to as digital citizens, for the future workforce, and so they’re bringing in all this ed-tech and doing massive data mining. We have statewide longitudinal data systems that are tracking behavior …
In 2016, they started kicking billions of dollars into this … and then they started pulling in legislation. And while COVID is going on, they say, ‘Well, we really need to step this up, we need to pour more money into this because of the mental health and well being of children.’
And so, they are molding the children, they’re building their social scores … and then they’re bringing it into parents. They’re saying we need to teach the parents too, so the parents can help train the kids. And they’re bringing it into businesses … This is a major psychological obedience training to lead to AI.
This is an excerpt from ‘Dreaming the Future of Health for the Next 100 Years,’ a 2013 white paper from the Global Health Summit that was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation:3
‘We will interact more with artificial intelligence. The use of robotics [and] bioengineering to augment human functioning is already well underway and will advance. Reengineering of humans into potentially separate and unequal forms through genetic engineering or mixed human robots raises debates on ethics and equality.
A new demography is projected to emerge after 2030 of technologies, robotics, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, producing robots, engineered organisms, nanobots and artificial intelligence that can self replicate. Debates will grow on the implications of an impending reality of human-designed life.’
So, this, this is where this is all heading … It’s in 110 countries, it’s all over the US. It’s in most schools, and they’re starting in preschool. This is what you’re dealing with. So, when you’re considering homeschooling, I just want people to understand what they’re up against, and what they need to weed out. It’s more than just the school board. There are a lot of parts going on here.”
Already, there are several companies that collect and analyze your child’s personal data to build their social credit score. In the beginning, the data collection was fairly generic, such as age, demographics and grades, but now they’ve started to collect behavioral information as well, such as scientific literacy, ICT literacy, financial literacy, cultural and civic literacy.
They also collect data on competencies such as critical thinking skills, problem solving, creativity, communication and collaboration, plus character qualities such as curiosity, initiative, persistence, grit, adaptability, leadership, social and cultural awareness. You can learn more about all of this in Lynn’s nine-part series, the “2030 Psychological Agenda.”4
They’re Teaching Children To Be Nice but Stupid
Another important point made by Austin Fitts is that many of the “improvements” in education have been designed to make children less knowledgeable. For example, Common Core “is designed to make you phenomenally ignorant of math, and very obedient and easy to control,” she says, adding:
“I used to have a dental surgeon who, all he wanted to talk about was how furious he was at the schools. He said his kids had been taught that if they were going to get together and design a bridge, it was more important that they get along than they use the right number for Pi. As long as they got along, it was okay if the bridge fell down.”
Financial apps aimed at children are another form of programming. For example, the FinTech app “Greenlight,” advertised as a debit card for kids and teens, is financed by players such as Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, Chase and Amazon. Lynn explains:
“On the surface, this may look great. Parents can help their children understand investing, how to save money and whatnot. But when you start looking at the investors … and where this is really going, what they’re doing is programming. They say this is created by families, for families, even though there are 29 big investors in this …
They’re saying this is to help for parents to raise financially smart kids. So, what they do is, the [parents] pay them their allowance, or they pay them for chores. It goes through a little MasterCard Greenlight card that then goes into the bank … and then they can control their spending. So, it’s teaching them about getting involved in the banking system digitally.”
Of course, we now know that the globalist elite are planning to roll out a programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC), with which they’ll be able to control how, where and when you spend your own money. So, “Greenlight” is basically teaching children to see this system as completely normal. As noted by Austin Fitts, “They’re getting groomed to plug into a system which will be centrally controlled.”
How to Break the Indoctrination Schedule
Parents who are waking up to the nightmare planned for their children by the WEF and its allies are now starting to fight back. Here are a few key things parents need to do to protect their young children from the indoctrination currently trying to swallow their children:
Homeschool your children. Some parents are starting their own schools, educating five or six children
Get your children out in nature as much as possible
Eliminate mindless TV watching and cell phone use
Be a role model for your children. That means modeling appropriate use of television and technologies such as computers, cell phones and social media
Minimizing your cell phone use, to whatever extent possible, is one thing everyone can do. Lynn says:
“I truly believe that if we ditch [our cell phones], if 50% of the population ditched them, that would put a major crushing to their agenda, on most of what they’re rolling out. There’s geofencing on phones. Everywhere you go, you’re being tracked … You don’t even have to be on the phone. It could just be in your pocket, it can be in your car.
They’re constantly aggregating data from us so they can then use it against us, and … they have the ability to target us on an individual basis. They track everything we do on the internet as well. When I go on walks with my dog, I don’t bring my phone with me … Anywhere I go, I leave the phone at home, or I leave it in the car.”
If we do nothing to change our technology-addicted lifestyles, what will happen to us in 10 years’ time? Where will we be? Austin Fitts is convinced we’ll all be slaves — literally enslaved by the technology that is tracking and analyzing us every moment. Decisions will be made for us by AI, based on our social credit scores.
Children may even be taken from their families at a young age and brought up in facilities where their upbringing and behavior can be controlled. “Parents will have no authority over their children and the children … their bodies and their minds, will be used to prototype all sorts of transhumanism,” Austin Fitts says.
Understand the End Game and Do Not Comply
There’s really only one way to prevent the transhumanist, centrally controlled authoritarian regime from getting a foothold: Do not comply. We have to say no to all of their schemes. If you do comply, understand that you are erecting your own prison walls, and that of your children, with every data point you let them have.
“It’s all under the guise of convenience,” Lynn says. “Going back to cell phones, and technology in general … People need to start seeing these things for what they are. And instead of looking at it and immediately going, ‘Oh, this is great, oh, this is so convenient, oh, this is going to save me time,’ they need to stop and take a look at who the company is.
Who’s behind it? Dig around in their website, see who the leadership is, see who the investors are … and just understand their ultimate end game. So when they’re throwing these things out there, with all their fluff and pizzazz, you don’t take the bait. They’re trapping you into more and more control over you.”
The Planned Takeover of Your Bank Account
Also, consider using cash as much as possible, and move your money out of the big banks, as they too are part of the control system. Lynn explains:
“I got out of mine about a year ago, and I wasn’t even in one of the biggest, worst ones. But I started noticing that they were categorizing my spending. I’m like, ‘What is this?’ All of a sudden, it’s showing my grocery shopping and restaurant and health care?
I tell people go into your bank right now, look at the categorizing that’s happening. They’re already getting the infrastructure set up to control spending by categorizing it all. It’s not for your convenience, so you can better budget and see how you’re spending your money.”
For more information about this, see Lynn’s article, “Financial Takeover and Your Bank Account — BlackRock, Envestnet/Yodlee, and The Federal Reserve.”5,6 The short video above also summarizes the most important points of that article.
One important point highlighted by Austin Fitts is that banks can store their data on the bank server or the provider server. Austin Fitts says, “You want to call them and make sure the bank is keeping the data on their server, because you did not give permission for all of that data to be shared with the provider.” Having the data stored on the bank server helps protect against this malicious data harvesting.
In closing, I urge you to listen to the featured interview, as I’ve only summarized some of the key points here. In it, they review and discuss several signs, things that are happening now, that clearly illustrate where we’re headed.
Children today are being systematically and deliberately destroyed – both mentally and physically.
We are horrified at the way children were pushed up chimneys in the 19th century. Making children work long, arduous hours was considered normal at the time but the children abused in this way were scarred physically and mentally for life.
Today, we like to think that that sort of cruelty is today confined to those parts of the world where children are employed as slave labour in order to dig out the rare minerals needed to make batteries for electric cars.
And, of course, to the factories where slave labourers make overpriced plimsolls or manufacture mobile phones – all at such a low prices that billionaires can progress up the ladder and become even richer.
We like to think that most countries in the so-called developed world have moved on. We close our eyes to the billionaires growing ever richer on the backs of slave labour children.
Those pulling down statues of 19th century slave traders still buy the electric cars, the mobile phones and the absurd shoes and ignore the uncomfortable truths about how they were made.
In the 19th century, child labour was seen as normal and acceptable. In both physical and psychological terms what we are doing now is even worse.
For no sensible, medical reason our world has been turned upside down and millions of children will never recover. (In Africa, of course, millions of children will die as a result of the lockdowns and deliberately staged global panic.)
There is evidence that as a result of the covid hysteria many children have become withdrawn and frightened of approaching strangers – especially if they are not wearing masks.
A children’s charity has seen a massive rise in the incidence of mental and emotional problems in children under 11 years of age. Children are worried about dying, about their friends and family dying, about their future, about missing school, about loneliness, about future epidemics. The AIDS hysteria of the 20th century has become the covid hysteria of the 21st century.
As a result many are either not eating, or eating too much, and they are not sleeping. Panic attacks are becoming commonplace. A study of 10,000 parents showed that 30% of children were worried about catching the virus and 30% were worried about missing their education. Even more worrying 16% were afraid to leave their homes. More than half of the parents were worried about their children.
And yet deaths among healthy children are so rare that it has been suggested that lightning is a bigger threat to children and that it would make more sense to tell children to wear helmets to protect them against meteors than to recommend that they wore masks or practised social distancing.
Nevertheless, schools introduced masks and social distancing, and many teachers and parents want the restrictions to continue indefinitely – until the very last virus on earth has disappeared.
In Ohio, electronic beams were introduced to track school pupils and to enforce social distancing.
In China, robots have been installed to ensure that children wash their hands properly.
Some schools have installed thermal imaging cameras to see if children have a temperature. (This is entirely pointless).
One educational establishment in the US made a viral tracking app mandatory and students were constantly tracked. Students who turned off the app or tried to leave the campus without permission were expelled.
Under normal circumstances, young children touch and hug one another and derive great comfort from this.
Forcing children to remain isolated has created huge psychological problems. Children from poorer families or where there is an unhappy home life have suffered most. Also, the lack of exercise will result in health problems and obesity.
The problems have been exacerbated by threats that children who do not obey the rules `may kill granny’. (The irony is that their government wants to kill granny with blanket DNR notices in hospitals and care homes and by denying medical treatment to older citizens.) Children have seen adults frightened and as a result child terror has been exacerbated.
Many children have become socio-phobic and are developing OCD.
Figures for suicide are nigh on impossible to obtain but suicide is widely recognised to be a leading cause of death in the 5-19 age group, and one survey showed a 50% increase in suicides in 2020 compared to 2019. I suspect the figure will grow.
In an attempt to escape from reality, children are spending vast amounts of time on the internet. Gaming addiction is becoming an increasing problem with cyberbullying adding to anxiety and depression. Sports and out of school activities have been abandoned or disrupted leading to increased boredom, loneliness and depression.
Equally worrying is the fact that altered behaviour in children will frequently be diagnosed as ADHD and drugs such as Ritalin will be prescribed as a long-term remedy.
All this for an infection which children hardly ever catch and hardly ever transmit.
It’s all madness.
The whole fraud was deliberately designed by billionaires and their evil supporters.
And although politicians, their advisors and the medical establishment are guilty of mass genocide for the part they have played, parents and school teachers must also be held responsible.
If parents and teachers had done a little research, they would have known (and would know) that the covid-19 scare is fraudulent.
Their children’s lives have been sacrificed for nothing.
Are you a parent who wants to sacrifice your young child? Sign up today in the culture war. Kneel down before predators and act like the coward you are.
The campaign to turn young children into “gender fluid” creatures isn’t just the goal of groups of schoolteacher-groomers. No. It’s embedded in the curriculum. It’s official.
Read this gobbledygook. Read it like your child’s life is hanging in the balance:
Daily Mail: “First-graders in New Jersey will be learning about gender identity with new sex education curriculum which includes a lesson that teaches children they can have ‘boy parts’ but ‘feel like’ a girl.”
“The new lessons, which are part of a broader, K-12 health and sex education curriculum adopted by the New Jersey Board of Education, are alarming some parents, Asbury Park Press first reported.”
“One of the 30-minute lesson plans, called ‘Pink, Blue and Purple,’ teaches the students to define ‘gender, gender identity and gender role stereotypes”.”
“Another lesson plan, this one for second-graders called ‘Understanding Our Bodies,’ tells teachers to instruct students that ‘being a boy or a girl doesn’t have to mean you have those parts, there are some body parts that mostly just girls have and some parts that mostly just boys have’.”
“‘Most people have a vulva and a vagina or a penis and testicles, but some people’s bodies can be different,’ the plan states. ‘Your body is exactly what is right for you’.”
“The new state sex education guidelines, which go into effect in September, were handed out to parents at the Westfield Board of Education meeting in February, and included instructions for teachers to tell students that their gender identity is up to them.”
“‘You might feel like you’re a boy even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are “girl” parts,’ the lesson plan states.”
“‘You might feel like you’re a girl even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are “boy” parts. And you might not feel like you’re a boy or a girl, but you’re a little bit of both. No matter how you feel, you’re perfectly normal!’”
ALL THIS FOR FIRST AND SECOND GRADERS.
So if you’re a parent, you can bow down and have your little child exposed to this. It’s free. You don’t have to pay for it—unless you’re bright enough to realize your taxes are payments.
Be a coward. Let lunatics teach your children. Be tolerant of all points of view. This is the definition of culture, right?
Face it. YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT TO TEACH YOUR KIDS. You abdicated that responsibility years ago. So let the schools take over for you. It’s easy. You don’t have to speak up. You can stay silent.
If you need to, you can find a study somewhere that concludes children are “already sexual.” This will give you comfort. It’ll prove that…well, who knows what it proves? It doesn’t really prove anything. But it’s a study. So that’s good.
Here’s a question: With the government in charge of education, what did you think schools would eventually turn into?
Factories for destroying minds and bodies. There is a number…nobody knows what it is precisely, but it represents the size of government. When that number is exceeded—and we exceeded it long ago—the government turns on the people and treats them as mortal enemies. It doesn’t matter what kind of government it is. From that point on, the people must be crushed.
But don’t worry, be happy, parent. You can be happy if you back up far enough from your children and let them absorb the brunt of the attack. You can have a proxy victim stand in for you. You can delude yourself into thinking that it’s only your child who’ll pay the price.
I assure you, they’re coming after you, too. You just don’t see it yet. You should see it, because when the government destroys your child, you’re supposed to see it.
You could see it by recognizing that when the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Attorney General start making noises about parents who stand up for their children at school boards—calling the parents domestic terrorists—THAT’S A CLUE.
By my calculation, parents who let their children face destruction should be in prison. The problem is, the government runs the prisons, and the government wants you to give up your children to the State.
Maybe we could open citizen-run prisons for parents who surrender their children to the State. There’s a new idea. A private prison. For cowards.
When I was a kid, if the school system had been teaching gender anything, a whole army of parents would have marched into the principal’s office and read him the riot act. He would have folded and crumbled in a minute. He would have gotten down on his knees and wept and apologized and scrapped that curriculum the same day.
That was the 1940s. It tells you something about what has happened in America since then. Fathers’ balls have turned into jelly.
They’ve become traitors to their own families.
They’re hiding behind a wall of delusions.
They think their primary duty is BEING NICE.
Cowards. Moral cowards.
In any community worth its salt, they would be shunned. Never spoken to. Exiled.
You should pray that if your children make it to adulthood, you won’t be around. Because if you are around, those children are going to look at you with an accusation that sets you on fire and burns you down to the ground.
When they were five and six years old, you let them into a cage with wild animals. And you turned around with a smile on your face and walked away.
Dr. Naomi Wolf discusses the war on children and on Western values. Forcing children to wear masks is abusive because new studies show that this prevents them from developing normal facial recognition and the practice has a now-measurable effect on their IQ levels.
With all the new information surfacing from the WarRoom/DailyClout volunteers regarding the formerly secret Pfizer documents, and with attorney Stevan Looney’s new essay on the redacted documents in the secret Pfizer tranche now published on DailyClout.io, it is becoming clear that informed consent before receiving the vaccine was never even possible.
Bombshell: in order to process just the paperwork from the “large number of adverse events” — Pfizer’s own words — Pfizer had to hire 2,400 new, full-time employees and the company proudly informed the FDA of these thousands of new hires to grapple with the flood of adverse events they saw as early as February 28, 2021. Yet they did not disclose these adverse events to the public and neither did the FDA.
Is Disney grooming your children? In this special report we look into the “Secret Gay Agenda” of Disney employees to indoctrinate your children. Also Governor Ron DeSantis is fighting back!
“‘Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage’.”
“To obtain embryo cells [for research on vaccines and other pharma products], embryos from spontaneous abortions cannot be used, nor can those obtained by means of abortions performed via the vagina: in both cases, the embryo will be contaminated by micro-organisms.”
“The correct way consists in having recourse to Caesarian section or to the removal of the uterus. Only in this way can bacteriological sterility be guaranteed.”
“In either case, then, to obtain embryo cells for culture a programmed abortion must be adopted, choosing the age of the embryo and dissecting it while still alive, in order to remove tissues to be placed in culture media.”
“Given these premises, we face the dilemma of whether the deliberate systematic destruction of a human creature to obtain cell material can be justified, when it is recognized that this is of great interest to fundamental research and for the diagnosis of some human diseases. Are research and diagnosis of such great value that they justify the destruction of human beings?”
“The Geneva Declaration affirms that the doctor has the duty to take the greatest care to safeguard the life of a human being from its conception and will not, even under threat, use his knowledge to infringe humanitarian laws.” (1986-04-26; Herranz, Gonzalo; Il Sabato, no.15…Professor Herranz was, at the time, president of the Committee of Medical Ethics of Spanish Doctors and vice-president of the Permanent Committee of Medical Ethics of the European Community.)”
What exactly happened in 1972 or 1973, in the Netherlands, where an infant girl was aborted, and her kidneys used to make a cell line that would be used, going forward, in the testing of vaccines?
That cell line is called HEK 293, and it has been used to test COVID vaccines.
I have already presented evidence for concluding the abortion involved removing the living infant from her mother’s womb, and taking her kidneys, which of course killed her.
This evidence rests on the realization that, in order to extract viable and useful kidney tissue, the baby had to have a functioning blood supply, which meant she was alive.
But the evidence ALSO comes from knowing many other abortions have been carried out, in order to harvest tissue for medical research, by murdering living babies.
I have found a very informative article (2/9/2021) at the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform UK, by Christian Hacking, titled, “What the HEK?!” by Christian Hacking. Quoting from the article:
“HEK 293 is a human cell line created using a kidney from a dissected unborn baby in the Netherlands between 1972 and 1973. It is the second most common cell line and is used extensively in ‘pharmaceutical and biomedical research’. It is also used in vaccine creation and cancer research.”
“It was used, along with other human cell lines, to develop a genetically engineered spike protein (that the mRNA vaccine codes for) in the original development stage of the vaccine. The ‘new technology’ Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna Vaccine were tested on HEK 293 before they began human trials. This testing is ongoing for all new batches. Finally the ‘old technology’ Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine grew a weakened viral strain in HEK 293 cell culture…”
“The kidney in question was dissected from a healthy Dutch baby girl of unknown origin by the team at Leiden University in the Netherlands in 1972. Despite the inclusion of the term ‘embryonic’ in the title, the baby in question was probably 12-13 weeks old when she was killed so as to secure functioning kidney cells. The man in charge of the research was named Alex Jan Van der Eb; he is still alive and still based in Holland.”
“When questioned on the matter by the FDA in 2001, Dr Van der Eb confirmed it was an intentional abortion of a ‘fetus’ but gave hazy details of the exact experiments.”
“’So the kidney material, the fetal kidney material was as follows: the kidney of the fetus was, with an unknown family history, obtained in 1972 probably. The precise date is not known anymore. The fetus, as far as I can remember, was completely normal. Nothing was wrong. The reasons for the abortion were unknown to me. I probably knew it at that time, but it got lost, all this information’.”
Author Hacking continues: “…extracting and growing living cells is incredibly difficult. In order to give oneself the best chance of success you need to ensure the child is healthy, fresh, intact and sterile. As one embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy confirms:”
“’In order to sustain 95% of the cells, the live tissue would need to be preserved within 5 minutes of the abortion. Within an hour the cells would continue to deteriorate, rendering the specimens useless’.”
[That statement was made by “Dr C Ward Kischer, embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy; specialist in Human Embryology, University of Arizona College of Medicine…”]
[My comment: This suggests the abortion, in the Netherlands, in 1972, was planned and technicians were standing by. I would say that, to ensure the viability of the tissue, the infant had a functioning blood supply and was alive when her kidneys were removed, killing her.]
Hacking:
“In order for the organs to be at ‘optimal viability’, the child needs to be dissected and organs extracted within 5 minutes of delivery. Anaesthetic also cannot be used so as to not change the cellular activity of the organs the researcher wants to obtain.”
“Acclaimed Doctor, Ian Donald, the pioneer of the ultrasound scanner, also claims to have witnessed the WI-38 [another cell-line] dissections [1962], conducted at the Karolinska Institute; he described them such:
“’Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage’.”
“In his dense book ‘The Foetus As Transplant Donor the Scientific, Social, and Ethical Perspectives’, immunologist Dr Peter McCullagh relays detailed descriptions of the methods used on dozens of ‘fetal tissue donors’ from the 1970’s onward, including the deaths of babies between 7 and 26 weeks gestation by decapitations, exposure, dissection and drug testing. Gynaecologist and ex-abortionist Dr Bernard Nathanson, relaying his own understanding of abortion, and citing McCullagh’s book claims the Swedish experiments took place thus:
“’…in Sweden they have been puncturing the sac of a pregnant woman at let us say 14 to 16 weeks, and then they put a clamp on the head of the baby, pull the head down into the neck of the womb, drill a hole into the baby’s head, and then put a suction machine into the brain and suck out the brain cells….. Healthy human fetuses from 7 to 21 weeks from legal abortions were used. This is in Sweden. The conception age was estimated from crown rump length and so on. Fetal liver and kidney were rapidly removed and weighed. Now at 21 weeks, what they were doing, or 18 weeks, or 16 weeks, was what is called prostaglandin abortions. They would inject a substance into the womb. The woman would then go into mini-labor and pass this baby. 50% of the time, the baby would be born alive, but that didn’t stop them. They would just simply open up the abdomen of the baby with no anesthesia, and take out the liver and kidneys, etc.’”
“A research paper from the University of Toronto from June 1952 commenting on the method of their experiments suggests that these techniques were universal with researchers working in close proximity to the abortions.”
“’No macerated [softened after death] specimens were used and in many of the embryos the heart was still beating at the time of receipt in the virus laboratory.”
“According to Gonzalo Herranz, former head of the Committee of Medical Ethics of Spanish doctors, the best way to prevent ‘contamination by microorganisms’ is to deliver the child by caesarean section or the removal of the uterus.”
“A 1982 review of a history of tissue donation affirms this, and much of the above evidence:”
“’Fetal tissue for transplantation must be “harvested” within a few minutes of delivery. Ideally this is by hysterectomy, with the fetus delivered in utero. Drugs which reduce fetal physiological activity need to be avoided. The fetus is therefore in as alive and aware a state as possible when being opened’.”
From Hacking’s article, it’s quite clear how the standard procedure of infant-murder is carried out.
It’s entirely reasonable to assume fetal cell line HEK 293—used for COVID vaccine testing—was originally produced, in 1972, by the murder of an infant. Refusal to take a COVID vaccine on the basis of conscience and religion is more than justified.
Given the weight of the circumstantial case, I would say that for all people of faith, refusal is essential.
Lunatic medical murderers and their allies will say anything to avoid blame and the application of true justice to themselves. They will invent “science” at the drop of a hat and couch it in humanitarian terms. They will claim the ends justify the means. They will commit gross forgery to pretend those ends are vital.
But we don’t have to stand by and passively believe them.
Billions of people of faith can stand against them.
Senator Malcolm Roberts, Queensland, Australia: To All Who Perpetrated Covid Vaccine Injuries & Death — “We Won’t Let You Get Away With It. We Are Coming for You.”
The evidence continues to mount that these vaccines do not deserve the continuing provisional approval given to them by the TGA.
Concerns about possible adverse side effects are too big to ignore any longer, especially after my COVID Under Question inquiry which you can watch by clicking here.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, tonight I’m speaking on this parliament’s therapeutic response to COVID-19 and the horrific medical harm and loss of life in that response.
Last week, leading Australian parliamentarians came together in an event I organised called COVID Under Question to present documented evidence and victim testimony proving a catastrophic failure of Australia’s regulatory framework.
COVID vaccine injuries are hidden behind anonymous government data, while supposed COVID virus harm is splashed across prime time.
The very least we can do for the victims of COVID vaccines is to say their names—victims like Caitlin Georgia Gotze, a healthy and vibrant 23-year-old studying at Griffith University to become a vet while working as a horse strapper. Caitlin dropped dead at work of a heart attack following a second Pfizer shot. Her death was recorded as asthma, a condition Caitlin had never had.
Reginald Shearer, a formerly healthy fit and active man, quickly went downhill and passed away from effects that began after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Daniel Perkins, a 36-year-old healthy father from Albion Park, died of a heart attack in his sleep following his second Pfizer injection.
Douglas James Roberts died after taking AstraZeneca. His family are concerned that his GP didn’t warn him of the side-effects of the vaccine. In other words, no informed consent was obtained. Neurosurgeons at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital attributed his death to a stroke, despite no family history and a clean bill of health. They refused to report his death to the TGA—refused!
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency, Ahpra, has been bullying medical practitioners into not reporting or even for talking about the harm they’re seeing.
The TGA erased 98 per cent of the 800 vaccine deaths—98 per cent erased!—that physicians reported. The TGA did so without autopsy or suitable consideration of all the patient medical data.
TGA, ATAGI and Ahpra are the three monkeys of the pharmaceutical industry: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
Section 22D(2) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 requires the Secretary of the Department of Health to ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of the vaccines were satisfactorily established for each cohort for which the provision of approval is being granted.
Data recently revealed in court papers in the United States clearly shows that vaccine harm was apparent in the clinical trials that Pfizer, BioNTech and others conducted. This information, if ATAGI had bothered to ask for it, should have resulted in a refusal of the application for provisional use.
No data was provided to the secretary regarding individual test subjects—technically, anonymized patient clinical data. No independent analysis of the fundamental issues surrounding novel mRNA vaccines was conducted in Australia—none in Australia!
Instead, the secretary took Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna’s word for it.
I will say that again: the secretary took pharmaceutical companies’ word for the safety of their products.
These are the same pharmaceutical companies that have been fined over and over for criminal behaviour.
AstraZeneca got a US$355 million fine for fraud and, separately, a $550 million fine for making unfounded claims about efficacy.
Pfizer got a $430 million fine for making unfounded claims about efficacy, and a $2.3 billion fine—that’s billion dollars—for making unfounded claims about efficacy and for paying kickbacks.
This is who the Liberal-Nationals, Labor and Greens—our very own pharmaceutical lobby—want to pay more money to. That’s not on the basis of extensive local testing and inquiry, it’s simply on the basis of taking pharmaceutical companies safety assurances. There’s no testing. It’s an assurance made easy by indemnity against any damage that the vaccines cause. What deceit! What criminal incompetence!
The Labor Party and the Liberal-National Party have accepted $1 million each from the pharmaceutical establishment in this election cycle alone. Billions more are being set aside in this week’s budget to pay the pharmaceutical companies to keep the COVID-19 gravy train going. What great value this parliament provides for those electoral donations.
Mention should be made of the TGA’s decision to ban safe, fully approved and widely accepted alternatives to COVID-19 vaccines. This includes hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin; vitamins, minerals and natural antivirals; as well as proven messaging around healthy eating and lifestyles. The decision to ban proven, safe, affordable and accessible alternative treatments that are working around the world was taken to ensure the fastest and widest-possible adoption of the vaccines.
The TGA’s own customers fund the TGA. That means pharmaceutical companies fund their own product’s approval. That fails the pub test. Where are the checks and balances? There are none.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics is culpable in this scandal and cover-up. The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ annual budget is $400 million. The most recent mortality data they provide is from November last year, four months behind. The most recent breakdown of mortality by cause and age is from 2020.
The most recent data on live births is from 2020. Birth data used to be available six weeks after, not 15 months and counting. Are they hiding miscarriages?
At what point do we consider the actions of the TGA, ATAGI and the Australian Bureau of Statistics as interfering with the operation of the Senate? Peer-reviewed and soon-to-be-published data that must require the secretary to cancel the provisional approval of the vaccines has been released from outside of the government.
Let me review those quickly so the Senate fully understands the extent to which we have been misled.
Firstly, freedom of information documents indicate the TGA has failed to assess the reproductive toxicology of the COVID vaccines. Freedom of information documents indicate the TGA has failed to assess the impact of microRNA sequences and related molecular genetic issues on the human body.
Peer-reviewed and published in-vitro research shows gene based vaccine-generated spike proteins can migrate into human cell nuclei to disrupt DNA repair mechanisms. The TGA has dealt with this abysmally—murderously?
Vaccine-derived RNA can be reverse transcribed, leading to possible integration into the human genome, which the TGA denies, based only on pharmaceutical companies telling them to deny it.
Internal Pfizer data released in February indicate they accept 1,272 different adverse vaccine events, including paralysis and death.
German and US insurance actuarial data suggests the TGA’s database of adverse event notifications is underreporting side effects ninefold.
Freedom of information documents from 2018 show the TGA keeps two databases of adverse event notifications: one internal, showing all reports of harm; and one public, showing only a part of those.
This means vaccine harm is most likely significantly higher than reported.
Without honest and accurate data, the Senate has no way of deciding how much harm is too much harm.
German pathologists describe pathological aggregates of spike proteins and lymphocyte infiltrations in inflamed organs in autopsies related to death post vaccination.
In response, the TGA is failing to conduct autopsies on the 800 Australians the patients’ own doctors have reported as having died from the vaccines. What the hell is the TGA hiding?
Whistleblowers to the British Medical Journal provided reports of inadequacies, irregularities and possible fraudulent practices in the Pfizer vaccine trial—you know, the same trial for which the TGA took Pfizer’s word.
From a modern immunological perspective, two frequent vaccines for respiratory viruses run the risk of desensitising the immune responses to the virus, and that leads to hypoimmunity and worse illness than without the immunisation. To put that simply: repeated vaccination is doing more harm than good.
These are the matters I sought today to refer to the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 without success. I thank Senators Hanson, Abetz, Rennick and Antic for their support, integrity and courage.
The truth is the Select Committee on COVID-19 has been running a protection racket for the pharmaceutical industry, and today’s vote proves it.
This unprecedented betrayal of the Australian people must be referred immediately to a royal commission. To the Prime Minister, the health minister, the federal health department and all those in the Senate and the House of Representatives—all of you who have perpetrated this crime—I direct one question: how the hell do you expect to get away with it?
We’re not going to let you get away with it. We won’t let you get away with it. We are coming for you. We have the stamina to hound you down and we damn well will.
COVID UNDER QUESTION is a cross-party inquiry into the Government’s response to COVID held on 23rd March 2022. COVID Under Question was hosted by Senator Malcolm Roberts (One Nation Federal Senator for Queensland) and attended by Stephen Andrew (One Nation Queensland State MP for Mirani), George Christensen (Federal Nationals MP for Dawson), Gerard Rennick (Federal Liberal Senator for Queensland), Alex Antic (Federal Liberal Senator for South Australia) and Craig Kelly (Federal Palmer United Australia MP for Hughes).
Parliamentarians heard from a range of Doctors, experts, economists and everyday people about how the Government’s response to COVID has affected them and at times defied belief. The absurdity of Chief Health Officer dictates and power hungry politicians is all laid bare.
The full day’s proceedings were recorded and available for public viewing.
“To harvest a viable embryonic kidney for this purpose, sufficiently healthy children old enough
to have adequately-developed kidneys must be removed from the womb, alive, typically by cesarean section, and have their kidneys cut out.
This must take place without anesthesia for the child, which [anesthesia] would lessen the viability of the organs.
Instead of being held, rocked, and comforted in the time intervening between their birth and
their death, they have organs cut out of them alive.”
With the release of COVID vaccines, and then the mandates, we’ve seen a new resurgence of people attempting to gain religious exemptions.
Many of these attempts focus on fetal tissue obtained through abortion.
On January 19, 2021, AnnaMaria Cardinalli published an explosive article in Crisis Magazine, headlined, “Catholic Conscience and the COVID-19 Vaccine.”
Cardinalli details the collection of fetal tissue for the cell line named HEK 293.
The tissue was taken from an aborted infant in the Netherlands in 1972-3.
This cell line was used for “testing” the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.
Cardinalli writes: “We know that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines do not use any cells derived from abortion in the production process. That is, we know that we are not being directly injected with fetal cells or their engineered descendants (though this fact differs with other manufacturers). We hear that the abortion-derived cell lines were only used in testing, which should somehow comfort us, though it still means that the vaccines from which we seek to benefit depend on the involvement of abortion. We are told that the cell line used in testing came from one abortion, which took place decades ago. These things are all true, but they do not serve to inform us fully.”
“What we may not know follows. The most prominent cell line, called HEK 293, comes from an abortion performed in the 1970’s…”
“HEK stands for human embryonic kidney. To harvest a viable embryonic kidney for this purpose, sufficiently healthy children old enough to have adequately-developed kidneys must be removed from the womb, alive, typically by cesarean section, and have their kidneys cut out. This must take place without anesthesia for the child, which [anesthesia] would lessen the viability of the organs. Instead of being held, rocked, and comforted in the time intervening between their birth and their death, they have organs cut out of them alive.”
“There is no way that a spontaneous abortion could result in the cell line (as the kidneys cannot remain viable past the brief window in which they must be harvested) or that some brilliant researcher found a way for great good to come out of a rare tragedy by making use of a child’s body donated to science after it was aborted. The deliberate killing of an unwanted child (a little girl, in the case of HEK 293) took place in the tortuous manner it did precisely to obtain her organs for research. The harvest of her organs was the direct cause of her death, prior to which, she was a living child, outside the womb.”
“I fear that Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict may not have had this information when they received the vaccines. If we re-examine the Vatican statement that ‘it is morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and productions process,’ we see that it does not apply here. It does not imagine this scenario. To approve of the currently-available vaccines, it would have to read ‘it is morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from living persons, killed by the harvest of their organs for use in medical research and productions processes,’ but the Church’s moral teachings could never truly bend so far.
Similar to the human rights abuses exposed by international tribunal in today’s China, where unwanted individuals such as religious and political dissidents are executed by the harvest of their organs for profit, the little girl whose cells gave rise to the COVID-19 vaccines was brutally sacrificed for the purpose, as were all the children whose cell lines failed before her.”
After reading Cardinalli’s analysis—not only should the granting of religious exemptions from vaccination be a foregone conclusion; the whole field of fetal tissue research, going back many years and involving many pharmaceutical products, should be put on trial.
The people who have been carrying out the murders, the people who have been using the harvested tissue, the companies—all of them—on trial.
I hope many medical professionals will take Cardinalli’s article as a springboard, and weigh in on what she is very clearly stating.
And not just doctors. All people who are shocked by her conclusions.
So far, I see one counter-claim to Cardinalli’s assertions:
The notion that the kidneys of the aborted baby must be harvested very quickly is false. The kidneys can survive for a longer period.
On that score, I refer you to a devastating video interview conducted by Robert Kennedy Jr. His guest was SOUND CHOICE PHARMACEUTICAL INSTITUTE “President and Founder, Dr. Theresa Deisher Ph.D., [with] over 30 years of pharmaceutical research and leadership experience. She discovered adult cardiac derived stem cells, has worked on their therapeutic uses as an alternative to human fetal DNA, and leads a team of scientists at AVM Biotechnology dedicated to changing what a diagnosis of cancer, autoimmunity, or chronic infectious disease means to patients and their loved ones. As a result of this work, Dr. Deisher is named as an inventor on over 47 patents.”
In the first 15 minutes of the interview, Deisher makes it quite clear that infants in the womb are taken out alive, with their blood supply functioning (essential) and then killed by cutting out their hearts or their brains. This is what is done in order to obtain tissue that will be turned into fetal cell lines.
Since this act of murder is standard practice, it would appear it was committed against the live baby whose kidney cells became cell line HEK 293, used in testing the COVID vaccines.
At the top of the interview, Kennedy said he didn’t want to get into the moral aspect of fetal cell lines. But after listening to Deisher, he was quite shaken. He said so. He said they would have to cover the moral aspect.
The whole world has to.
Here is the basic ramification: THERE IS A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FOR THE WHOLE WORLD.
For all people of faith. Every faith.
“According to my religious belief, the murder of an undeniably live infant for any reason is unconscionable and evil, and I refuse the vaccine.”
Here is a Force against which no government, no establishment, no secret society, no wealth can stand.
I fully understand all sorts of professionals will spout language that purports to show “the aborted infant was not alive, the lab followed all the legal guidelines, this is an old argument that has been debunked…”
But this is not just an old argument. This is the equivalent of an opening statement in a murder trial. Nothing less.
If religious leaders will read AnnaMaria Cardinalli’s article, they will see how important her charge is.
The question isn’t “will people of faith wake up and do what they should”; the question is “how can any person of faith NOT do what they should”.
If they will make a stand; if all people of faith will; the entire dire situation we are facing changes in the blink of an eye.
Solomon to God: “You have made Your servant king instead of my father David, but I am a little child; I do not know how to go out or come in…Therefore give to Your servant an understanding heart to judge Your people, that I may discern between good and evil.”
Gautama Buddha: “To cease from evil, to do good, and to purify the mind yourself, this is the teaching of all the Buddhas.”
John 10:10: “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”
Would any church, any religion in the world say that God wants the killing of live infants for the purpose of medical research?
In the midst of this COVID tyranny, haven’t we all been looking for a truth that will galvanize huge numbers of people?
And not as some kind of stunt. But rather as an inevitable outcome of deep faith.
Faith and justice come from the same everlasting tree.
Because some human beings care about their children, VAERS was established in 1990 as an early warning system to identify negative reactions and side effects of vaccination, which makes sense.
But there are major problems. It is managed by the FDA and the CDC, which explains why the VAERS database requires a class to learn how to find anything.
Taking the time to actually file a report is voluntary. And out of fear of losing their jobs or being considered an anti-vaxxer, nobody wants to speak ill of the all-holy vaccine, let alone make an official report.
It is estimated that only one percent of vaccine injuries ever get reported to VAERS. So that means when VAERS reports over 44,000 adverse reactions and 90 deaths, one can expect it to be as much as 4.4 million adverse reactions and 9,000 deaths.
And these numbers are only from the age 5 to 17 group.
Conservative numbers put it at 10 percent, which is half a million children that have been wounded and killed from an unneeded, unwanted, experimental gene therapy shot that we were lied to about every step of the way.
Thanks to the OpenVAERS project, which is built upon the VAERS data, the public can easily search these reports and see for themselves.
People are reporting adverse reactions such as chronic pain, loss of hearing and taste, talking gibberish, and acting out aggressively. And these are the mild cases.
There is a tsunami of major brain damage, heart disease and fatalities. Edward Dowd has analyzed the data and has reported an 84 percent increase in deaths among ages 25 through 40, which is the same amount of lives lost to the Vietnam War.
Toby Rogers estimates that Big Pharma kills twice as many people that died in World War II every single year.
The press ignores this because it’s not enough.
They want your newborn babies as well.
Pfizer is pushing to have children as young as 6 months old given a shot that we know is potentially fatal, even though children were never at risk and are still not at risk.
The United States has been force-injecting infants and children with experimental vaccines for years. And now they want to add the infamous ‘clot shot’.
Thanks to virtue-signaling mothers, some children have already been getting it in the womb which is resulting in miscarriages, still births, and deaths from breast feeding on toxic genetically-modified mother’s milk.
Pfizer is planning on submitting another application for emergency use authorization in early April.
That’s about 18 million children under five who could be sacrificed to the altar of Big Pharma and political correctness.
If Pfizer can achieve permanent liability protection from the FDA, who they control, then they can add the mRNA gene therapy shot to the childhood vaccine schedule where it will enjoy permanent liability protection under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
These same crooks are putting a judge on the Supreme Court who openly defends leniency towards crimes that involve child rape.
They’re coming for your children and they will not stop.
If you still care about the human race and are looking for something you can do right now, you can go to Toby Rogers at substack and read his urgent call to action for more info.
VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included a total of 1,168,894 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 25,158 deaths and 203,888 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 4, 2022.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,168,894 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and March 4, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. 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 11,505 U.S. deaths reported as of March 4, 17% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 22% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 60% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 554 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of March 4, including 327 million doses of Pfizer, 209 million doses of Moderna and 18 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
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.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to March 4, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:
The most recent death involves a 7-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 2152560) from Washington who died 13 days after receiving his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine when he went into shock and suffered cardiac arrest. He was unable to be resuscitated and died in the emergency department.
17 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).
The CDC uses a narrowed case definition of “myocarditis,” which excludes cases of cardiac arrest, ischemic strokes and deaths due to heart problems that occur before one has the chance to go to the emergency department.
The most recent death involves a 14-year-old boy (VAERS I.D. 2148498) who experienced a cerebral aneurysm leading to death one day after receiving his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.
69 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.
650 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 631 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
161 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to March 4, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:
19% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
54% of those who died were male, 41% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
CDC study concludes COVID vaccine adverse events ‘mild’
A study funded by the CDC and published Monday in The Lancet concluded most COVID vaccine-related adverse events reported during the first six months of the rollout in the U.S were “mild and short in duration,” despite thousands of deaths reported to VAERS.
For the study, researchers analyzed data captured between Dec. 14, 2020, and June 14, 2021, by VAERS and v-safe, both of which are overseen by the CDC. Nearly 300 million doses of COVID vaccines were administered during the study period.
The authors found that of the 340,522 adverse events reported to VAERS, 27,023 (8%) were serious, 4,496 were deaths. The authors said the cause of the increased reporting of deaths during the first few days after vaccination might represent “reporting bias.”
The authors suggested that deaths occurring soon after vaccination were more likely to be reported than deaths that occurred later. This, they believe, is why the number of deaths asymptotically approaches zero as more time elapses since vaccination.
Jessica Rose, Ph.D., attempted to duplicate the Lancet authors’ findings through her independent analysis of the VAERS data. Despite filtering the database using three different date stamps, Rose was unable to duplicate the Lancet study’s results.
Florida surgeon general breaks with CDC, recommends against shots for healthy kids
Florida’s surgeon general on Monday said he will issue guidance formally recommending against COVID vaccines for healthy children. Florida is the first state to break with official guidance from the CDC, which recommends all children over age 5 get the vaccine.
Dr. Joseph Ladapo made the announcement at a roundtable, hosted by Gov. Ron DeSantis, featuring physicians and other medical experts who criticized CDC and government policies, including mask mandates and lockdowns, which they said were ineffective and harmful.
Ladapo and DeSantis said the new guidance had to do with lingering questions about the vaccines’ potential health risks for young people and the fact that children are in a low-risk category for severe COVID.
COVID vaccines may be enhancing disease
COVID vaccines may be causing enhanced disease because they target an old version of the coronavirus, Dr. Robert Malone told the Epoch Times in a recent interview.
“The data are showing that vaccination can actually increase the risk of being infected with the Omicron version of this virus,” Malone said, referring to how in some areas, including Scotland and New Zealand, patients hospitalized with COVID are more likely to have received a COVID vaccine.
U.S. drug regulators identified vaccine-associated enhanced diseases (VAED) as an “important potential risk” of COVID vaccines, along with enhanced respiratory disease.
Some adverse events reported following COVID vaccination “could indicate” VAED, according to a CDC team.
VAED refers to disease “resulting from infection in individuals primed with non-protective immune responses against the respective wild-type viruses,” researchers said last year.
“Given that these enhanced responses are triggered by failed attempts to control the infecting virus, VAED typically presents with symptoms related to the target organ of the infection pathogen,” they added.
Vaccine researcher develops tinnitus after COVID shot, calls for further study
Dr. Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group in Rochester, Minnesota, developed life-altering tinnitus, or ringing in the ear, after receiving his second dose of a COVID vaccine.
“It was like someone suddenly blew a dog whistle in my ear,” Poland told MedPage Today. “It has been pretty much unrelenting.”
Poland then received a booster, after which his tinnitus briefly disappeared but then returned at a slightly higher pitch. Poland realized his life may never be the same and says he has received emails from people across the world struggling with the same condition to the point they’re considering taking their own lives.
Poland, who said he supports COVID vaccines, believes there may be tens of thousands of people affected in the U.S. and is calling for more research to be done to provide help to people desperate for relief.
Michigan woman files claim over mom’s COVID vaccine-related death
Tatum Strieter-Byron is asking the federal government to compensate her for the death in April of her mother Sandra Jacobs. An autopsy confirmed Jacobs died from a blood-clotting disorder caused by J&J’s COVID vaccine.
Strieter-Byron received confirmation Monday her claim to the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) had been received. The program was established to give pharmaceutical companies blanket liability protection from harm caused by their COVID vaccines.
In 2020, the U.S. Health and Human Services secretary invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act and declared COVID-19 a public health emergency, providing J&J other COVID vaccine makers immunity from lawsuits.
The only exception under the PREP Act is if a plaintiff can prove a vaccine-related death or serious physical injury was caused by “willful misconduct.” The protections, unless amended or rescinded, extend through Oct. 1, 2024.
Claims to the CICP must be made within one year of the date the vaccine was received.
Jacobs, 60, received the single-shot vaccine at a CVS pharmacy on April 8, 2021, just five days before federal health agencies temporarily paused the vaccine to examine numerous reports of a serious and potentially fatal blood-clotting disorder.
Jacobs died on April 21 of “complications of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,” a type of stroke caused by the vaccine.
Catherine Austin Fitts With Dr. Mark Skidmore: How Many People Died from the Covid-19 Inoculation? An Estimate Based on a Survey of the United States Population
[Video available at Solari Report BitChute channel.]
“[S]he lost her baby.”
“[O]ur daughter, her whole body shut down after 2nd shot. If her brother were not there she would not have survived.”
“She had a stroke within days of #2 Moderna vaccine. She has to use a walker and has speech issues. She was in her 40s. She is a registered nurse.”
“Cousin 47-stroke Cousin 28-blood clots Aunt 63-death Friend 41-death”
~ Covid-19 Survey, Appendix 3 (Respondents’ comments regarding the health condition of “the person they know best” who experienced an adverse event from a Covid-19 injection)
There is a wide range of opinion about the scale of injuries related to the Covid-19 injections. An unprecedented number of adverse events are being reported to official surveillance systems, but because these systems are known for their significant underreporting, it is difficult to know the true extent of injuries and fatalities. A well-designed survey of people’s beliefs and experiences can provide a useful estimate of what is actually happening on the ground.
The online survey, conducted in December 2021, included about 3,000 respondents representative of the general U.S. population, who described their own adverse-event-related experiences—and, equally importantly, the experiences of people in their social circles. Almost half of the respondents had received Covid shots themselves—with more than one in six experiencing health issues afterwards—and about one-fourth reported knowing others who had experienced significant post-injection health issues.
Dr. Skidmore notes that if one were to abide by the CDC’s count of “rare” injection-related fatalities (CDC acknowledges only nine Covid-vaccine-related deaths), then statistically, “in a survey of 3,000 people we should see ZERO (or close to zero) fatalities.” The survey provided a different picture, however. One in twelve respondents reported knowing someone who had died post-injection—a total of 55 fatalities—and the people described as likely vaccine-related deaths were, on average, 48 years old. Respondents also described numerous non-fatal but severe adverse events like heart-related issues, blood clotting, strokes, and paralysis.
Dr. Skidmore presented his survey results at the February 2022 Doctors for Covid Ethics Symposium III, and they are also available in his working paper titled “How Many People Died from the Covid-19 Inoculations? An Estimate Based on a Survey of the United States Population” posted at Dr. Skidmore’s Lighthouse Economics website. The working paper’s Appendix 3 includes respondents’ verbatim descriptions of the adverse events witnessed in their social circles.
The central question raised by Dr. Skidmore’s survey is this: What if the survey results, rather than CDC numbers, reflect the true ratio for fatalities and serious injuries following Covid injections? This would yield an estimated 260,000 to 300,00 fatalities and 1.1 million potentially life-threatening or life-shortening serious injuries—estimates that must be taken seriously by anyone still debating the injections’ safety.
by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
February 24, 2022
Two breaking developments—
File the first one under: WHEN YOU SPIN A CONVENTIONAL FAKE NARRATIVE, YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU’RE GOING TO END UP.
Iceland cancels all COVID restrictions. Not because case numbers are dropping, but because, as I’ve written several times, once you (falsely) accept the existence of a new spreading virus, you’re committed to a narrative which can only end with EVERYONE INFECTED—and THAT’S called herd immunity.
Done. Finished. Forget vaccines, masks, distancing, lockdowns. Just live. Live out in the open.
Get a load of this:
Reuters: “Iceland will lift all remaining COVID-19 restrictions on Friday…the Ministry of Health said on Wednesday.”
“’Widespread societal [immune system] resistance to COVID-19 [meaning the development of natural immunity] is the main route out of the epidemic,’ the ministry said…”
“’To achieve this [immunity], as many people as possible need to be infected with the virus’…”
BANG. BOOM. POW.
The Ministry of Health just announced the end game, in alignment with the (false) assumptions which have been in place since January of 2020. Again, once you say a virus is on the loose all over the world, you’re committed to the only response there is:
GET INFECTED. DEVELOP NATURAL IMMUNITY. GO ABOUT YOUR LIVES.
That’s how the story wraps up. Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall and no one could put him back together again. You tell the virus tale, and that’s your predestined conclusion.
Of course there is no new virus, and the whole virus story is a fraud, as I’ve proved numerous times over the past 2 years. I’ve already described, in detail, all the ins and outs of the con called COVID.
But here, with Iceland, we see the beginning of sane national responses within the context of a completely insane scenario.
THAT’S what we’re looking at. Nothing more, nothing less.
“Well, we pretended there was a new unstoppable virus…and so here we are, exactly where we knew we would be. Get infected. Develop herd immunity. That is all. Goodbye.”
And all the major medical liars slowly back away from the general population…very slowly…hoping no one notices what just happened…hoping no one realizes this wrap-up was always in the cards…hoping no one will say: YOU RUINED AND KILLED UNTOLD MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AND YOU KNEW ALL ALONG THIS WAS GOING TO BE YOUR CLIMAX: “GET INFECTED.”
Shocking story number two—
The health/life insurance company tidal wave is breaking.
Well, of course it is. Who did you think was going to be left holding the bag for all the unreported injuries and deaths stemming from the COVID vaccines?
These life insurance companies employ actuaries, and these smart guys predict the number of claims they’re going to pay out…and THAT’S how they decide what the policy holders must pay…in order for the companies to maintain their profits…
Except, the actuaries had no idea what was going to happen.
They didn’t realize how many injury/death claims were going to be filed, once the COVID killshots were unleashed on the world.
But NOW THEY KNOW.
Former NY Times reporter, Alex Berenson: “Welt, a major German newspaper, just ran an interview with Andreas Schofbeck, a board member for a Bavarian insurer called BKK Provita.”
“By itself, BKK Provita has 120,000 members. But it is a much larger consortium of so-called BKK insurers that are affiliated with German companies and collectively have 10.9 million members.”
“Here’s how Schofbeck described the [injury] claims in the BKK [company] database, according to one of the reporters who interviewed him:…‘a violent warning signal’.”
Schofbeck is reacting, with great alarm, to all the vaccine injury claims that have been filed—looking at data from 10.9 MILLION policy holders.
In other words, it’s OVERWHELMING.
Another Humpty Dumpty just fell off the wall and broke into pieces.
Obviously, health/life insurance companies around the world are looking at similar horrific numbers.
What are these companies going to do? Just sit there and suck up their huge losses?
No. For starters, they’re going to blame the vaccine manufacturers. That’s already quite interesting, even if news outlets aren’t reporting it. Because, as Edward Dowd, former portfolio manager for BlackRock, has been saying, WALL STREET will take notice.
430 to 144. Can you guess what those numbers represent? The all-time high peak of the Moderna share price, and the most recent closing price, as of this writing.
BANG.
61 to 46. The first number is the high, over the past year, for the Pfizer share price, and the second number is the most recent close, as of this writing.
These insurance-vaccine company developments were also inevitable, from the beginning of the fake pandemic.
Anyone who knows the real history of vaccines would have seen it in a second.
You rapidly shoot up the whole world with a new vaccine, and the injury-death numbers are going to go through the roof.
Insurance companies don’t like to be left holding the bag and absorbing the consequences of both the jab and the lies the vaccine front men have been telling.
Insurance companies are wired up to, heavily influence, and control all sorts of politicians and bureaucrats and public health officials. You can bet your bottom dollar these companies have been reading the riot act to their government puppets.
“You [FDA] morons…you’re supposed to be protecting the public from dangerous drugs and vaccines. And now people all over the world are dropping like flies from the COVID shot, and those people are our POLICY HOLDERS.”
“What did you want us to do? For chrissakes, we work for the pharmaceutical companies.”
“We’re not interested in excuses. We want money. Lots of it, to make up for our losses.”
“Don’t look at us. We don’t do bailouts. Go to Treasury, or the President.”
“The President can’t even find his way from the shower to the bedroom in the White House residence.”
“Talk to nurse Jill or Susan Rice…”
And word of these conversations leaks out to Wall Street.
Look for new bailouts, and a plethora of cover stories to explain why insurance companies are suddenly inhaling hundreds of billions of government dollars (or more.)
Cover stories only the most naïve fools will believe.
Serial liar Tony Fauci may be able to tap dance with his media partners every Sunday morning on the news talk shows; but when giant insurance companies want him to pay for his sins, that’s a whole different story.
Tony could become yet another Humpty Dumpty…
All we need now—among all the insurance companies in the world—are five or six OUTRAGED big-time insurance execs to step out of the shadows with their hair on fire, completely fed up with the grand cover-up of vaccine injuries, and talking their heads off.
Autopsies of two teenage boys who died days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine prove the vaccine caused their deaths. Pathological findings suggest there may be a way to distinguish SARS-COV-2 infection-induced myo/pericarditis from vaccine-induced cardiac injury. Vaccine-induced heart injury can be sub-clinical, but how often?
Pathologists who examined the autopsies of two teenage boys who died days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine concluded the vaccine caused the teens’ deaths.
The three pathologists, two of whom are medical examiners, published their findings Feb. 14 in an early online release article, “Autopsy Histopathologic Cardiac Findings in Two Adolescents Following the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose,” in the Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine.
The authors’ findings were conclusive. Two teenage boys were pronounced dead in their homes three and four days after receiving the second Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 dose.
There was no evidence of active or previous COVID-19 infection. The teens had negative toxicology screens (i.e. no drugs or poisons were present in their bodies).
These boys died from the vaccine.
Histopathological examination of their cardiac tissue revealed an important new finding: Neither heart demonstrated evidence of typical myocarditis.
Instead, the authors found evidence of microscopic changes consistent with a different form of heart injury called toxic cardiomyopathy. They wrote:
“The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis and has an appearance most closely resembling a catecholamine-mediated stress (toxic) cardiomyopathy.”
The authors further explained what they observed under the microscope:
“Their histopathology does not demonstrate a typical myocarditis… In these two post-vaccination instances, there are areas of contraction bands and hypereosinophilic myocytes distinct from the inflammation.
“This injury pattern is instead similar to what is seen in the myocardium of patients who are clinically diagnosed with Takotsubo, toxic, or ‘stress’ cardiomyopathy, which is a temporary myocardial injury that can develop in patients with extreme physical, chemical, or sometimes emotional stressors.
“Stress cardiomyopathy is a catecholamine-mediated ischemic process seen in high catecholamine states in the absence of coronary artery disease or spasm. It has also been called ‘neurogenic myocardial injury’ and ‘broken heart syndrome.’”
The pathologists determined there was a different mechanism of heart injury at play in these two boys, distinct from a purely infectious process that would result directly from a viral infection like COVID-19.
This is an important finding. There may be a way to distinguish cardiac injury resulting from a SARS-COV-2 infection from cardiac injury where the vaccine predisposes the patient to stress cardiomyopathy before contracting COVID-19.
However, the authors are careful not to assume that cardiac injuries from COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines can always be sorted out under the microscope.
They explain that stress cardiomyopathy, or “broken heart syndrome,” may also occur in a rare hyperinflammatory state that is known to occur in COVID-19 infection as well:
“This post-vaccine reaction may represent an overly exuberant immune response and the myocardial injury is mediated by similar immune mechanisms as described with SARS-COV-2 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) cytokine storms.”
The authors admit this pathological finding may also occur as a result of MIS-C, a known complication of SARS-COV2 infection.
Learning more about this condition requires a biopsy of heart tissue, or in this case an autopsy. We know very little about the nature of myocarditis in people who are clinically stable because heart biopsies are not conducted on them and autopsies are rarely done on patients who die from COVID-19.
There still is no practical way of screening for cardiac injury beyond assessing symptoms.
Unfortunately, the two boys did not have symptoms of myocarditis (fever, chest pain, palpitations, or dyspnea) prior to their cardiac arrest and death. One complained of a headache and gastric upset which resolved. The other had no complaints.
This is extremely concerning. These boys had smoldering, catastrophic heart injuries with no symptoms.
How many others have insidious cardiac involvement from vaccination that won’t manifest until they get a serious case of COVID-19 or the flu? Or perhaps when they subject themselves to the physical stress of competitive sports?
These findings suggest a significant subset of COVID-19 deaths in the vaccinated could be due to the vaccines themselves.
Furthermore, it raises this question: How often does this condition exist in a latent form in vaccinated individuals?
The CDC believes the risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis not significant
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents who get the COVID-19 vaccine is “extremely rare” and “most cases are mild.”
But those assurances conflict with the agency’s own data.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) presented this disquieting information (see chart below) during its June 23, 2021 meeting convened specifically to address the risks of myo/pericarditis in 12- to 15-year-olds who received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine:
This slide is important for two reasons.
First, the incidence of this potentially lethal condition is significantly higher in the vaccinated (“Observed” column) compared to the background rate (“Expected” column), especially in males in the 18- to 24-year-old age range.
In the 12- to 17-year-old male cohort, the risk of myo/pericarditis is at least 11 times higher than the background rate.
With more than 2 million doses administered at the time when these cases of myo/pericarditis were identified, we can be confident these data represent an undeniable safety signal.
The second reason this slide is important is this: The CDC is drawing directly from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a system specifically designed to monitor for safety signals when vaccines are administered to the public.
As of Feb. 15, the CDC continues to assure the public that “Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem.”
In essence, the CDC is acknowledging that reports of deaths and other adverse events following vaccination exist in VAERS but do not comprise any risk because causality has not been verified.
Then why did the ACIP choose to accept VAERS as a legitimate source of information on myo/pericarditis in their calculations?
The CDC released its conclusions immediately following the ACIP meeting:
“The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination. Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment.”
But how do they know this?
One month after this comforting statement from the CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) admitted in this letter to Pfizer that the agency was not able to adequately assess the risk of myocarditis from Pfizer’s product:
“We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA [Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act] will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis.
“Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain under section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA is not sufficient to assess these serious risks.”
Commenting on the FDA’s letter, Dr. Meryl Nass said, “The FDA is saying that neither an analysis of the data in VAERS or of any of the other taxpayer-funded databases will provide sufficient assessment of the risk of this product.”
“This is a joke,” said Nass, adding:
“All this data, plus software, plus a team of analysts, and the FDA says it can’t assess the risk of myocarditis, despite identifying thousands of cases?
“Furthermore, unsaid, but implied by the FDA, is that if the FDA is incapable of assessing the risk of myocarditis despite thousands of reported cases, it cannot or will not be capable of assessing the other serious adverse events that have been reported in conjunction with COVID vaccines.”
If the FDA is not able to perform adequate surveillance of safety signals around vaccine-induced myocarditis, who will?
The FDA assigns this unenviable but essential task to Pfizer itself (again, from the FDA’S letter to Pfizer):
“Therefore, based on appropriate scientific data, we have determined that you are required to conduct the following studies…”
Is myocarditis ‘extremely rare’ after COVID-19 vaccination?
As of Feb. 4, VAERS reported 495 cases of myo/pericarditis in 12- to 17-year-olds. VAERS data show that as of Feb. 10, there were 2,239 reported cases of myocarditis in people under the age of 30.
However, a widely cited CDC-sponsored study (Lazarus et al) concluded the incidence of adverse events is 10 to 100 times higher than are reported to VAERS.
More recent calculations estimate that adverse events are underreported by a factor of approximately 41.
From these estimates, we can conclude there may have been approximately 20,000 cases of myocarditis in 12- to 17-year-olds since Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine received Emergency Use Authorization and was rolled out to this age group..
The VAERS data from June 11, 2021 from the table above show 132 cases of myo/pericarditis were observed in 2,039,000 doses given to 12- to 17-year-old males. This is approximately 6.5 cases in 100,000 doses.
This study from Hong Kong found the incidence of myo/pericarditis after two doses with Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine was 37 in 100,000. This incidence matches nearly exactly with findings from this study that used the Vaccine Safety DataLink (VSD) system (37.7 12-17 year olds per 100,000 suffered myo/pericarditis after their second dose). This is more evidence that significant underreporting is in play in the VAERS system.
Will most of these teens “recover on their own”? How many other vaccinated people have varying degrees of “broken heart” syndrome that remain asymptomatic, undiagnosed and unreported?
These new findings indicate that no one can answer these questions right now — especially not the CDC and the FDA.
If the FDA has admitted it cannot assess the risk of myocarditis using the surveillance systems in place, how then is the CDC able to assure us that the risk is low enough to continue to proceed with a vaccination campaign that now includes 5- to 11-year-old children?
The FDA has abdicated its responsibility for monitoring the safety of these vaccines to the vaccine manufacturers.
The CDC is using VAERS data in its own analyses while urging the public to discount all adverse events, including deaths, that appear in the very same database.
There isn’t any regulation happening here. Our regulatory agencies have become mouthpieces for the very industry they are tasked to oversee.
Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.
Despite a 28% decrease in 0- to 5-year-old U.S. children taking psychostimulants since 2017, new changes to an international mental disorders manual could revert this and put them at risk. Watchdog relaunches PSAs for parents warning “Childhood is not a mental disorder.”
by CCHR International, The Mental Health Industry Watchdog
February 14, 2022
CCHR International warns there could be an increase in the number of children and adolescents prescribed powerful, addictive stimulants for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) with the new insurance billing codes released this month in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), Mental Disorders Section. For years, CCHR International, based in Los Angeles, has conducted a “Fight for Kids” public awareness campaign about the risks of childhood and teen behavior being mis-diagnosed as disorders and “medicated.”
However, changes to ICD-11 reinforce this and as such, it relaunched two Public Service Announcements (PSAs) reminding parents that “Childhood is not a Mental Disorder.”
CCHR welcomes a 28% decrease in U.S. children aged 0-5 years old being prescribed psychostimulants between 2017 and 2020. According to the IQVia Total Patient Tracker database that CCHR obtained for 2017 and 2020, there were 80,235 children in this age group in 2017 prescribed stimulants compared to 58,091 in 2020. Overall, for the 0-17 age group, there was a 14% decrease in the numbers taking psychostimulants.
The U.S. Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5, being updated in March 2022) and ICD-11 have redefined and categorized ADHD as a “neurodevelopmental disorder,” making it appear to be a neurological or brain-based physical disease when scientific evidence does not substantiate this.
Dr. Fred Baughman, Jr., a retired pediatric neurologist and author of The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes “Patients” of Normal Children, said that psychiatric associations representing ADHD as a biologic abnormality of the brain is “neurobiological propaganda” because “psychiatry has never validated ADHD as a biologic entity.”[1]
Prof. Allen Frances, the former Chairman of the DSM-IV Task Force said that the DSM-IV, published in 1994, already created “false epidemics” of ADHD.[2] He wrote that twenty years later, “The rate of ADHD in the U.S. has tripled to a ridiculously inflated 11%. Sales of ADHD medications are approaching an obscenely profitable $10 billion a year.” Frances was forthright about how diagnoses such as ADHD are determined: “There are no objective tests in psychiatry—no X-ray, laboratory or exam finding that says definitively that someone does or does not have a mental disorder….”[3] Inclusion of a disorder in the DSM is by consensus vote.
As such, the fact that ICD-11 and DSM-5 claim ADHD is neurobiological is misleading for parents who could erroneously believe that their child has a faulty brain requiring “medication” rather than an issue which can be handled with behavioral, dietary and educational solutions. Dr. Baughman adds that children have also been led to “believe they have something wrong with their brains that makes it impossible for them to control themselves without a pill.”[4] In saying that, he is not saying that children do not sometimes have trouble with their behavior, focusing, or their emotions; it just simply isn’t neurobiological.
March 21 this year marks the 22nd anniversary of 14-year-old Matthew Smith’s death from a cardiac arrest while skateboarding. Oakland County (Michigan) Medical Examiner Ljubisa Dragovic determined that the skateboarding did not kill Matthew but rather the damage done to his heart from 10 years of taking prescribed methylphenidate, an ADHD psychostimulant that caused a “chronic change of the heart muscle and the small blood vessels in the heart.”[5] Michael’s tragic death was part of the impetus that started CCHR’s Fight for Kids campaign and PSAs.
In 2014, researchers from the University of Delaware and Drexel University College of Medicine reviewed research on the effects of psychostimulants like methylphenidate. They found the drug can impact the brain’s plasticity, interfering with a person’s ability to plan, switch between tasks, and be overall flexible in their behaviors. For a drug that’s supposed to offer better mental performance, they found that the long-term effects appear to do the opposite.[6]
“All proposed ADD and ADHD treatments” are “aimed at modifying observable behaviors rather than in treating their underlying causes,” say other researchers, including Dr. Howard Glasser, writing in Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry.[7]
In his last interview before his death in 2009, Dr. Leon Eisenberg, the “scientific father of ADHD” and a leader in child psychiatry for more than 40 years, admitted “ADHD is a prime example of a fictitious disease.”[8] The symptoms are so common that anyone could believe they have ADHD: fails to give close attention to details or may make careless mistakes; work is often messy or disorganized; has problems staying focused on tasks or activities; fails to complete schoolwork, chores or other duties; often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat; often talks excessively and interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., cuts into conversations).
The consequences of the drugs prescribed to quell such symptoms are telling: The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration reports methylphenidate can lead to addiction and “psychotic episodes, violent behavior and bizarre mannerisms have been reported” with its use.[9] The manufacturer admits it is a drug of dependency.[10] Suicide is a major complication of withdrawal from it and similar amphetamine-like drugs.[11] FDA also warns of the risks of heart-related problems.
CCHR says the direction ICD-11 and DSM-5 have taken is not in sync with current thinking. Former United Nations Special Rapporteur Dainius Pūras, M.D., in a June 2021 interview with Psychiatric Times, said there is too much reliance upon “the biomedical model and biomedical interventions” for people with mental health or behavioral issues and this represents a “biased use of knowledge and evidence.” In 2017, he also called for a revolution in mental health care around the world, writing: “There is now unequivocal evidence of the failures of a system that relies too heavily on the biomedical model of mental health services, including the front-line and excessive use of psychotropic medicines, and yet these models persist.”[12]
CCHR brought their concerns about the worldwide mass diagnosing of ADHD and prescribing of stimulants to the attention of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which responded with hearings and a recommendation for the establishment of a system for “monitoring of the excessive use of psychostimulants to children.” It also said that governments should “take the necessary measures to prevent any pressure on children and parents to accept treatment with psychostimulant drugs.”[13]
ICD-11 says it changed the category under which ADHD has been placed from “hyperkinetic” to “neurodevelopmental disorders” so that it is not equated as being “disruptive behavior,” but conveys the idea that a child has a deficiently developed brain disease, which experts say it is not. [14]
Child and adolescent video-gamers will also be a potential market under ICD-11 with “gaming disorder.”[15] This has been included in a newly added diagnostic grouping under ICD-11 called “disorders due to addictive behaviors,” again not in response to any scientific evidence but “to global concerns about the impact of problematic gaming, especially the online form.”
As for nebulous “conduct disorders,” such as oppositional defiant disorder and conduct‐dissocial disorder, these are grouped into a new label, “disruptive behavior and dissocial disorder.” ICD‐11 also expanded these from being limiting to children to include across the lifespan.[16] Disorders are no longer grouped by age but reflect a continuous lifespan approach[17]—anyone can be labeled and stigmatized.
Moreover, ICD‐10’s so-called gender identity disorders have been renamed as “gender incongruence” (the condition of not matching or being in agreement) in the ICD‐11 and moved from the mental disorders chapter to the new “sexual health chapter,” meaning that a transgender identity is no longer to be considered a mental disorder.[18] Under DSM, gender identity was called gender dysphoria (unwanted emotional state).[19]
Such arbitrary and capricious diagnosing has come under earlier criticism when in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association committee members voted—5,584 to 3,810—to delete homosexuality as a mental disorder from DSM after gay activists picketed the APA conferences.[20] As The Atlantic reported, “It’s not always that explicit, and the votes are not public. In the case of the DSM-5, committee members were forbidden to talk about it, so we’ll never really know what the deliberations were. They all signed non-disclosure agreements.”[21]
Lawrence Stevens, a former Assistant District Attorney in California, commented: “If mental illness were really an illness in the same sense that physical illnesses are illnesses, the idea of deleting homosexuality or anything else from the categories of illness by having a vote would be as absurd as a group of physicians voting to delete cancer or measles from the concept of disease.”[22]
The late Dr. Keith Conners, who “put ADHD on the medical map,” conducted the first formal trials on the use of methylphenidate. But in 2013, when he was asked to address the American Professional Society of ADHD and Related Disorders, he was so appalled at how many children had been saddled with ADHD, he called it “a national disaster of dangerous proportions.”[23]
The ICD-11 and DSM-5 update can only exacerbate the disaster. Parents, pediatricians, family doctors, and educators should be informed that ADHD is not a proven neurobiological disorder. The behavioral symptoms could be representative of any normal childhood behavior. In an article that has been widely quoted in literature, James T. Webb, Ph.D., reviewed the symptoms of ADHD and noted “almost all of these behaviors are found in bright, talented, creative, gifted children.”[24] Dr. Mary Ann Block, author of No More ADHD advises to look for and treat the underlying causes; don’t just cover symptoms with drugs but “find the cause and fix the problem.”[25]
All of which adds up to: Childhood, including ADHD, is not a mental disorder.
References:
[1] Samantha Gluck, “Does ADHD Exist?” Healthy Place, interview with Dr. Fed Baughman, https://aws.healthyplace.com/adhd/articles/does-adhd-exist
[2] “Watchdog Group Alerts Parents and Teachers About Gifted Children Being Mislabeled ‘ADHD’ and Given Stimulant Drugs,” CCHR International, 9 Aug. 2017, https://www.cchrint.org/2017/08/09/watchdog-group-alerts-parents-and-teachers-about-gifted-children-being-mislabeled-adhd-and-given-stimulant-drugs/, citing: Allen Frances, “DSM 5 Will Further Inflate The ADD Bubble,” Psychology Today, 2 Aug. 2011, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201108/dsm-5-will-further-inflate-the-add-bubble
[3] Allen Frances, “Most Active Kids Don’t Have ADHD,” Psychology Today, 11 Mar. 2014, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/saving-normal/201403/most-active-kids-don-t-have-adhd; Allen Frances, “Psychiatric Fads and Overdiagnosis,” Psychology Today, 2 June 2010, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201006/psychiatric-fads-and-overdiagnosis
[4] Fred A. Baughman, Jr., MD, “Treatment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder,” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 269, No. 18, 12 May 1993, p. 2369
[5] Caroline Kern, “Death of 14-year-old Caused by Ritalin,” 14 Apr. 2000, http://www.drugfreechild.org/article/Death_of_14-year-old_Caused_by_Ritalin.html
[6] “Bad News For Ivy Leaguers: ADHD Drugs Hurt Your Memory,” TIME Health, 13 May 2014, http://time.com/97448/bad-news-for-ivy-leaguers-adhd-drugs-hurt-your-memory/
[7] Dr. Howard Glasser, et al., “The Online Nurtured Heart Approach to Parenting: A Randomized Study to Improve ADHD Behaviors in Children Ages 6–8,” Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 22, 1 Nov. 2020
[8] “New Federal Statistics Show Teen Overdose Deaths From ADHD & Anti-Anxiety Drugs On The Rise,” CCHR International, 22 Aug. 2017, https://www.cchrint.org/2017/08/23/teen-overdose-deaths-from-adhd-anti-anxiety-drugs-on-the-rise/, citing: “Father of ADHD calls himself a liar,” WND, 23 May, 2013 http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/father-of-adhd-calls-himself-a-liar/#SAe7LssguLIzLtry.99
[9] “Methylphenidate (A Background Paper),” U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Oct. 1995, p. 16
[11] DSM-III-R, (American Psychiatric Association, Washington, D.C., 1987), p. 136
[12] “UN Special Rapporteur Dainius Pūras Addresses Psychiatry’s Global Coercion & Crisis,” CCHR International, 7 June 2021, https://www.cchrint.org/2021/06/07/un-special-rapporteur-dainius-puras-addresses-psychiatrys-global-coercion-crisis/, citing: Awais Aftab, MD, “Global Psychiatry’s Crisis of Values: Dainius Pūras, MD,” Psychiatric Times, 3 June 2021, https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/global-psychiatry-crisis-values; “World needs ‘revolution’ in mental health care – UN rights expert,” United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, 6 June 2017, https://ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21689
[14] Michael B. First, Steven H. Hyman, Wolfgang Gaebel, “Innovations and changes in the ICD‐11 classification of mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders,” et al., World Psychiatry, 2 Jan. 2019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6313247/
[15] Tolu Ajiboye, “3 Major Changes to Look for with ICD-11,” Pollen, 9 Oct. 2019, https://www.simplepractice.com/blog/3-major-changes-to-look-for-with-icd-11/
[17] “ICD 11 Takes Centre Stage,” Journal of Psychiatry Reform, 21 June 2019, https://journalofpsychiatryreform.com/2019/06/21/icd-11-takes-centre-stage/
[21] Hope Reese, “The Real Problems with Psychiatry,” The Atlantic, 2 May 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/the-real-problems-with-psychiatry/275371/
[23] “New Federal Statistics Show Teen Overdose Deaths From ADHD & Anti-Anxiety Drugs On The Rise,” CCHR International, 22 Aug. 2017, https://www.cchrint.org/2017/08/23/teen-overdose-deaths-from-adhd-anti-anxiety-drugs-on-the-rise/, citing: Gareth Cook, “Big Pharma’s Manufactured Epidemic: The Misdiagnosis of ADHD,” Scientific American, 11 Oct. 2016, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-pharma-s-manufactured-epidemic-the-misdiagnosis-of-adhd; “ADHD: the statistics of a ‘national disaster’” Significance, Dec. 2016 https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2016.00979.x
[24] James T. Webb, Misdiagnosis And Dual Diagnoses Of Gifted Children And Adults: Adhd, Bipolar, Ocd, Asperger’s, Depression, And Other Disorders, (Great Potential Press Inc., Scottsdale, AZ, 2004), p. 195
And the answer to that question is obvious. Throwing babies into a volcano makes no money for Pfizer.
On Feb. 15, the FDA will decide whether to approve the Pfizer COVID shot for children between the ages of six months and four years. The press and gov’t. spokespeople predict it’s a GO.
This is murder.
The FDA approval committee members will come in several categories: those who’ve been paid off; those who’ve been threatened; straight-out cold Nazi bureaucrats; those who’ve been blackmailed; and those who WANT TO murder babies.
You can’t get around this. Given the mainstream view of COVID, these FDA/CDC people KNOW the risk of the disease to babies is non-existent, and risks of the vaccine are absolutely devastating.
—Over a million vaccine injuries have already been reported to the US federal database; and this number represents vast UNDER-REPORTING.
Nevertheless, the FDA deciders are ready to say, unless exposed for what they are: inject the babies; kill the babies.
If you still think the government COVID response had anything to do with science or public health or human concern, if you’re still making excuses for Fauci and the whole rogue crew of predators and maniacs at the FDA and CDC, you’re an automatic robot; you just don’t know it.
Get a load of this. CNBC: “Pfizer amended its clinical trial in December to evaluate a third dose after two shots did not induce an adequate immune response in children 2- to 4-years-old. Pfizer and BioNTech said they will submit data on the third dose to the FDA in the coming months.”
I see. The vaccine didn’t work after 2 shots, but it’ll be approved anyway in few days, and Pfizer will let us know IN A FEW MONTHS how the third shot worked.
And that’s science. That’s the bullshit the educated class believes in. That’s the bullshit the deaf, dumb, and blind believe in.
And THE TRUCKERS are the terrorists. Sure. The government is righteous and just. Of course.
People “who spread misinformation about COVID” are terrorists. The government is righteous and just.
Love the government. Hate the terrorists.
Memo to parents: if you’ve been crazy enough to take the shots yourselves, are you ready to deliver your innocent babies into the hands of doctors and nurses who’ll spin the roulette wheel of death and inject their bodies? Is that what you’re going to do?
If so, why? Do you think it’ll make a nice talking point when you get together with friends? Do you think it’s a potent virtue signal? Do you think it proves you’re a loyal subject of the king?
Perhaps you can show up at a local school board meeting, with your infant in your arms; and you can look at the doughy morbid faces of the low-rent grifters sitting behind their long table, and you can say, “Look! I just had my baby shot with the vaccine! It’s wonderful!” And they’ll nod approvingly.
And some piece of dreck who picks up a paycheck as a city public health official will speak at the meeting. He might say vaccinated babies should wear masks. Ask him and find out. Look at his eyes. His brother-in-law, who knows the mayor, rescued him from a career as a gravedigger.
I want to know what the Pope thinks. He’s already stated taking the vaccine is a loving gift to God. What about the babies? Does Popius Maximus Jesuiticus believe The Lord wants infants injected? Let’s get this Pontiff on the record.
Would Mary, in her hut, have told the local doc to inject baby Jesus? Perhaps her husband Joseph, a minor character in the story up to that point, would have brandished a Glock and motioned the sawbones to the door.
Speaking of guns, I think four or five Secret Service agents, their weapons drawn, should usher Nurse Jill to the White House residence, where she will speak candidly and starkly to old Joe—spending as much time as necessary informing him about what the FDA is ready to do, until he UNDERSTANDS.
Then, the agents will force Joe in front of a camera—going live on major channels—where he will unambiguously declare his position on injecting babies.
If he supports the program, he will take full responsibility for the consequences.
After all, the FDA is an agency in the Executive Branch, under the President.
The buck stops with him. It should stop under harsh television spotlights, where no tap-dancing is permitted.
Of course, you parents will have the last word. Unless the guns of the State are pointed at you. If that comes to pass, are you ready to die fighting for your children?
Or will you sacrifice them on the altar of your own passivity and cowardice?
I STRONGLY suggest you make your position clear now.
Publically.
Leave no doubt.
Before it’s too late.
WE NEED AN UPROAR.
Are you standing up? Or are you grinning and virtue signaling—down on your knees?
by Global Research
first published by Global Research on January 28, 2022
.
UK Law Enforcement procedures have been initiated against the architects of the Covid-19 crisis.
This initiative sets a precedent Worldwide.
Should a Criminal Investigation be contemplated in regards to Canada’s Trudeau Government Covid-19 Mandates?
****
Metropolitan Police Crime Number: 6029679/21
International Criminal Court (The Hague) case number: OTP‐CR‐473/21
The world’s largest‐ever international criminal investigation is now under‐way, involving Hammersmith Police, The Metropolitan Police, and The International Criminal Court. The UK police accepted the supporting information and agreed there is enough evidence to proceed under the above crime number.
The case was lodged on 20th December 2021 by Sam White MD, Philip Hyland (PJH Law), Lois Bayliss (Broad Yorkshire Law) and retired policeman Mark Sexton.
Requests for further assistance have been made to international lawyer Robert F Kennedy Jnr (nephew of J F Kennedy), Dr Reiner Fuellmich (German corporate lawyer who won the emissions scandal case against Volkswagen Audi), Dr. Michael Yeadon (Former Pfizer Vice President), plus countless other doctors, professors, virologists, biologists, data experts and lawyers nationally and internationally; some of whom have already made direct contact with the police and have been acknowledged by Superintendent Simpson (Assistant to Cressida Dick, Head of The Metropolitan Police).
The complaints allege numerous serious crimes including misfeasance and misconduct in public office; gross negligence manslaughter; corporate manslaughter, murder, conspiracy to murder, genocide and crimes against humanity.
The evidence submitted by Philip Hyland and Dr Sam White against the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is damning and shows they did not carry out due diligence surrounding the vaccine data, trials and studies; and that they continued to ignore the death, harm and injury the vaccines cause.
Mark Sexton says:
“This is now a live criminal investigation. We were forced to act due to the complacency of the UK Government, despite them being fully aware of the catastrophic death and injury figures to adults and children alike. This is nothing short of genocide; once again it seems that profit over people is the overriding motive. There is a deliberate blanket campaign of misinformation underway. Many don’t even realise that the covid Vaccine is still an experimental product. This is the most far-reaching criminal inquiry ever undertaken. A national scandal that threatens the lives and the livelihoods of every person in the UK. If people want unassailable current evidence, I’d suggest in the interim they look at: ”
“In years to come this will be the equivalent of another Thalidomide scandal, but for now we have to act on a united front to get the truth out to the public and stop the unsafe covid vaccine rollout. We have several thousand pieces of evidence to discredit the safety and efficacy of this vaccine, but we are still encouraging members of the public to contact us to further support our claim. We therefore appeal to anyone who has suffered the death of a loved one following a Covid vaccine and anyone who has been injured by it, e.g. blindness, heart issues, blood clots, stroke, myocarditis etc”.
“We’d also like to hear from those illegally threatened with ‘No jab, no job’”.
We must act now. If you have information to assist the police inquiry, please contact Lois Bayliss of Broad Yorkshire Law: loisbayliss@broadyorkshirelaw.co.uk
Sleezballs is too mild a term for the scum of the Earth who have taken over the field of medicine and public health. Just for starters, Fauci and Gates are running neck and neck for the most disgusting examples of what humans can become, and the CEO of Pfizer seems to take the cake for the number one medical monster of history. This list goes on and down into the rank and file of medical doctors who have thrown their brains away so they can ignore all the suffering and dying that COVID vaccines are bringing to the public.
A complaint with the International Criminal Court (ICC) accused 16 individuals of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. The 16 defendants include Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Peter Daszak, Bill and Melinda Gates, the CEOs of Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson along with several other British authorities, as well as the presidents of the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Economic Forum.
Hitler’s medical monsters were hung after the Nuremberg Trials, and it’s anyone’s guess how far this and other legal processes will go against our present crop of medical monsters. However, in terms of the gain of function research that medical devils who invested billions in creating COVID, we could line up the nasty deeds of all the evil men in history and still not balance the scales. So it is now or never for medicine, humanity, truth, justice, and the prevalence of good over evil.
The whole game of detracting the reality of this pandemic resulting from lab-created gain of function research is so the principal people involved would not be shot on sight. Die from taking one of these experimental COVID shots, and the chances are excellent your life insurance company will rule death by suicide and not pay your family the benefits.
Its insane actions now are killing people while seeking to punish those who refuse to walk sheepishly into America’s version of the gas chamber, the Anthony Fauci “vaccines.” ~ James Howard Kunstler
No writer can vomit enough bad words to address the glee of Fauci as he predicts vaccinating babies with COVID shots. No one can cry enough tears for the mothers who trusted their doctors only to lose their babies in the womb. There must be three thousand of them. Is anyone in the world of medicine crying for them? Have we gotten so stone cold?
U.S. health officials claim no one has died due to the COVID jabs proving to the world how deliberately blind influential medical and health leaders can be. They are standing at the edge of a precipice because official vaccine adverse event reporting systems in Europe, England, and America easily together report 50,000 deaths and millions of severe vaccine reactions.
But yes, anyone can remain a complete idiot and pretend COVID vaccines are safe and effective. Did anyone ever guess how many complete idiots there were in modern medicine and public health two years ago?
If anyone thinks I am exaggerating things a bit, read: On January 1, 2022, video announcement Dr. Reiner Fuellmich— a U.S.-German consumer protection trial lawyer and co-founder of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee announced they now have in their possession damaging data, “enough to dismantle the entire vaccine industry.”
How Bad Can the Bad Be?
Fuellmich even has evidence that the vaccine makers were using different lot numbers to carry out an experiment within an experiment, unbeknownst to the public. According to Fuellmich, it looks like an experiment to determine the dosage needed to kill and maim people. In other words, people have not been getting identical products. Different lots or batches contain different dosages and even different ingredients. It looks like five percent of the batches caused 100 % of the deaths.
Intracranial infection cases up 60-fold since vaccines rolled out.
A 10-year-old girl from São Paolo, Brazil, has suffered a cardiac arrest and was in critical condition 12 hours after taking a dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Following the incident, the municipality of Lençóis Paulista suspended the vaccination of children aged between 5 and 11 years old for seven days. However, the Government of São Paulo and the Ministry of Health claimed that the cardiac arrest was not caused by the COVID vaccine but by a mysterious Martian ray gun. After all, Pfizer vaccines are safe, so it is impossible they could be the cause of such problems.
Conclusion
James Howard Kunstler writes, “The American people have been played backward and forwards, inside and out, through and through, and up and down; driven to the very edge of national suicide by a combine of enemies within and without. If China’s CCP wanted to take maximum advantage of a weakened, confused USA, they couldn’t have found more zealous help-mates than the seditious Democratic Party, along with Dr. Anthony Fauci’s treasonous public health empire, the murderous pharmaceutical companies, the recklessly dishonest news media, and a demonic host of federal agencies, especially the three-stooge “Intel Community” — the CIA (Moe), DOJ (Larry), FBI (Curley) — plus the many secret horror chambers in the Pentagon. Throw in the Big Tech tyrants, the Marxist mandarins on campus, and the satanic narcissists of Hollywood. Oh, and let’s not forget the evil principality of grift and swindling that is Wall Street.”
Time to pray to your Fauci candle, the saint of modern medicine, or is he the ultimate sleaze bag?
VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included a total of 1,053,830 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 22,193 deaths and 174,864 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 14, 2022.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,053,830 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 14, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. 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 10,162 U.S. deaths reported as of Jan. 14, 19% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 24% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 61% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 525.2 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Jan. 14, including 307 million doses of Pfizer, 200 million doses of Moderna and 18 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
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.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 14, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:
The most recent death involves a 7-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1975356) from Minnesota who died 11 days after receiving her first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine when she was found unresponsive by her mother. An autopsy is pending.
14 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 14, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
27,205 adverse events, including 1,559 rated as serious and 35 reported deaths.The most recent death involves a 15-year-old girl from Minnesota (VAERS I.D. 1974744), who died 177 days after receiving her second dose of Pfizer from a pulmonary embolus. An autopsy is pending.
65 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of casesattributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
594 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 583 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
152 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 14, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:
19% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
54% of those who died were male, 41% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
40% rise nationwide in excess deaths among 18- to 49-year-olds, CDC Data Show
Death certificate data from the CDC show excess deaths increased by more than 40% among Americans 18 to 49 years old during a 12-month period ending in October 2021, compared to the same time period in 2018-2019 before the pandemic. COVID caused only about 42% of those deaths.
Death certificate data from CDC show excess deaths increased by more than 40% among Americans 18 to 49 years old during a 12-month period ending in October of 2021, and that COVID caused only about 42% of those deaths.https://t.co/0tX147U6Qs
Excess deaths are defined as the difference between the observed number of deaths during a specific time frame and the expected number of deaths during that same period.
State-level data for the same 12-month period also show increases. For example, in Nevada, excess deaths were as high as 65%, with COVID accounting for only 36%. The District of Columbia saw an increase of 72% — with COVID not being a factor in any of the deaths.
Increases in excess deaths were most noticeable in the Midwest and western and southern states, while states seeing the lowest increases were primarily from the Northeast.
Swiss Olympic sprinter gets pericarditis after Pfizer’s COVID booster
On Dec. 22, Atcho received a booster because she “didn’t want to struggle with this when the season started” and was told it was safer to get Pfizer — even though she had Moderna the first time — to avoid cardiac side effects.
On Dec. 27, Atcho said she started experiencing tightness in her chest and felt dizzy while walking. A cardiologist diagnosed Atcho with pericarditis — inflammation of the thin membrane that surrounds the heart.
Atcho is not allowed to get her heart rate up for several weeks to allow her heart to rest and heal from the inflammation. Said she is upset nobody talks about the “heavy side-effects” young and healthy people are experiencing after receiving COVID vaccines.
Experts call on UK regulators to reassess COVID vaccines for 12- to 15-year-olds
In a letter to the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisation, more than 30 politicians, doctors and medical experts in immunology asked UK regulators to overhaul the country’s COVID vaccine rollout for 12- to 15-year-olds based on new data showing a high risk of myocarditis in that age group.
The experts said data proved “for males under 40, risk of myocarditis was up to 14 times higher after vaccination than after infection” and the risk of myocarditis in young men and boys increased “significantly after a second dose of the vaccine.
They also argued vaccines are less effective “at stemming the transmission of Omicron compared to Delta” and therefore there may be few advantages to exposing young people to the potential increased risks and long-term harm.
Prior COVID infection more protective than vaccination during Delta wave
People with a history of previous COVID infection were better protected against infection and related hospitalization during periods of predominantly Alpha and Delta variant transmission, suggesting natural immunity was more protective against the variants than vaccines, according to the CDC.
New data released Wednesday by the CDC showed people who survived a previous infection had lower rates of COVID than people who were vaccinated alone.
Hospitalization rates were also lower among people who had recovered from COVID than among those who had been vaccinated.
For the study, health officials in California and New York gathered data from May through November 2021, which included the period when the Delta variant was dominant. The agency said there were limitations to the study and results were not applicable to the new Omicron variant.
However, the agency concluded vaccination “remains the safest and primary strategy to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections, associated complications and onward transmission,” due to the risks associated with COVID infection.
The agency did not compare the risks of infection in those with and without underlying medical conditions and did not analyze the risks associated with vaccinating those with a history of previous COVID infection.
Major businesses, attorneys general, respond to Supreme Court ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last week striking down the Biden administration’s vaccine-or-test mandate for private businesses has left many companies scrambling to decide whether they should abandon the mandate or force their employees to be vaccinated anyway while the case plays out in the lower courts.
As The Defender reported today, Starbucks was the first major business to announce it would not enforce its COVID vaccine mandate against employees in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, while Carhartt CEO Mark Valade announced in an email to staff the company’s vaccine mandate for its 3,000 U.S. employees would remain in place.
Both decisions sparked backlash on social media with calls to boycott both companies.
Meanwhile, a coalition of attorneys general from 27 states is calling on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to rescind its Emergency Temporary Standard for private businesses with more than 100 employees because it lacks the authority to issue a broad vaccine mandate.
Among the first reports handed over by Pfizer was a ‘Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports’ describing events reported to Pfizer up until February 2021. You can download this entire report here.
Look at table 6 from this Pfizer report. It is titled “Missing Information”. Its first heading under the topic “Missing Information” is “Use in pregnancy and lactation”. It includes this paragraph:
“Pregnancy outcomes for the 270 pregnancies were reported as spontaneous abortion (23),outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies (note that 2 different outcomes were reported for each twin, and both were counted).”
On the surface this states that of 270 pregnancies, there were 23 spontaneous abortions, 5 “outcomes pending”, 2 premature birth with neonatal death, 2 spontaneous abortions with intrauterine death, 1 spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and 1 normal outcome. But note also “no outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies”.
So really we have no idea what happened with 243 (5 + 238) of the pregnancies of these injected women; they have just not been included in the report. What we do know is that of 27 reported pregnancies (270 subtract 243), there are 28 dead babies! This appears to mean that someone was pregnant with twins and that 100% of the unborn babies died.
Here is an excellent article by LifeSite News which goes into greater depth about these shocking revelations. LifeSite News cuts Pfizer some slack on the 5 “outcomes pending” which creates the possible impression that 87.5% of the babies of the injected women died. With all respect to LifeSite, I feel correct in not counting the 5 “outcomes pending” and hence arrive at the conclusion that100% of the unborn babies died in the injected women for whom results are presented.
The LifeSite News article also reveals deceptive number games in another article titled “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine”, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on December 31, 2020. These deceptive practices attempted to cover up the fact that in first trimester pregnancies, the Pfizer injection produced 82% miscarriages.
On January 12th we shared the excellent analysis by the Canadian Covid Care Alliance of this same “Safety and Efficacy” article from the New England Journal of Medicine. This Pfizer-friendly study is a complete sham; it is replete with misrepresentation and deceptive methods. The deception and truth is revealed in detail in this video and article by the CCCA.
Dr Trozzi’s brief and Dr Nagase’s excellent interview discussing this sham article is here.
They’re killing babies; what can we do?
These injections are criminal; period. Help us serve the Cease and Desist Declaration of the World Council for Health, to any and all governments, clinics, hospitals, medical regulatory bodies, doctors, nurses, politicians, or anyone participating in any way in the manufacture, shipping, distribution, promotion, or administration of these injections. The message to anyone involved in these injection campaigns is “Stop now. This is a crime. You will be criminally and civilly responsible. The cat is out of the bag. Justice is coming.”
Please keep photos and notes of to whom, when and where the declaration and notice is served. We are finalizing more resources on the World Council for Health web site to upload these photos and details. These resources will be fine tuned and found here very soon.
There are at least five million Canadians, and billions of global citizens who have resisted the injections. We, as well as many coerced injection victims who are waking up with buyer’s remorse, must be the army that stops this, and return human rights and real health care to our society.
In The Defender’s “Leading the Charge for Change” interview series, Dr. Michelle Perro explains why she advises parents not to give their kids the COVID vaccine and encourages other physicians to speak out against the vaccines.
Dr. Michelle Perro, a pediatric emergency doctor, has some COVID-19 vaccine advice for parents: “Don’t do it.”
She also has some strong words for fellow physicians: Have the courage to speak out on behalf of the vulnerable.
In an interview with The Defender, Perro said in her experience treating children with COVID, the disease has been mild.
She said:
“In a practice where I work, out of six practitioners, not one of us has seen an extremely sick kid with COVID. Some children have had fevers and body aches, although most have super mild symptoms. We have seen asymptomatic kids and others having mild flu-like illness — at the worst.”
She said the disease is not dangerous in children, often lasting only one or two days.
“It’s in the literature that this is a mild illness in young people,” Perro said. “And the rate of morbidity and mortality is next to zero — a more benign course than the flu.”
For children she has treated with COVID, Perro said she supports their “naturally vigorous immune system,” emphasizing the importance of eating nutrient-dense organic foods along with supplements including vitamins C and D, zinc and quercetin.
“Depending on how sick they are, I also use a range of nutraceutical and homeopathic remedies to also help clear the virus from the mouth and the nasopharynx,” she said.
When COVID vaccines were made available for children, Perro initially gave cautious advice, but she’s since become more adamant in discouraging parents.
“It’s experimental and the potential effects may be irreversible,” Perro said. “We have no idea what it does to your kids’ DNA. Don’t do it — I just said that to some parents this week.”
When her practice, which offers the vaccine, asked her to create a protocol for parents who want to vaccinate their kids, she was reluctant “because they just shouldn’t do it.”
Perro has heard from parents who regret having their children vaccinated.
“I get emails every day with parents having vaccine remorse,” Perro said. “These are not just about kids who are having side effects, but parents who don’t feel right about what they’ve done. And it’s a challenging and new territory when trying to help them — how do I reverse the effects of an mRNA jab?”
For children she sees who are suffering from COVID vaccine injuries, her observations are striking.
“Clinically, we’re seeing mild to severe reactions from this inoculation, but what is mindblowing for me are the cases with adverse outcomes reported in the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] data — it’s horrific,” she said. “If you pair that with the injured kids in the clinic, with adverse reactions to the inoculation, that should be enough to say stop, reevaluate, reverse direction.”
Perro said she is particularly concerned about the severe vaccine injuries children are experiencing.
“When I looked at the initial Moderna study, 72% of their vaccine recipients had a reaction that they had graded as mild, moderate or severe,” Perro said. “The most damaging were cardiac and neurological. Now, fast forward to what’s happening to children. What am I mostly seeing? Cardiac and neurological symptoms, just like in the study,” she said.
The increase in myocarditis is a historical anomaly, Perro said.
“As an ER doctor, a pediatric emergency physician, it was so rare pre-COVID inoculations to ever see a kid with myocarditis. In my career of 40 years with acute care medicine — working in big centers in East Harlem, Bellevue and Oakland Children’s Hospital — maybe I’ve seen one or two cases of pediatric myocarditis. That’s two children in more than four decades — and their condition was the result of an infection.”
With increasing cases of vaccine-induced heart problems in children, emergency defibrillators are being placed in schools. “They’re preparing for a wave of myocarditis symptoms and the potential for cardiac complications,” Perro told The Defender.
When asked about those risks, she described how inflammation of the outer envelope of the heart, the pericardium, and heart cells generally can cause anything from chest pain to arrhythmias and tachycardia. She has seen children just after COVID vaccination with increased heart rate and chest pain.
“These myocardial cells, once they’ve been injured, can’t regenerate, the scars remain,” she said. “And these scars in their heart tissue can precipitate arrhythmias in the future since the electrical impulses have reduced conductivity — it’s a devastating disease.”
Neurological effects of the COVID vaccine on children present further risks of an unknown outcome.
“We have no idea of the long-term effects of the spike protein in small children,” Perro said. “What is concerning is increasing the burden of neurologic disease on an already neurologically compromised population.”
Pointing out that 1 in 33 kids are now diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, Perro said one of the features of this disorder is brain inflammation with activation of their microglia — a critical component of immune response in the central nervous system.
“The spike protein acts like a bioweapon — a toxic material that can cross the blood-brain barrier,” Perro said. “There’s no way we can tell parents what’s going to develop in their kids’ brains when that happens.”
Pediatricians must ‘rise up’ to the oath they’ve taken
With data showing children have an extremely low risk of complications from the COVID virus, and her own clinical experience, Perro openly discusses what pediatricians see, but rarely speak about.
“Young children are at no great risk and do not give COVID to adults,” she said. “So the idea that we inoculate children to stop spreading the disease in adults is wrong and immoral. And it’s well-known these inoculations do nothing to stop transmission.”
Perro is not afraid to speak out about the failure of the vaccines. She said:
“We have people getting their third and fourth boosters, and variants are still ripping through communities. Mostly, those who are transmitting the virus are the vaccinated. Although this is verifiable and quite shocking, most doctors are rolling along with it. There is pressure from all areas, including medical boards to conform. Here in California, doctors are living in a climate of fear from retribution if they voice their concerns.
“It is not just a moral obligation. It’s about our oath as physicians. More pediatricians need to speak out.”
She is very clear on why her colleagues should be more vocal. “I feel that if I know something and I don’t speak out, I am complicit and part of the problem,” Perro said. “How could I look at myself in the mirror? How could I live with myself — why am I a pediatrician?”
Perro told The Defender it’s okay for physicians to be fearful — that fear can accompany altruism.
“Yes, you can be fearful, but still show the courage to speak out on behalf of the vulnerable — those who we’ve been entrusted to care for,” Perro explained. “I say to those who know but are silent, rise up to the oath that you’ve taken, allow your fear to march on with your courage — and take a stance.”
In addition to advocating on behalf of children, Perro said the time has come to fully embrace a holistic system.
“This present medical paradigm can’t be fixed,” she said. “We need to create a new specialty of regenerative healthcare, an eco-medicine, where food sustains or reinvigorates our innate vitality.”
However, she warned, “If we keep taking these jabs, we will create a population that is only more dependent on a broken medical system.”
She also believes in empowering parents by providing them with the simple tools to help the body heal itself.
“We need to turn away from a pharma-driven narrative to a food-based narrative, supplemented with healing herbs and spices,” Perro said. “The driving principle of good healthcare is simple — the best medicine is food as medicine.”
Asked about her hope for the future, Perro said:
“A paradigm shift is happening. We must continue to re-establish natural priorities and good health, with supportive communities, where physicians, farmers, scientists and activists work together with a common focus on holistic health principles.”
David Marks is a fellow for The Defender. He is an investigative reporter and documentary producer. His new book, “The Way,” is an interpretation of the Chinese classic, the Tao Te Ching, available at LaoTzu-TheWay.org.
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.
Read this if you want to know more about vaccines than your doctor, practise nurse and health visitor.
1. The US Health Department’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Programme has shown that between 2,500 and 3,000 children are killed or injured each year by vaccines.
2. The US Government has paid vaccine damage compensation to the parents of autistic children.
3. The Japanese Government has halted part of its vaccination programme because of children dying.
4. In the UK, GPs receive massive payments for giving vaccinations. And bonus payments if they vaccinate enough patients. Doctors get very rich out of vaccine programmes.
5. Vaccines are now given to eight week old babies, though there is absolutely no long-term scientific evidence available to show that it is safe to do so. By the time they reach their second birthday small children will have received over a score of vaccinations. American children will have received even more. The vaccine industry is forever looking for new vaccines to give.
6. You will find a full list of the research work done to investigate the safety or otherwise of mass vaccination programmes on the palm of your left hand.
7. The diphtheria vaccine was first introduced in Germany. After the vaccine was introduced the number of cases of diphtheria steadily increased.
8. The number of deaths from whooping cough had fallen long before the vaccine was introduced. The vaccine has not reduced the incidence of the disease.
9. The flu vaccine is, inevitably, designed to deal with last year’s flu virus.
10. I have never met a doctor who has regular flu jabs (or any other jabs for that matter).
11. In the past, a flu vaccine contained different strains of flu virus (propagated in chicken embryos); formaldehyde (a preservative); polyethylene glycol; gelatin (made from cow’s bones) and a substance which contains mercury. The odd thing is that the EU has banned barometers containing mercury because they are thought to be dangerous. But doctors inject the stuff into people.
12. The polio vaccine did not ‘kill off’ polio. On the contrary, the vaccine resulted in more sufferers. In Tennessee, in the US, the number of polio victims before vaccination became compulsory was 119. The year after vaccination was introduced, the figure rose to 386. Similar figures for other American states. Polio became less common as a result of better sanitation and cleaner water supplies. The vaccination had no useful effect.
13. Dr Jenner is widely acclaimed as the ‘inventor’ of vaccine. But it is not so well known that when he tried the first smallpox vaccine on his 10 month son, the boy became mentally retarded and died at the age of 21. Jenner refused to have his second child vaccinated. However, the medical profession saw the commercial possibilities and vaccination became popular (if deadly).
14. When Louis XV contracted smallpox he survived because his nurse hid him from the doctors whose vaccines had killed his father and brother.
15. Even though TB is now a major problem, many countries have abandoned the TB vaccine because it simply doesn’t work. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the vaccine spreads the disease.
16. The risk of a child given the whooping cough vaccine developing brain damage is officially said to be 1 in 100,000. But that’s the ‘best’ figure. Other research shows that the risk is as high as 1 in 6,000. There is no doubt that the vaccine causes far more harm than the disease and there is clear evidence linking the vaccine to brain damage.
17. Vaccines are dangerous and they don’t always work. Up to half of the people given a vaccine jab do not develop a resistance to the disease concerned.
18. Drug companies now publish long lists of reasons for not vaccinating patients. Doctors rarely look at the lists, let alone take any notice. For example, for one vaccine the advice is that babies who cry persistently or develop a fever should not be given another jab. No one knows how much damage is caused by giving several vaccines in a single vaccine cocktail.
19. The French Government abandoned its hepatitis B vaccine programme for children after more than 15,000 lawsuits were filed for brain damage and other serious health problems.
20. In the US a group of paediatricians with 30,000 young patients do not vaccinate at all. They have no cases of autism in their practice.
According to education officials, “huge numbers” of children, in some cases as many as 95 per cent, are refusing to wear face masks in school or take COVID tests.
The government instructed schools to make pupils wear masks in classrooms and common areas after a spike in Omicron cases.
However, the move appears to have completely backfired in many areas of the country.
“Sadly, we have had reports in the last 24 hours of at least six secondary schools in the north-west of England where children, in huge numbers, are refusing to take lateral flow tests or to wear masks,” said Damien McNulty, a national executive member of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers.
“We’ve got one school in Lancashire where only 67 children out of 1,300 are prepared to have a lateral flow test and wear masks. This is a public health emergency,” he added.
As we highlighted yesterday, the results of the UK government’s own report on whether face masks would stop the spread of COVID in schools was “not conclusive.”
Authorities were subsequently forced to acknowledge that proof face masks preventing the spread of the virus is statistically insignificant.
“Schools where face coverings were used in October 2021 saw a reduction two to three weeks later in Covid absences from 5.3% to 3% – a drop of 2.3 percentage points,” reported BBC News.
“In schools which did not use face coverings absences fell from 5.3% to 3.6% – a fall of 1.7 percentage points.”
According to University of Oxford Professor Jim Naismith, when England dropped face mask mandates back in July and Scotland maintained them, it made “no meaningful difference” to infection rates.
We previously highlighted the comments of UK government SAGE adviser Dr Colin Axon, who dismissed masks as “comfort blankets” that do virtually nothing, noting that the COVID-19 virus particle is up to 5,000 times smaller than the holes in the mask.
“The small sizes are not easily understood but an imperfect analogy would be to imagine marbles fired at builders’ scaffolding, some might hit a pole and rebound, but obviously most will fly through,” Axon said.
A German mother critical of the state’s Covid measures had her home raided and her children violently removed by police and child protective services. The children are being held in a state facility and have been unable to see their mother for over a month. The distraught mother is pleading for the public’s help.
Court Removes Children
On November 15, 2021, Maria reports that German police and child protective services broke into her family’s apartment. They physically overwhelmed her and violently separated Maria from her children. The children were then thrown into a foster care facility in Treptow-Köpenick.
This past year, Maria did not have her children attend school due to the harsh Covid requirements. The Court claims they removed the children due to Maria’s noncompliance with school attendance. However, Maria repeatedly petitioned the children’s school and its board to allow her kids to participate in distance learning. However, she was flat out denied. Furthermore, the school would not address her safety concerns surrounding face masks and repeated covid tests of the school children.
Maria explains that the raid her family experienced “was orchestrated to be as dramatic and traumatic as possible.” She continued, “To have done all this in the name of child welfare and to justify the action as such is a pure mockery.”
German Children Are Imprisoned
Since December 14th, the children have been forced into quarantine at the state facility they are imprisoned in after a symptom-free girl tested positive. The children were supposed to be isolated for seven days, then given the opportunity to regain their freedom through testing.
Although Maria prohibited the children from undergoing the testing, her children were coerced by the State. Despite not having any symptoms, one of her healthy children “allegedly tested positive.” Both of her children have now been forced into quarantine until December 31st and had to spend Christmas alone and isolated.
“I made a request to the child protective services that my children return home for the Christmas holidays, placing myself in quarantine with them during their stay, but I received no response,” states Maria.
The children are both homesick and desperately missing their mother. Maria reports that her 9-year-old daughter cries every time she’s on the phone with her. No one at the facility plays with the children or interacts with them. Even Christmas was not acknowledged to the children.
Nevertheless, “I must honestly say, my two children still have it better than the other children, locked up alone in their rooms at the facility because they are together,” reports Maria.
State Shows No Mercy
Until her children can come home, Maria has been standing outside the facility singing for her kids. She hopes that her children, along with the others who are suffering inside, can hear them.
Unfortunately, Maria singing outside the facility has cost her gravely. Before Christmas Eve, the facility informed Maria she would only be allowed to speak with her children for ten minutes, twice a week, due to her singing. So regardless of Christmas or the fact that her children were alone in quarantine, she was only allowed two phone calls.
Maria reports that the state is now considering further punishing her and relocating the children to an unknown location.
Call To Action
Maria is asking others to join her outside the state facility and and help support all the suffering children held against their will throughout Germany.
Please join me.
The greater our numbers, the greater the attention we’ll receive and the greater our safety will be.
At the following Telegram addresses, you can contact us: @AniKa_17 + @mariamaria_71
We will tell you the exact location and time of our meeting.
Thank you for your attention. Thank you for condolences and support.
Watch the following heartbreaking video released by Maria:
Since the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out began in late 2020, government, mainstream media and Silicon Valley censorship departments has been working overtime to try and obfuscate the fact that the experimental mRNA injections are an unproven, genetically-modified gene therapy compound.
Despite a desperate effort by Gates-funded Fact-Checkers to convince that public that the unproven mRNA technology is “not gene therapy”, the scientific literature clearly shows that mRNA is in fact gene therapy, or rather gene transfer technology.
The so-called ‘vaccines’ made by Pfizer and Moderna use oily envelopes called lipid nanoparticles to insert genetically-modified material called messenger RNA (mRNA) blueprint for a toxic spike protein into a person’s cells which then become mini-factories for the GMO toxic protein. The Johnson & Johnson works slightly different, using a double-stranded DNA inserted into an inert adenovirus. The DNA also contains the instructions for building the toxic spike protein.
Pharmaceutical firms claim this genetic cocktail protects people from COVID-19, but upon closer examination their brash claims of “90% effective” are clearly fraudulent. Rather than require drug manufacturers to use proper metrics to prove real effectiveness, government regulators have chosen instead to look the other way and allow the fraud to continue unabated.
To date, in the United States alone, there have been 1,842,457 adverse reactions and injuries reported following these experimental injections. These number continue to grow each week.
As the new pharmaceutical ‘vaccine’ products have been intentionally rushed through the normal safety and regulatory procedures before being deployed into the population under the aegis of an “emergency use authorization” – and with zero medium or long-terms clinical trials or studies – then these are by definition experimental products.
What will be the results of this mass-human experiment, and who will ultimately be held responsible for the growing list of casualties? Watch:
In this discussion, Dr Leland Stillman explains how he went undercover with Project Veritas to expose the corrupt practices and general fraud perpetrated by the major pharmaceutical firms, and how the industry routinely covers-up a growing number of vaccine injuries and deaths. This informative interview is essential in understanding the scale of corruption when it comes to the Covid-19 ‘global pandemic.’
The following interview is from Childrens Health Defense CHD.TV program, Doctors & Scientists – Episode 11 hosted by Dr Brian Hooker with guest Dr Leland Stillman, MD.
San Diego, CA — Forgoing any legal democratic processes, multiple school districts in California began mandating the COVID-19 vaccination for children earlier this year. Set to go into effect in January, any child, 16 and older, who did not get the jab, was banned from campus in all San Diego public schools.
This authoritarian move caused a mass of backlash and thousands of children and parents refused to comply. The refusal to get vaccinated set the stage for a showdown that was to unfold on January 24 when the children would be kicked out of school for non compliance.
There will be no showdown, however, as a San Diego judge struck down the mandate this week, accurately pointing out that a school district has no authority to mandate medical procedures for children.
CBS 7 reports that Superior Court Judge John S. Meyer granted a writ of mandate for a lawsuit filed by the group “Let Them Choose,” which sought to keep the school district‘s COVID-19 vaccine mandate from going into effect by arguing it did not comply with state law.
Meyer noted in the ruling that the school district‘s COVID-19 vaccine mandate cannot move forward because it conflicts with state law, which says any decision to mandate vaccines must be made at the state level and must also include a “personal belief exemption” if the mandate is not imposed by the state Legislature.
San Diego Unified’s policy did not contain this exemption.
“SDUSD‘s Roadmap appears to be necessary and rational, and the district’s desire to protect its students from COVID-19 is commendable. Unfortunately, the field of school vaccine mandates has been fully occupied by the State, and the Roadmap directly conflicts with state law,” the judge wrote in a tentative ruling.
Naturally, the school district disagreed and claimed they have the right to dictate what children can and can’t be injected with. For now, however, their objection is meaningless and the children and parents who did not want to take the vaccination, will no longer be forced to do so.
“I am overjoyed. We knew that our legal argument was strong, and we brought this case on behalf of thousands of concerned parents and students and to hear the judge say no student should be coerced into getting this vaccine was just a wonderful thing to hear,” said Sharon McKeeman, founder of the group behind Let Them Choose.
As TFTP reported earlier this month, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) — which is the second largest school district in the country — made a similar move and mandated shots for all children aged 12 and older.
NBC4 spoke to an attorney who is following these cases, Jennifer Kennedy, who explained that school districts do not have the authority to mandate medical procedures. Just like the San Diego school district did not have the authority to mandate the jabs, the LAUSD did not have it either.
“These grotesque contests and displays of treatment and candy and gifts and favors, raffles and cash prizes inducing the kids to the vaccination…. Here is the problem, kids in California cannot consent to vaccination.”
She added, “The LAUSD does not have the power to add a vaccine to the California school schedule,” she said. “You couldn’t do it if you were a po-dunk school district and you can’t do it if you’re LAUSD, the second largest district in the nation. You don’t have that legal authority.”
Several parents of students filed lawsuits against the LAUSD over the mandate and thousands of children remained unvaccinated in LAUSD. This line in the sand forced the school district to postpone their mandate last week after a whopping 28,000 children refused the jab.
It is only through resistance that the change we seek will come. As history shows us, one cannot comply their way out of tyranny.
Below you will find a video with English translation (courtesy of Orwell City) for La Quinta Columna’s first look at the contents of Prevenar 13 (PCV) under a high power microscope. Prevenar 13 is a pneumoococcal vaccine that is routinely given to infants and babies. Evidence of Graphene Oxide is clearly seen. They will be following up with additional analysis and reports.
Per NHS, UK: Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) is used to vaccinate children under 2 years old as part of the NHS vaccination schedule. It’s known by the brand name Prevenar 13.
Per CDC, US: Give PCV13 to infants as a series of 4 doses, one dose at each of these ages: 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, and 12 through 15 months.
I think I have a video here to finish. Yes, of course. It’s an important video. Today we have used the optical microscope that we were able to acquire thanks to the donations that you made to La Quinta Columna at the time. And we have analyzed under the microscope the vaccine Prevenar 13, an anti-pneumococcal vaccine. A vaccine of the calendar that’s traditionally in the calendar. It’s precisely for the youngest, for children, including infants from 6 months onwards.
Let’s see what material we have found there. Because, normally, when we look at the optical microscope that has a quality of 60x to 100x, 200x, 400x, or 1000x at the most, we should see microscopic substances. And the only visible ones should be salts. Salts that look like crystals and that are used in the dissolution itself. And something else. And little else. Maybe some metal, but very few.
However, we have come across for the umpteenth time this graphene-like material that we have seen so much. Particularly, in the misnamed anti-COVID vaccines. Of course, indeed, they’re actually pro-COVID vaccines.
This material has a very special feature. It not only has an identity trace when analyzed or radiated with micro Raman spectroscopy, as Dr. Campra already did, but under the optical microscope, it looks like it had folds. As if it were a kleenex tissue at the bottom of a swimming pool. At the same time, it tends to fold back on its edges. These are graphene nanosheets. Let’s look at these images that we have taken from the Prevent 13 vaccine today.
What’s the traceability that you ask so many questions about? It was directly traced. A sanitary sent it to the domicile of La Quinta Columna. So let’s take a look at those images and judge for yourselves since this substance or this type of material shouldn’t appear in the Prevenar 13 vaccine. Let’s take a look at it.
Well, there’s a little video for you guys to see that it’s a live image that we’ve recorded. And as I say, this has all the appearance of the fashionable material. Of that “wonder material” that’s so wonderful that they have introduced it inside the vaccines so that your children can also carry it inside their bodies.
Here. The previous image was also quite clear. Let’s see, let’s move it forward a little bit.
You can see it here as well. This is the same material that you will see magnified now. Let’s see. When you see this delineation between the light green and the dark green, know the light green is what’s inside the drop. On the outside, that dark green and this striped aspect that you can see is the microscope slide. So, whatever is inside the light, well, that’s everything that belongs to the vaccine.
OK? Let’s continue. Although you don’t recognize the graphene, this shouldn’t be there. OK? Not in a calendar vaccine or any other type of vaccine. This also looks like graphene. A lot.
If we laser here, through spectroscopy, and measure the identity fingerprint, in all likelihood it’ll give us the two peaks characteristic of reduced graphene oxide. In addition, it’s likely to be doped with some metals. Here you see the fold. The folded edge. It has the appearance of graphene nanosheets.
Now we have a little video here of a graphene nano-ribbon, which is also introduced.
If you take as a positive control the graphene oxide that they sell, for example, in any store, you’ll see that this type or typology of objects —as we did in the past in some video of La Quinta Columna—, is distributed as an aqueous solution of graphene dispersion. Like a new type of nanotechnology introduced in vials with a purpose that you already know. If you see, it has the very characteristic appearance that already appeared in Dr. Campra’s preliminary report back on June 28.
This appearance of nano-ribbons is also graphene-based. Well, that was the Prevenir 13 vaccine video. In just four droplets under the microscope.
We often wonder why any hospital that has a good microscope —at least an optical microscope— doesn’t analyze the remains of a vaccine. Because, supposedly, there must be nanoparticles. Nanoparticles. Therefore, they shouldn’t be visible under an optical microscope.
And, moreover, they should be homogeneous. And only visible, in any case, an electron microscope. As we saw them, as you know, in that preliminary report by Dr. Campra. And why don’t they check themselves that these graphene-based nanosheet structures do indeed exist? Because when we subjected it to spectroscopy it gave the fingerprint of the identity of graphene oxide. Moreover, there are the patents of the Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Tourism itself on the official website of the Spanish government and other international health ministries.
So, why do you continue to deny it? Well. We do know why: because they continue to cover up the murder weapon. So, all those really covering this up are accomplices of a covert genocide. They’re, literally, criminals and murderers in the service of supranational entities. Pharmaceutical corporations included. To reduce the world’s population and, of course, neuromodulate it. And graphene is precisely the base raw material in this technology.
So, what else needs to be done? What more evidence do we have to demonstrate from La Quinta Columna and other information channels, such as InfoVacunas or El Arconte that are also denouncing it? What needs to be done? How many complaints need to be filed?
We have filed more than three hundred criminals, administrative and litigation complaints. How many ways have to be exhausted so that you’re aware that the world population is being killed? What else needs to be done? We’re volunteering again, both myself and Dr. Sevillano —as well as Dr. Campra himself— to go to a court and to expose all the knowledge and all the reliable evidence we have.
And we demand that the European Medicines Agency —of course, in the quality control that supposedly makes the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Health Products, whose maximum responsible is this socialist councilor of Utrera, Mrs. Silvia Calzon Fernández, who’s its director and president—, to make an analysis to, somehow, provide a counter-analysis to the one made by Dr. Campra. Which, to date, is the only independent report in the world.
