Vaccinations

now browsing by category

Vaccinations are supposed to prevent disease, but instead they increase allergies, reduce immunity, destroy our brains, give us bad hearts by filling us with toxins. Before any vaccination, ask for one without Mercury, Aluminium, Formaldehyde, Polysorbate 80, Yeast, Egg, Viruses, etc. Vaccines without these ingredients do not exist. And yes, vaccinations DO cause AUTISM.

 
Posted by: | Posted on: May 3, 2024

The Great Osteoporosis Scam


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/05/03/osteoporosis-scam.aspx

Analysis by A Midwestern Doctor     May 03, 2024

osteoporosis scam

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • One of aging’s most profound consequences is the gradual weakening of bones, which can lead to life-altering physical limitations and fractures. Currently, we wisely aim to prevent bone loss early on but unwisely rely on routine bone density scans, often leading to the indiscriminate sale of “bone-strengthening” drugs to a large patient base
  • This approach is deeply flawed. Scan data frequently fails to reflect true bone strength, while increasing density often results in brittle bones prone to fracture. Moreover, the commonly prescribed bone density drugs carry significant risks
  • In the face of a lucrative drug market (such as osteoporosis affecting 20% of women over 50), the medical industry dismisses alternative approaches that do not generate substantial profits
  • This profit-driven mindset leaves us with little understanding of osteoporosis’s true causes or the most effective treatments. This article will delve into the forgotten knowledge of bone health

The years I have spent studying the medical industry have made me appreciate how often economic principles can allow one to understand its complex and contradictory behavior.

For example, I believe many of the inconsistencies in medical ethics (e.g., “mothers have an absolute right to abort their children” and “mothers cannot refuse to vaccinate their children because it endangers their child’s life”) can be explained by simply acknowledging that whatever makes money is deemed “ethical.”

Sales Funnels

The sales funnel concept is crucial to understanding the modern medical industry. This method involves initially targeting a broad audience and then gradually narrowing down to more expensive products or services for the captured customers. There are typically two overlapping sales funnels in medicine:

The first funnel involves prescribing innocuous drugs to many people and then selling increasingly expensive pharmaceuticals to treat complications. For example, this often occurs with medications given to girls, leading to harmful consequences.

common response to hormonal changes

Note: Sources for the above graph can be found in this article about the dangers of SSRI antidepressants.1

The second funnel involves framing preventative medicine as screening individuals for potential health risks and then using these results to justify selling medical services like drug prescriptions. As these screenings become normalized, the industry expands the range of services offered, often leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. For instance, guidelines for “safe” blood pressure and cholesterol levels have been continuously lowered,2 hence putting more people on medications.

Note: The folly of this approach is highlighted by a trial that found removing on average 2.8 non-essential drugs from the elderly at one facility caused their 1-year death rate to go from 45% to 21%.3

DEXA Scams

One common way mass screenings are conducted is by giving many patients X-rays and then funneling those with abnormal imaging into being treated. For example, women over 50 get mammograms every two years to detect breast cancer early. However, studies show these screenings often lack overall benefit because fast-growing cancers are usually not caught early, while false positives are common and frequently lead to harmful treatments.

Note: Many medical specialists depend upon repeatedly performing the same billable service (e.g., vaccinating a child, performing a female pelvic exam, or reading a mammogram).

Another common universal screening practice for women is dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans, which measure bone density as an indicator of bone strength. The results are compared to the average bone density of a 30-year-old, producing a T-score. Medical students learn that a T-score of 0 to -1 is normal, -1 to -2.5 indicates osteopenia, and -2.5 or worse signifies osteoporosis, prompting urgent treatment.

However, considering natural age-related bone density loss, most individuals will have lower bone density than a 30-year-old. Thus, the current approach to managing osteoporosis acknowledges inevitable bone loss with age and focuses on prevention, as regaining bone density later in life is challenging.

How reliable are DEXA scans? Results vary significantly based on machine, operator, and measured bones, with studies showing a 5% – 6% difference4 in bone density. This variation can alter T-scores by 0.2 – 0.4, leading to misdiagnoses of osteoporosis.

Is repeated scanning necessary? A study of 4124 older women5 found no additional useful information gained from repeating DEXA scans over 8 years. Yet, guidelines recommend scans every 1-2 years, with Medicare covering one every 2 years, despite costs ranging from $150 to $300 per scan.

Do DEXA scans accurately predict fracture risk? While generally predictive, studies show discrepancies between scan results6 and observed bone strength under a microscope. Additionally, scans often underestimate strength loss in deliberately weakened bones.

Note: I recently learned from Dr. Mercola that a faster and more accurate method of diagnosing bone strength (which does not expose patients to ionizing radiation) is beginning to be used in Europe.7 REMS technology works by sending ultrasound waves8 into the bone and then analyzing the spectrum created to assess the health of the bones.

As this presentation shows, it accurately predicts bone density, and additionally, predicts bone strength. In short, this may be a dramatically superior approach to Dexa scans, but it faces stiff resistance in the United States because of how heavily invested many already are in performing Dexa scans. For those interested, more information can be found at EchoLight’s website.9

ernest curtis comment

Note: This comment was affirmed in an NPR article.10

Save This Article for Later – Get the PDF Now

Download PDF

Bisphosphonates

Once osteoporosis is diagnosed, the initial treatment often involves starting a bisphosphonate, which may continue for 3-5 years depending on the administration method. A variety of factors influence the development of bone.

Two of the most important ones are the cells that build bone up (osteoblasts) and the cells that break bone down (osteoclasts). Bisphosphonates, (e.g., Fosamax or Actonel), concentrate in bones and inhibit osteoclasts,11 leading to increased bone density by shifting the balance towards bone building. However, this approach faces two major issues:

•Bisphosphonates are associated with numerous side effects,12 such as stomach irritation, severe muscle and bone pain, flu-like symptoms, osteonecrosis of the jaw,13 unusual hip fractures, atrial fibrillation, hypocalcemia, fatigue, and kidney problems. Remarkably, the American Dental Association even cautioned its members14 to avoid working on patients who are taking bisphosphonates.

•Bisphosphonates disrupt the body’s natural bone-building process, resulting in the preservation of “old bone” rather than promoting healthy bone formation.

Note: In addition to the bisphosphonates, there are other problematic osteoporosis drugs which also target the osteoclasts.

Bone Remodeling

One of the key adaptive processes in the body is its response to stresses and loads placed upon it. An often-overlooked marvel of the body is its continual reshaping of bones to bear loads optimally. While we seldom think about this process, its significance becomes apparent in certain scenarios. Consider space travel: astronauts, deprived of gravity’s weight signals, experience rapid bone loss,15 posing serious fracture risks upon returning to Earth.

In this bone-building ballet, osteoclasts play a crucial yet underappreciated role. They sculpt bones to withstand gravity’s demands, but when blocked by drugs like bisphosphonates, bones become denser yet more brittle and less flexible.

This underscores a common issue in medicine: focusing on treating numbers (e.g., lowering cholesterol) assuming it equates to health improvement. Studies often assess benefits through value changes (e.g., vaccine-induced antibodies), overlooking actual patient outcomes (e.g., in Pfizer’s COVID vaccine studies,16 antibody production didn’t correlate with decreased deaths).

In short, I would posit that while bisphosphonates may be effective at improving a DEXA score, they aren’t necessarily good at improving bone health.

What Causes Osteoporosis?

Bone metabolism is intricately linked to various key body processes, making it challenging to pinpoint the primary determinants of bone health. However, several factors stand out:

Mobility — Sedentary lifestyles contribute to osteoporosis, highlighting the importance of weight-bearing activities in bone health.17 Walking is particularly beneficial and if done regularly throughout life dramatically improves bone health.
Hormones — In a previous article, I discussed the severe dangers of drugs like Lupron which work by disabling the body’s production of sex hormones. One of the most common side effects observed from them is a significant weakening of the bones. In turn, hormonal loss accompanying aging also weakens the bones.
Inflammation — Chronic inflammatory conditions increase the risk of osteoporosis by activating bone-dismantling processes.18
Amino acids — Since one of the most essential components of bone health is the elasticity collagen imparts to them (as this allows bone to bend and yield to outside forces rather than shattering) collagen health is critically important for bone health.

In modern society, we are often deficient in those amino acids because of widespread stomach acid deficiency19 (which impairs our ability to metabolize protein into amino acids) and us predominantly consuming softer cuts of meat which lack the collagen building amino acids found in tougher parts of meat (e.g., gristle).

Note: Colleagues such as Dr. Mercola have found consuming 30g – 40g of collagen each day sourced from beef knee joints is an optimal amino acid repletion protocol and in a short period of time significantly improves bone health (along with often improving a variety of related factors such as one’s height and one’s metabolic health).
Minerals — Dietary intake of minerals such as boron and manganese20 is crucial for bone strength, and deficiencies can impair bone health. Factors like stomach acid deficiency21 and soil depletion contribute to mineral deficiencies.

Note: The widespread deficiency of manganese in the population is in part due to it being chelated from the soil by glyphosate (Roundup).22

Manganese serves an essential role in building collagen, so when it is deficient, it frequently creates systemic ligamentous laxity,23 and in turn hypermobile patients such as those with EDS (who tend to be highly sensitive and susceptible to pharmaceutical injuries) notice a significant improvement in their ligamentous strength after a few months of appropriately dose manganese.24
Water fluoridation — While fluoride increases bone density, it may compromise bone health and function. Some studies link fluoride to osteomalacia and increased fracture risk.25
Pharmaceutical drugs — Medications like glucocorticoid steroids26 (e.g., prednisone) and opioids can weaken bones27 and increase fracture risk.

Note: Glucocorticoid induced bone loss is so severe it’s actually one of the few approved indications for bisphosphonate treatment.28
Environmental toxins — Exposure to toxins like organophosphates, bisphenol A, nicotine, and heavy metals inhibits bone formation and contributes to osteoporosis.29
Parathyroid adenomas — These tumors cause excessive secretion of parathyroid hormone, leading to calcium depletion from bones, bone loss, and a range of symptoms. Surprisingly, despite being a well-known condition, parathyroid adenomas are frequently missed. Identifying persistently elevated blood calcium levels can serve as a key indicator, prompting further investigation into a parathyroid adenomas.

Note: Chinese Medicine has connected the age-related loss of the kidney’s vitality to bone loss for thousands of years. Many attribute this to the kidneys crucial role in regulating vitamin D and the blood levels of the minerals bone is composed of (e.g., calcium).

I suspect their regulation of the physiologic zeta potential (the decline of which is a key cause of aging) is also key. That is because zeta potential30 governs the tendency for blood to flow freely or clump together, and the hard exterior bone blood vessels must pass through makes them more susceptible to their blood supply becoming interrupted (e.g., from the bone moving out of place).

Conclusion

It’s fascinating to realize that bone is far more than just a structural component; it’s a living tissue with its own dynamic behavior. When I’ve had the opportunity to handle bone directly, such as during orthopedic surgeries, it’s evident how different it is from the lifeless bones we typically encounter. Unfortunately, this experience is rare, leading many to see bone as inert and unchanging.

The points I’ve discussed in this article are founded on the importance of recognizing bone’s vitality and understanding how our interactions with it shape our health and longevity. Ancient medical traditions, like Chinese medicine, appreciated this aspect of bone health. They saw it as integral to overall well-being, acknowledging its interconnectedness with the body’s systems.

By embracing this perspective, we can gain new insights into bone health and its significance for holistic healthcare. It’s my hope that this article sheds light on the dynamic nature of bones and encourages a deeper understanding of their role in our health journey.

Author’s note: This is an abridged version of a longer article on the subject which discusses the above points in more detail and many others such as our other preferred approaches for improving bone health. That article and its additional references can be read here.

A Note From Dr. Mercola About the Author

A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician in the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate his exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and I’m grateful to share them. I also respect his desire to remain anonymous as he is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.

Posted in Bisphosphonates, Bones, DEXA, Vaccinations, Vitamins | No Comments »

Posted by: | Posted on: April 24, 2024

HIV mRNA Vaccines Continue to Fail in Clinical Trials


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/04/24/hiv-mrna-vaccine-clinical-trials.aspx

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola     April 24, 2024

hiv mrna vaccine clinical trials

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The most recent mRNA failure was a phase 1 trial of Moderna’s mRNA human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) injection
  • Larger trials were halted after a high rate of “puzzling skin side effects” occurred
  • In a series of phase 1 trials, 7% to 18% of participants who received the experimental mRNA shots experienced skin reactions, including hives, itchiness or hives caused by scratching
  • Skin reactions can be an “early warning radar for general immune response” indicative of a greater problem
  • Although all HIV mRNA shots have failed to pass even the initial trials, we’re to believe COVID-19 mRNA shots passed safety and efficacy studies with flying colors and the technology is thereby “proven” safe and effective

Messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines are being described as a “new era in vaccinology.”1 Research is underway to develop mRNA shots for not only coronaviruses but also C. difficile, hepatitis C, influenza, malaria, norovirus, cancer and more2 — despite the fact that all mRNA shots are likely ineffective and/or dangerous.

The most recent mRNA failure was a phase 1 trial of Moderna’s mRNA human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) injection. Larger trials were halted after a high rate of “puzzling skin side effects” occurred.

“We are taking this very seriously,” Carl Dieffenbach, head of the Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), told Science.3 Although all HIV mRNA shots have failed to pass even the initial trials, researchers plan to repeat the phase 1 trial using a lower dose.

High Rates of Skin Reactions Halt HIV mRNA Shot Trials

Trials of mRNA-based HIV immunogens are being conducted in partnership by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), Moderna, the HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.4

In a series of phase 1 trials, 7% to 18% of participants5 who received the experimental shots experienced skin reactions, including hives, itchiness or hives caused by scratching. In a news release, IAVI largely downplayed the concerning outcome, stating:6

“Most of these events were mild or moderate, and managed with simple allergy medications. There were no serious adverse events reported. Participants who experienced skin events were provided all medical care necessary and were monitored closely.

IAVI and partners are actively working to investigate the potential causes of these skin events. We have brought in an interdisciplinary team of external experts, including allergists and immunologists, to further assess the skin events.

In the interest of transparency and clarity, IAVI and partners have presented preliminary data on immune responses and safety at scientific conferences and look forward to continuing our discussion of these results.”

However, the setback highlights the continued failures in the race to create an mRNA HIV shot. “We would be moving more quickly if this finding had not been observed,” IAVI head Mark Feinberg told Science.7

Problems Plague mRNA HIV Shots

To create the shot, researchers have been injecting “different mRNAs, encoding various pieces of HIV’s surface protein or the entire molecule, over the course of several months.”8 The idea is to trigger the creation of broadly neutralizing antibodies, or bNAbs.

BNAbs are immune system proteins that have the unique ability to fight a wide range of strains of a virus. In terms of HIV, bNAbs are of particular interest because HIV is highly variable, with numerous strains circulating globally. Derek Lowe, a medicinal chemist, wrote:9

“Moderna has been working for some years now on a possible HIV vaccine using their mRNA technology, which is an ambitious goal. There have been numerous attempts at this over the decades, and needless to say none of them have worked out yet. There is almost certainly not going to be a single-shot vaccine targeting a single antigen — the situation is too complex for that.

Since the virus comes in many different strains, the hope has been that some sort of more comprehensive vaccine protocol might be able to induce broadly neutralizing antibodies that could take on all comers.”

Most antibodies target specific virus strains, but bNAbs can neutralize many strains of HIV, making them a powerful tool in the fight against this virus. While people with HIV sometimes develop their own bNAbs, no vaccine has done so.10

The idea in creating bNAbs through mRNA technology for HIV is to deliver instructions for creating proteins that resemble parts of the HIV envelope. This would, in theory, stimulate the immune system to produce bNAbs that can neutralize a wide range of HIV strains, offering a broad protection against the virus. As reported by Bloomberg:11

“Creating an mRNA vaccine for HIV is trickier than making the kind of SARS-CoV-2 shots we’ve become familiar with. The mRNA COVID vaccines deliver the recipe for the spike protein … This causes immune cells to produce neutralizing antibodies against COVID, much as they would do if they had experienced a COVID infection.

With HIV, there’s no such simple recipe. HIV’s equivalent to the spike protein — its envelope glycoprotein — is wilier. It hides its vulnerable aspects, making it difficult for immune cells to generate antibodies against it. An even bigger problem is that HIV starts to mutate within hours of infecting someone …

HIV behaves like ‘a swarm of slightly different viruses’ … People with HIV rarely develop neutralizing antibodies, and in the very few who do, the antibodies take years to evolve — far too long for them to effectively fight the virus. The immune system can’t keep up.

But what if the immune system could be given a head start? That’s the idea behind the Moderna/IAVI vaccine … The researchers will administer a series of shots to try to coax the immune system along that years-long process ahead of time so that when it is exposed to HIV, it can spring into action.”

Save This Article for Later – Get the PDF Now

Download PDF

Skin Problems May Be Early Warning for an Immune Response

While the Moderna HIV shot reportedly generated “impressive antibodies that were moving toward bNAbs,”12 the high rate of skin problems it triggered are suggestive of a greater problem. Lowe went so far as to describe them as an “early warning radar for general immune response”:13

“A significant number of vaccine recipients (ten to fifteen percent in some cases) have shown various sorts of skin reactions (hives, etc.) These almost always resolve, but it is a warning.

Skin reactions are sort of an early warning radar for general immune response (thus the skin tests for various allergens), and the worry is that these might well become worse on further dosing (or be harbingers of other immune problems in different organ systems). It’s definitely worth a closer look.

I have to point out that this side effect rate is much higher than has been seen with the coronavirus mRNA vaccines (thus the alarm bells), but skin reactions are not unknown there, either … No one is quite sure if it’s the mRNA species themselves that set off the response here, or if it’s something about the formulation (the lipid nanoparticles).”

“Potentially more worrisome, however, would be if the problem is tied to a cumulative effect from multiple mRNA shots,” Science reported.14 It’s important to point out that while all HIV mRNA shots have failed, we’re to believe COVID-19 mRNA shots passed safety and efficacy studies with flying colors and the technology is thereby “proven” safe and effective.

But as noted by Canadian oncologist and cancer researcher Dr. William Makis, “The more mRNA shots you take, the greater the immune system damage, the greater your risk of impaired cancer surveillance and hence, the greater your risk of turbo cancer.”15

Turbo cancers is a term used to describe the emergence of rapid-growing cancers in people, many under age 30, who have received one or more COVID jabs — another warning that mRNA shots aren’t as safe as we’ve been led to believe. Makis tweeted:16

“Unfortunately, the entire LNP/mRNA Vaccine field is a fraud. It’s a failed technology with an unacceptably terrible side effect profile. The entire field now depends on the suppression of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine injuries & deaths, which are now in the millions (5.3 million in WHO VigiAccess alone), so we are no longer dealing with scientists but con artists …

They are trying to find “novel” ways to market a failed technology platform and sneak failed vaccine products onto the market. The Moderna HIV mRNA Vaccine is such a product … And yes, they are moving forward, despite 20% of HIV mRNA Vaccine Victims developing skin rashes in Phase I trials. Moderna will repeat the Phase I trials with a slightly lower dose. The poisonings will continue until vaccine injuries improve.”

All mRNA Shots Likely Ineffective, Dangerous

While the latest HIV mRNA shot trial showed a risk of side effects, others have shown the shots don’t work. One clinical trial conducted by the NIAID-funded HIV Vaccine Clinical Trials Network began in 2019 and involved 3,900 participants. The experimental HIV vaccine regimen used in the study was developed by Janssen, the vaccine division of Johnson & Johnson, and did not provide protection against HIV, leading the study to be discontinued.17

“The vaccine used the same antigen delivery system employed by J&J’s COVID-19 vaccine, a common cold virus known as adenovirus 26,” Stat News reported, and at least five others have also failed. While the Janssen HIV shot was not mRNA, the HIV Vaccine Trials Network continued to point to mRNA technology as a potential solution.18 However, mRNA shots are inherently problematic.

For instance, Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 shots also instruct cells to produce additional “off-target” proteins that could pose significant health risks. Ribosomes decode mRNA in cells, but about 8% of the time those in COVID-19 shots may misread the coded instructions, Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., a former medical scientist with the University of Adelaide and former reporter for ABC News in Australia, explains:19

“The researchers say that ribosomes, which are responsible for decoding the mRNA in cells, can slip and misread the coded instructions about 8% of the time – known as ‘ribosomal frameshifting.’ They say the ‘glitch’ has to do with how the mRNA in the vaccine has been genetically modified.

Unlike naturally-occurring mRNA, the mRNA that exists in the vaccines has had a ‘uridine’ base replaced with a ‘N1-methyl pseudouridine’ (to stabilise it) and unfortunately, has made it prone to reading errors.”

In May 2021, I interviewed Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT for over five decades, about the likely hazards of replacing the uracil in the RNA used in the COVID shots with synthetic methylpseudouridine.20 This process of substituting letters in the genetic code is known as codon optimization, which is known to be problematic.

At the time, Seneff predicted the shots would cause a rise in prion diseases, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases at younger ages, blood disorders and heart failure, and one of the primary reasons for this is because they genetically manipulated the RNA in the shots with synthetic methylpseudouridine, which enhances RNA stability by inhibiting its breakdown.

Researchers at Cambridge University and the Universities of Kent, Oxford and Liverpool, then discovered21 that the use of methylpseudouridine results in a high rate of ribosomal “frameshifting,” which causes your cells to produce off-target proteins with unknown effects.

Further, in a 2023 preprint study, microbiologist Kevin McKernan — a former researcher and team leader for the MIT Human Genome project22 — and colleagues assessed the nucleic acid composition of four expired vials of the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots.

“DNA contamination that exceeds the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 330ng/mg requirement and the FDAs 10ng/dose requirements” was found.23 So, in addition to the spike protein and mRNA in COVID-19 shots, McKernan’s team discovered SV40 promoters that, for decades, have been suspected of causing cancer in humans.24

Injured by an mRNA COVID Jab? Here’s Help

It’s important to be wary of any new mRNA shots that come on the market and carefully weigh if the risks outweigh the reported benefits before getting on. However, if you’ve already had one or more COVID-19 shots, there are steps you can take to repair from the assault on your system.

Remember, the more mRNA shots you take, the greater the immune system damage. So, the first step is to avoid getting anymore mRNA jabs. Next, if you’ve developed any unusual symptoms, seek out help from an expert. The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) also has a treatment protocol for post-jab injuries. It’s called I-RECOVER and can be downloaded from covid19criticalcare.com.25

Dr. Pierre Kory, who cofounded the FLCCC, has transitioned to treating the vaccine injured more or less exclusively. For more information, visit DrPierreKory.com. Board-certified internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough is also investigating post-jab treatments, which you can find on PeterMcCulloughMD.com.

Posted in Cancer, Corruption, HIV, mRNA, Vaccinations, Virus | No Comments »

Posted by: | Posted on: April 20, 2024

WHO Cancer Agency Predicts 77% Rise in Cancers by 2050


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/04/17/rising-cancer-rates.aspx

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola     April 17, 2024

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer estimates more than 35 million new cancer cases in 2050
  • This represents a 77% increase from the estimated 20 million cancer cases that occurred in 2022
  • WHO blamed the rising cancer rates on an aging population, along with tobacco, alcohol, obesity and exposure to air pollution
  • WHO ignored the emergence of rapid-growing “turbo cancers” in people who have received one or more COVID-19 shots
  • Many of these cancers are showing up in young people, many under age 30, with no family history of cancer; treatment protocols are available to help recover from post-jab injuries

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a daunting prediction of the global cancer burden. It estimates more than 35 million new cancer cases in 2050 — a 77% increase from the estimated 20 million cancer cases that occurred in 2022.1

While WHO named an aging population as a key driver behind the increasing cancer burden, along with tobacco, alcohol, obesity and exposure to air pollution, what they’re ignoring is the concerning trend of turbo cancers that occur shortly after COVID-19 shots.

Cancer Cases Set to Increase Significantly by 2050

The IARC cancer burden estimates are based on the “best sources of data available in [185] countries in 2022.”2 That year, there were an estimated 20 million new cancer cases and 9.7 million deaths, with WHO reporting, “About 1 in 5 people develop cancer in their lifetime, approximately 1 in 9 men and 1 in 12 women die from the disease.”3

About two-thirds of the new cancer cases and deaths were caused by 10 types of cancer. Lung cancer was most common, followed by female breast cancer, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer and stomach cancer. When broken down by sex, breast cancer was the most commonly diagnosed — and the leading cause of cancer death — among women. For men, it was lung cancer.

Lung cancer and colorectal cancer accounted for the second and third most diagnosed types and cause of most deaths among women. However, for men, prostate and colorectal cancers were second and third most common, while liver and colorectal cancer caused the second and third most cancer deaths.4

There were also disparities revealed based on human development index (HDI), a statistical tool that assesses three dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, access to knowledge (schooling) and a decent standard of living. According to WHO:5

“In terms of the absolute burden, high HDI countries are expected to experience the greatest absolute increase in incidence, with an additional 4.8 million new cases predicted in 2050 compared with 2022 estimates. Yet the proportional increase in incidence is most striking in low HDI countries (142% increase) and in medium HDI countries (99%). Likewise, cancer mortality in these countries is projected to almost double in 2050.”

What’s Driving Up Cancer Rates?

WHO blamed the projected cancer burden increase on a combination of age and environmental factors, stating:6

“The rapidly growing global cancer burden reflects both population ageing and growth, as well as changes to people’s exposure to risk factors, several of which are associated with socioeconomic development. Tobacco, alcohol and obesity are key factors behind the increasing incidence of cancer, with air pollution still a key driver of environmental risk factors.”

But it did not mention the emergence of rapid-growing cancers of the breast, colon, esophagus, kidney, liver, pancreas, bile duct, brain, lung and blood — including exceedingly rare types of cancer. As noted by Canadian oncologist and cancer researcher Dr. William Makis in the Highwire interview above,7 these cancers are showing up in young people, many under age 30, with no family history of cancer.

They’re showing up in pregnant women and young children. Equally odd is the fact that most are Stage 3 or 4 by the time they’re diagnosed, with symptoms arising only days or weeks before. The cancers grow and spread so rapidly, many of these patients die before treatment can even begin. Most of them are also resistant to conventional treatment.

The phenomenon has become common enough that the term “turbo cancers” was coined to describe these rapid-growing cancers in people who have received one or more COVID jabs.

Save This Article for Later – Get the PDF Now

Download PDF

Turbo Cancer Cases Reported Following COVID-19 Shots

In a case report described by board-certified internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough and colleagues, basaloid carcinoma, a type of aggressive cancer, developed in a 56-year-old man shortly after he received an mRNA COVID-19 shot.

Early symptoms, which began just four days after the jab, were similar to those caused by Bell’s palsy, and involved head pain — but soon a tumor developed on his ear and face. According to the study:8

“We place this within the context of multiple immune impairments potentially related to the mRNA injections that would be expected to potentiate more aggressive presentation and progression of cancer. The type of malignancy we describe suggests a population risk for occurrence of a large variety of relatively common basaloid phenotype cancer cells, which may have the potential for metastatic disease.

… Since facial paralysis/pain is one of the more common adverse neurological events following mRNA injection, careful inspection of cutaneous/soft tissue should be conducted to rule out malignancy.”

This is just one example. Another case report, published in Frontiers in Medicine,9 also found a “rapid progression” of angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) — a rare type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) — following an mRNA COVID booster shot. AITL is a cancer that affects the lymph system, primarily involving T-cells, a type of white blood cell that plays a crucial role in the immune system.

“Since nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines strongly activate T follicular helper cells, it is important to explore the possible impact of approved SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines on neoplasms affecting this cell type,” the study notes.10

The cancer occurred in a 66-year-old man, mere days after he got his third Pfizer shot. Ironically, he got the shot to protect him during chemotherapy, and in eight days, the cancer just exploded and spread like wildfire.

According to Makis, that kind of progression would normally take a couple of years, or at least a few months. “Such a rapid evolution would be highly unexpected in the natural course in the disease,” according to the study.11

How Might COVID-19 Shots Trigger Cancer?

In May 2021, I interviewed Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT for over five decades, about the likely hazards of replacing the uracil in the RNA used in the COVID shots with synthetic methylpseudouridine.12 Uracil is one of the four nucleobases in the nucleic acid of RNA that are represented by the letters A, G, C and U.

This process of substituting letters in the genetic code is known as codon optimization, which is known to be problematic.

At the time, Seneff predicted the shots would cause a rise in prion diseases, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases at younger ages, blood disorders and heart failure, and one of the primary reasons for this is because they genetically manipulated the RNA in the shots with synthetic methylpseudouridine, which enhances RNA stability by inhibiting its breakdown.

But when substituting parts of the code in this way, the resulting protein can easily get misfolded, and this has been linked to a variety of chronic diseases,13 including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease and heart failure.14 As explained by Makis, the pseudouridine insertion can also suppress your innate immune surveillance by dampening the activity of toll-like receptors, and one downstream effect of that is reduced cancer surveillance.

“The more mRNA shots you take, the greater the immune system damage, the greater your risk of impaired cancer surveillance and hence, the greater your risk of turbo cancer,” Makis says.

DNA Contamination Discovered in COVID Shots

In a preprint study, microbiologist Kevin McKernan — a former researcher and team leader for the MIT Human Genome project15 — and colleagues assessed the nucleic acid composition of four expired vials of the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots. “DNA contamination that exceeds the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 330ng/mg requirement and the FDAs 10ng/dose requirements” was found.16

So, in addition to the spike protein and mRNA in COVID-19 shots, McKernan’s team discovered simian virus 40 (SV40) promoters that, for decades, have been suspected of causing cancer in humans, including mesotheliomas, lymphomas and cancers of the brain and bone.17

Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo, called for an end to the use of COVID-19 mRNA shots, citing concerns about DNA fragments in the products.18 In a December 6, 2023, letter sent to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Ladapo outlined findings showing the presence of lipid nanoparticle complexes and the SV40 promoter/enhancer DNA.

While there are limits on how much DNA can be in a vaccine due to concern over DNA integration, the guidelines don’t consider lipid nanoparticles and other factors in COVID-19 shots that could enhance how much DNA can enter a cell.

“Lipid nanoparticles are an efficient vehicle for delivery of the mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines into human cells and may therefore be an equally efficient vehicle for delivering contaminant DNA into human cells.

The presence of SV40 promoter/enhancer DNA may also pose a unique and heightened risk of DNA integration into human cells,” according to a news release from the Florida Department of Health (DOH).19 Further, according to the Florida DOH, the FDA’s own 2007 guidance states:20

  • “DNA integration could theoretically impact a human’s oncogenes – the genes which can transform a healthy cell into a cancerous cell.
  • DNA integration may result in chromosomal instability.
  • The Guidance for Industry discusses biodistribution of DNA vaccines and how such integration could affect unintended parts of the body including blood, heart, brain, liver, kidney, bone marrow, ovaries/testes, lung, draining lymph nodes, spleen, the site of administration and subcutis at injection site.”

How to Recover From Post-Jab Injury

If you’ve had a COVID-19 shot, there are steps you can take to repair from the assault on your system. Remember, the more mRNA shots you take, the greater the immune system damage. So, the first step is to avoid getting anymore COVID jabs. Next, if you’ve developed any unusual symptoms, seek out help from an expert.

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) also has a treatment protocol for post-jab injuries. It’s called I-RECOVER and can be downloaded from covid19criticalcare.com.21

Dr. Pierre Kory, who cofounded the FLCCC, has transitioned to treating the vaccine injured more or less exclusively. For more information, visit DrPierreKory.com. McCullough is also investigating post-jab treatments, which you can find on PeterMcCulloughMD.com.

The World Health Council has also published lists of remedies that can help inhibit, neutralize and eliminate spike protein, which most experts agree is a primary culprit. I covered these in my 2021 article, “World Council for Health Reveals Spike Protein Detox.”

Posted in Cancer, Coronavirus, Corruption, DNA, Vaccinations, WHO | One Comment »

Posted by: | Posted on: April 14, 2024

4x Vaccinated Youth 318% More Likely to Die Than Unvaxxed Peers


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/04/13/covid-vaccine-mortality-rate-youth.aspx

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola     April 13, 2024

covid vaccine mortality rate youth

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Young people who received multiple COVID jabs were significantly more likely to die than those who skipped the shots, according to data from the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics
  • An analysis by The Exposé revealed that, in February 2023, those who received four COVID-19 shots had a 318% higher mortality rate than the unvaccinated group
  • The other months analyzed showed four-shot teens and youth were between 221% and 290% more likely to die than those who didn’t get the shot
  • Another study found that, compared to unvaccinated children, vaccinated children had significantly higher rates of asthma, allergies, eczema, respiratory infections, behavioral issues and other health conditions
  • Separate research showed “for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA [COVID-19] injections”

Young people who received multiple COVID jabs were significantly more likely to die than those who skipped the shots, according to data from the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS).1,2 The data include deaths by vaccination status from April 1, 2021, to May 31, 2023, when the COVID-19 shot campaign was in full effect.

When The Exposé analyzed the data, they revealed the disturbing finding that those with the most COVID-19 shots fared the worst:3

“Our analysis focused on mortality rates per 100,000 person-years from January to May 2023 among residents in England aged 18 to 39, and what we found is truly shocking. Initial observations of the data prove that individuals in this age bracket who had received four doses of a COVID-19 vaccine exhibited higher mortality rates compared to their unvaccinated counterparts.”

Mortality Rate 318% Higher Among Quadruple-Jabbed Youth

As noted by Canadian oncologist and cancer researcher Dr. William Makis, “The more mRNA shots you take, the greater the immune system damage,” which can lead to a host of health problems, not the least of which is a greater risk of impaired cancer surveillance and turbo cancer.4

The Exposé analysis suggests multiple shots also raise mortality rates among those aged 18 to 39 years. In every month, those who received four COVID-19 shots were significantly more likely to die than those who hadn’t received any. In January 2023, for instance, those who never received a COVID-19 shot had a mortality rate of 31.1 per 100,000 person-years.

But among the quadruple jabbed, the rate was 106 per 100,000 person-years. Even among those who had received one COVID-19 shot, the mortality rate was much higher than the unvaccinated at 53.3 per 100,000 person-years that month. According to The Exposé:5

“For the remaining months, unvaccinated teens and young adults mortality rate remained within the 20-something per 100,000 person-years. Whereas four-dose vaccinated teens and young adults’ mortality rates only went as low as 80.9 per 100,00 in April and remained within 85 to 106 per 100,000 for the remaining months.

The January to May average mortality rate per 100,000 person-years was 26.56 for unvaccinated teens and young adults and a shocking 94.58 per 100,000 for four-dose vaccinated teens and young adults. Meaning on average, the four-dose vaccinated were 256% more likely to die than the unvaccinated based on mortality rates per 100,000.”

In February 2023, however, those who received four COVID-19 shots had a 318% higher mortality rate than the unvaccinated group. The other months showed four-shot teens and youth were between 221% and 290% more likely to die than those who didn’t get the shot.6

“These figures are extremely worrying and strongly suggest that Covid-19 vaccination increases a person’s mortality rate, which in turn suggests Covid-19 vaccination may actually be killing teens and young adults in the tens of thousands,” The Exposé reported.7

COVID-19 Shots Killed More People Than They Saved

Other research has reached similar conclusions that mRNA COVID shots may be deadly. A now-retracted narrative review published in the journal Cureus called for a global moratorium on mRNA COVID-19 shots,8 citing significant increases in serious adverse events among those who received the injections, along with an “unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio.”9

When factoring in absolute risk and the “number needed to vaccinate” (NNV), a metric used to quantify how many people need to be vaccinated to prevent one additional case of a specific disease, the review found “for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”10

As for why the paper was retracted, study author Steve Kirsch said, “It’s about supporting the narrative.”11 Board-certified internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, another of the paper’s authors, called the retraction a “stunning act of scientific censorship.”12

In addition to calling for a global moratorium on mRNA COVID-19 shots, the authors of the paper — M. Nathaniel Mead, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., Russ Wolfinger, Ph.D., Jessica Rose, Ph.D. Kris Denhaerynck, Ph.D., Kirsch and McCullough — said the shots should be immediately removed from the childhood vaccine schedule, while boosters should also be suspended.

“It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from Covid-19 but a well-established 2.2 percent risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available,” the paper notes.13

The moratorium is warranted based on the shots’ risks of serious adverse events, the mechanisms behind those adverse events, mortality data and issues with inefficacy, vaccine control and processing.14 According to the review:15

“Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits.

Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs [serious adverse events] and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.”

Save This Article for Later – Get the PDF Now

Download PDF

Are Unvaxxed Children Healthier Than Vaxxed?

Another study that runs counter to the narrative was also retracted. The research, by Dr. Paul Thomas, who had his medical license suspended after he became widely known for supporting informed consent for vaccinations, and James Lyons-Weiler, with The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK), analyzed data spanning a 10-year period within a pediatric practice.

It focused on comparing health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.16 The data showed vaccinated children had significantly higher rates of:17

Asthma Allergies
Eczema Sinusitis
Gastroenteritis Respiratory infections
Middle ear infection Conjunctivitis
Breathing issues Behavioral issues

Further, none of the 561 children who were not vaccinated had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), while 0.063% of partially and fully vaccinated children did. “The implications of these results for the net public health effects of whole-population vaccination and with respect for informed consent on human health are compelling,” they wrote.18

The study also points out that the rate of autism spectrum disorder in their practice was half that of the U.S. national average (0.84% versus 1.69%). The rate of ADHD in the practice was also about half the national rate. According to the authors, “The data indicate that unvaccinated children in the practice are not unhealthier than the vaccinated and indeed the overall results may indicate that the unvaccinated pediatric patients in this practice are healthier overall than the vaccinated.”19

The researchers call for more studies on this topic to be done independently from the vaccine industry, emphasizing the need for unbiased research in understanding the impact of vaccinations on children’s health. Canadian oncologist and cancer researcher Dr. William Makis explained:20

“The results were not even remotely close in comparison. It is a total knockout. If you listened to the TV Media you would think that results would be just the opposite of these findings. There is a reason in 100 years of Vaccinating Children there have NEVER been retrospective studies.

Don’t you want to see 5-, 10-, 15- or even 20-year studies of the vaxxed vs unvaxxed? Wouldn’t that be VERY Helpful? Why has there never been any studies like this?

They would 100% PROVE without Shadow of a Doubt that not only do Vaccines NOT prevent infections and transmission but they are severely harming children – especially for Allergies, Middle Ear Infections, Autism, Breathing issues, Sinusitis, Respiratory Infections, Eye Infections, Gastroenteritis, Eczema and Behavioral issues.

IF Vaccines PREVENT Infections then why are infections Significantly Higher in all of Dr. Thomas’ vaccinated children? These are serious life changing chronic conditions. Vaccines shift the immune system to Allergy and Autoimmunity, and you have more and more infections of other kinds.

In short, what does this mean? It means that Vaxcines DESTROY a Child’s Immune System, every vax is different with different live viruses and toxins and they will really hit a child with a weaker immune system first.”

Other Studies Show Health Issues More Common in Vaxxed Children

While the mainstream narrative only shares the notion that “vaccines are safe and effective,” several studies have shown this isn’t always the case. One study looked at health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children from three medical practices in the U.S.21

Vaccinated children were much more likely to have several health issues compared to unvaccinated children. Specifically, the chances of being diagnosed with severe allergies, autism, gastrointestinal disorders, asthma, ADHD and chronic ear infections were significantly higher for vaccinated children.

For example, vaccinated children had over four times the risk of severe allergies and over 20 times the risk of ADHD compared to unvaccinated children. The vaccinated children who were not breastfed or delivered by cesarean section had the highest risk of negative health outcomes.

Another study found that children vaccinated before their first birthday had a higher chance of experiencing developmental delays, asthma and ear infections.22 The more vaccine doses the children received, the higher their risk for these health issues became. Further, when the scientists looked at developmental delays over time, the risk increased as children got older, from 6 months up to 24 months of age.

The risk for four health conditions — developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders — also increased when they extended the age for possible diagnosis from at least 3 years to at least 5 years. In another example, researchers looked into the health of U.S. children who are homeschooled, comparing those who had been vaccinated with those who hadn’t.23

While the vaccinated children were less likely to have had chickenpox or whooping cough (pertussis), they were more likely to have had pneumonia, ear infections, allergies, and neurodevelopmental disorders such as a learning disability, ADHD or autism.

A particularly high risk of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) was found in children who were both born prematurely and vaccinated, with these children being 6.6 times more likely to have NDDs compared to other children.

The fact that no link was found between premature birth and NDDs among the unvaccinated raises the disturbing possibility that the vaccination schedule for premature babies could be responsible for the neurological disorders some premature babies exhibit, which have been previously assumed to be simply a result of premature birth.

Past research published in the journal Human & Experimental Toxicology also showed infant mortality rates correlated with childhood vaccination rates, with high-uptake countries having higher child mortality.24 A reanalysis of the study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cureus in February 2023, reaffirmed the positive correlation between number of vaccine doses and infant mortality rates.25

As it stands, the childhood vaccine schedule shouldn’t be considered safe and effective for all — and mRNA COVID-19 shots’ association with increased mortality and other significant health issues should give everyone pause. If you’ve developed unusual symptoms after a COVID-19 shot or other vaccination, seek out help from an expert.

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) also has a treatment protocol for COVID-19 shot injuries. It’s called I-RECOVER and can be downloaded from covid19criticalcare.com.26

Sources and References

Posted in Coronavirus, Corruption, Vaccinations | No Comments »

Posted by: | Posted on: April 12, 2024

Scientists Warn Bird Flu Outbreak Could Be 100 Times Worse Than COVID


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/04/09/bird-flu-outbreak-could-be-worse-than-covid.aspx

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola     April 09, 2024

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Historical concerns about the lethality of bird flu to humans have consistently proven unfounded, with no recorded deaths in the U.S. from such outbreaks, despite significant government spending and public warnings in the past
  • Recent discussions around “global biosecurity” and the potential for disease outbreaks to foster a totalitarian world government have intensified. A weaponized bird flu could be the next major threat
  • Recent cases of bird flu affecting various mammals, including livestock and pets, suggest the virus may be adapting to new hosts, raising alarms about its potential impact on humans
  • In March 2024, the first case of bird flu in livestock was found in a goat in Minnesota. That same month, infected cows were identified in Kansas, Texas, New Mexico, Idaho and Michigan. Three cats have also reportedly died from H5N1 infection, and one individual who came into close contact with infected cows has tested positive after presenting with conjunctivitis (pink eye)
  • Current countermeasures against bird flu, such as culling infected and exposed animals, hinder the development of natural immunity. Smaller flock sizes and better management would also reduce the disease risk

So far, every instance of fearmongering about the possibility of a lethal bird flu has turned out to be false. That’s why I wrote my New York Times best-selling book “The Great Bird Flu Hoax,” 15 years ago in 2009. Four years earlier, in 2005, then-President George Bush spent over $7 billion dollars on preparations and warned that more than 2 million Americans could die.1

The reality is that no one in the U.S. died from bird flu. Not one. Annual outbreaks of bird flu were also recorded and hyped between 2014 and 2017, again with no human victims.2

Fast-forward a couple of decades, and “global biosecurity” has become one of the primary tactics chosen to usher in a totalitarian One World Government. COVID-19 was just the warmup. I’ve repeatedly stated that more outbreaks, be they real or imagined, are to be expected for that very reason. The only question, really, is which pathogen it will be.

Is Weaponized Bird Flu Next?

In the spring of 2022, Bill Gates warned that another pandemic will emerge, and that this yet-to-come pandemic “will get attention this time.”3 Based on the news chatter emerging right now, a weaponized bird flu seems a possibility.

According to virologists speaking at a White House briefing, the bird flu (H5N1) has mutated to “spread more easily among mammals,” and an outbreak in the human population could be “100 times worse than COVID,” killing up to half of those infected.4 As reported by MSN on April 3, 2024:5

“Multiple cases of the infection in a variety of mammals, including cows, cats and, more recently, humans, are all raising the risk of the virus mutating to become more transmissible …

But others at the briefing said it was too early to panic because there were still too many unknowns about recent cases to warrant sounding the alarm. A White House representative said today it was tracking bird flu in the U.S.”

A graphic by the Daily Mail purporting to illustrate how bird flu is “edging closer to human spillover” lists the following cases:6

• Mammals infected with bird flu since 2022 include fox, bobcat, striped skunk, racoon and coyote

• In March 2024, the first case of bird flu in livestock was found in a goat in Stevens County, Minnesota

• In March 2024, bird flu also sickened cow herds at two dairy farms in Kansas, three dairy farms in the Panhandle, Texas, and one in New Mexico. Unpasteurized milk samples from the sick cows also tested positive for the pathogen. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, bird flu has also been detected in dairy herds in Idaho7 and Michigan.8

According to reports,9 the bird flu strain transmitted between the cows is a new strain, “which signifies the virus could be adapting to mammalian (as opposed to avian) hosts,” MSN writes.10 Incidentally, one of the biggest changes to the H5N1 virus occurred in 2020, when the wild and domestic versions combined to create a new strain11

• In April 2024, bird flu reportedly killed three cats in Texas

By late December 2023, hundreds of elephant seals in Antarctica were also found to have perished from the infection12 and mink farms across Europe were decimated that same year.13 Well over half a million seabirds have also perished from the virus, according to some estimates.14

Current Bird Flu Countermeasures Are the Wrong Approach

In early April 2024, the largest egg producer in the U.S., Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., also halted egg production at a Texas facility after bird flu was detected there. According to a company announcement, 1.6 million egg-laying hens were killed as a precaution, along with 337,000 pullets (3.6% of the total flock).15

But by culling animals whenever a case is detected basically guarantees that natural immunity will never develop. A far saner strategy would be to eliminate the chickens that die from the infection but keep those who survive it alive. An interesting article by regenerative farmer Joel Salatin, in which he discusses the bird flu cycle, was published by Brownstone Institute in mid-March 2023:16

“If thinking people learned only one thing from the COVID pandemic, it was that official government narratives are politically slanted and often untrue. In this latest HPAI [highly pathogenic avian influenza] outbreak, perhaps the most egregious departure from truth is the notion that the birds have died as a result of the disease and that euthanasia for survivors is the best and only option …

To be sure, HPAI is and can be deadly, but it never kills everything. The policy of mass extermination without regard to immunity, without even researching why some birds flourish while all around are dying, is insane. The most fundamental principles of animal husbandry and breeding demand that farmers select for healthy immune systems. We farmers have been doing that for millennia …

But in its wisdom, the US Department of Agriculture … has no interest in selecting, protecting, and then propagating the healthy survivors. The policy is clear and simple: kill everything that ever contacted the diseased birds. The second part of the policy is also simple: find a vaccine to stop HPAI …

The scorched earth policy is the only option even though it doesn’t seem to be working. In fact, the cycles are coming faster and seem to be affecting more birds. Someone ought to question the efficacy.”

Save This Article for Later – Get the PDF Now

Download PDF

Bird Flu Solutions That Make Sense

As noted by Salatin, it’s well-recognized among farmers that cramped quarters and having too many chicken farms too close together, geographically, is the problem. “The USDA and the industry desperately want to blame wild birds, backyard flocks, and dirty shoes rather than looking in the mirror and realizing this is nature’s way of screaming ‘Enough!'” Salatin writes.

The answer is relatively simple. Save birds that survive the infection and breed them. That way, future generations will have natural immunity. “If a flock gets HPAI, let it run its course. It’ll kill the ones it’ll kill but in a few days the survivors will be obvious. Keep those and put them in a breeding program,” Salatin writes.

Secondly, chicken farmers can also ward off epidemics by focusing on optimal herd sizes. For example, wild turkeys stay in flocks of no more than a couple of hundred. Wild pigs rarely exceed groups of 100. For chickens, optimal herd size is about 1,000, according to Salatin. He goes on to explain:

“An elderly poultry industry scientist visited our farm once and told me that if houses would break up chickens into 1,000-bird groups it would virtually eliminate diseases.

He said it was okay to have 10,000 birds in a house as long as they were in 1,000-bird units. That way their social structure can function in a natural interaction. Animals have a hierarchy of bullies and timids. That social structure breaks down above optimal size …

While I don’t want to sound flippant or above HPAI susceptibility, incident rates definitely indicate less vulnerability in well-managed pastured flocks.

Creating an immune-building protocol surely merits research as much as overriding the immune system with vaccines and trying to stay ahead of disease mutations and adaptations with human cleverness. How about humbly seeking nature for solutions rather than relying on hubris?

The parallels between HPAI expert orthodoxy and COVID orthodoxy are too numerous to mention … The HPAI worry feeds food worry, which makes people clamor for government security. People will accept just about anything if they’re afraid … Think it through and then embrace a more natural remedy: well-managed decentralized pastured poultry with appropriate flock sizes.”

Second Human Case of Bird Flu in the US

Within a week of bird flu being found in Texas dairy cows in late March 2024, a Texas resident also tested positive for the virus after coming into close contact with the infected cows. The primary symptom this person experienced was conjunctivitis (pink eye).17 It’s said to be the second human case of avian influenza A(H5N1) in the U.S. No human-to-human transmission has as yet been identified. Citing “federal and state health authorities investigating the outbreak,” MSN reported:18

“Avian influenza A(H5N1) viruses have only rarely been transmitted from person to person … As such, the risk to the general public is believed to be low; however, people with close contact with affected animals suspected of having avian influenza A(H5N1) have a higher risk of infection.”

Symptoms of Bird Flu Infection

According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, symptoms of bird flu infection can include:19

Cough Sore throat Fever and/or chills
Runny or stuffy nose Headache Fatigue
Conjunctivitis (pink eye) Shortness of breath or breathing difficulty Diarrhea
Nausea and/or vomiting Seizures

Severe cases may progress to fulminant pneumonia, respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock and death.

Fingerprints of COVID Are All Over Weaponized Bird Flu

Historically, natural avian influenza (H5N1) never posed a threat to mankind, but then scientists started tinkering with it, creating a hybrid with human pandemic potential.20 Some of that research has been undertaken in Pentagon-funded biolabs in Ukraine.21,22,23

Bill Gates and Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), have also funded gain-of-function research on H5N1.24 One scientist whose work on H5N1 has been funded by both Fauci and Gates is Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka.25

In one experiment, Kawaoka mixed bird flu virus with the Spanish flu virus, resulting in a highly lethal respiratory virus with human transmission capability. Kawaoka has also played around with mixtures of H5N1 and the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) virus, creating an airborne hybrid26,27,28 capable of evading the human immune system, effectively rendering humans defenseless against it,29 and this extremely risky research was done at a biosafety Level 2 lab!30

Fauci also funded the work of virologist Ron Fouchier, a Dutch researcher whose team created an airborne version of the bird flu using a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets.31 So, the bird flu has been manipulated and tinkered with in a variety of different ways, making it both airborne (which it was not initially) and capable of cross-species infection.

In 2012, the work of Kawaoka and Fouchier sparked widespread concern about gain-of-function research, as it was readily recognized that it could accidentally cause a human pandemic.32,33

As a result, the U.S. government issued a temporary ban on gain-of-function research on certain viruses in 2014, which remained in place until December 2017.34 We now know this ban was circumvented by Fauci, who continued to fund gain-of-function research on coronaviruses in China during those years.

It now looks as though weaponized bird flu might eventually be released to achieve the geopolitical aims of the technocratic cabal that is trying to give the World Health Organization a monopoly on pandemic decision-making.

So, if we do end up with a lethal human bird flu, there’s every reason to suspect it was manmade. There’s also every reason to suspect a bird flu vaccine will be either ineffective, hazardous or both. Moderna launched a small human trial for an mRNA shot for avian influenza in the spring of 2023,35 but results have yet to be released.

Inoculate Yourself Against Upcoming Fearmongering

As we move forward, it is vitally important for you to keep an eye on the narratives we’re being fed. If bird flu becomes a human epidemic or pandemic, there are plenty of reasons to suspect it’s a weaponized virus, and the “solution” offered will be the same as that for COVID-19: “Get vaccinated.”

Considering the widespread harm caused by the COVID-19 mRNA shots, can we really trust that fast-tracked bird flu shots will be any safer or more effective? Already, the U.S. and other countries are stockpiling H5N1 vaccine36 “just in case,” which is telling.

While some traditional vaccines are in the lineup, mRNA shots tweaked to target H5N1 are also in the pipeline,37 and they probably won’t need to undergo additional testing over and beyond what was already done for the COVID jabs. As reported by Reuters:38

“Some of the world’s leading makers of flu vaccines say they could make hundreds of millions of bird flu shots for humans within months if a new strain of avian influenza ever jumps across the species divide …

In a pandemic, vaccine manufacturers would shift production of seasonal flu vaccines and instead make shots tailored to the new outbreak when needed …

Many of the potential pandemic shots are pre-approved by regulators, based on data from human trials showing the vaccines are safe and prompt an immune response, a process already used with seasonal flu vaccines.

This means they might not require further human trials, even if they have to be tweaked to better match whichever strain does jump to humans. Data on how well the vaccines actually protect against infection would be gathered in real-time …”

To think that an mRNA-based jab against a weaponized bird flu will be any safer than the shots for COVID-19 would be naïve in the extreme, if you ask me, yet you can be sure we’ll be told otherwise, if bird flu does end up spreading among the human population.

Be Prepared

One of the best things I did in my youth was join the Boy Scouts. Their motto “Be Prepared” has been enormously useful my entire life. Well, it applies to bird flu as well. While we don’t know for sure, as no studies have been done, it is highly likely that many of the same protocols used in early outpatient treatment of COVID will also work for bird flu, since they are both viral respiratory pathogens.

So, as a first basic prevention step, optimize your vitamin D (the ideal range is between 60 ng/ml and 80 ng/ml). Be sure to measure it to confirm, as there is no way to know what your vitamin D level is without doing a blood test.

Summer is nearly here, so ditch your oral vitamin supplement and strip off your clothes and get out in the sun around solar noon, which is 1 p.m. for most people in the U.S. To learn more, download my “Vitamin D in the Prevention of COVID-19” report, available on stopCOVIDcold.com.

In case you do get sick, I would strongly advise you to purchase a nebulizer so that you can nebulize hydrogen peroxide at first signs of symptoms. If you have not previously viewed my Hydrogen Peroxide video below and purchased all the ingredients, you must do so now. If this crisis hits and you do not have a nebulizer you could be out of luck.

More comprehensive prevention and treatment protocols can be downloaded from the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s (FLCCC) website, covid19criticalcare.com.39 They also have a treatment protocol for RSV and influenza. Print them out and make sure you have the basic supplements in your medicine cabinet.

Hydrogen Peroxide Rapidly Inactivates Viruses

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) consists of a water molecule (H2O) with an extra oxygen atom (O2), and it is the additional oxygen atom that allows it to inactivate viral pathogens. Some of your immune cells produce hydrogen peroxide to destroy pathogens. By killing the infected cell, viral reproduction is stopped. So, hydrogen peroxide therapy aids your immune cells to perform their natural function more effectively.

Many studies have investigated the use of hydrogen peroxide against different pathogens. For example, a 2020 review40 of 22 studies found that 0.5% hydrogen peroxide effectively inactivated a range of human coronaviruses, including those responsible for SARS and MERS, within one minute of exposure.

According to Brownstein, all pathogens studied to date have been found to succumb to hydrogen peroxide, albeit at varying concentrations and for different amounts of exposure.

How to Properly Dilute the Peroxide

While you can use virtually any percentage of food grade peroxide, it’s crucial to dilute it properly before use. What you want is a 0.1% dilution, so even a 3% hydrogen peroxide will need to be diluted at least 30 times.

In a pinch, you could use commercial 3% hydrogen peroxide, the stuff used for wound care, but I don’t recommend routine use of it as it contains stabilizing chemicals that can detract from the benefits. Also, you want to dilute the hydrogen peroxide with hypertonic saline, not plain water, as the lack of electrolytes in the water can damage your lungs if you nebulize that. Using saline prevents the osmotic differential that can damage lung cells.

To end up with a final peroxide/hypertonic saline solution concentration of 0.1%, you need to go through two steps:

  1. Create the hypertonic saline solution
  2. Dilute the peroxide

I used to recommend using normal saline, which contains 0.9% salt, but a 2021 study41 found that a 1.5% sodium chloride solution (hypertonic saline) achieved a 100% inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro (in cell culture). Using lower levels of saline, like 1.1%, only inhibited 88%. So, I now recommend using hypertonic saline instead, which would be slightly less than double the amount of salt used to make normal saline.

To make hypertonic (1.5%) saline, simply mix 1.5 teaspoons of high-quality unprocessed salt to one pint of purified or distilled water. Stir until the salt is thoroughly dissolved. Be sure to use proper measuring spoons and not a regular kitchen teaspoon. For even greater precision, you could use a digital scale to measure out exactly 7.1 grams of salt.

If the 1.5% hypertonic solution causes nasal burning, irritation or cough, you can lower the concentration to 0.9% salt, which is isotonic normal saline. For this you would decrease the salt to one level teaspoon to one pint of water. Once you have your saline solution and a food grade hydrogen peroxide, dilute the peroxide according to the following chart, based on the concentration you’re starting with.

peroxide chart

!WARNING:

Food grade peroxide at concentrations of 12% and 36% should NEVER be used full-strength either topically or internally. It MUST be diluted or severe injury can occur. Your safest bet is to use 3% food grade peroxide and dilute it as indicated so you end up with a solution of 0.1%.

Once you have your peroxide-saline solution, simply pour 1 teaspoon of it into the nebulizer and inhale the entire amount. If you like, you can add one drop of 5% Lugol’s iodine solution to the nebulizer as well. Some find it boosts the effects.

I recommend using nebulized peroxide for any suspected respiratory infection, and the earlier you start, the better. If you’re already presenting with a runny nose or sore throat, use the nebulizer for 10 to 15 minutes four times a day until your symptoms are relieved.

You can also use nebulized hydrogen peroxide for prevention and maintenance, which may be advisable during flu season. There is no danger in doing it every day if you’re frequently exposed, and there may even be additional beneficial effects, such as a rapid rise in your blood oxygen level.

Posted in BIOweapons, Coronavirus, Corruption, Flu, Vaccinations | No Comments »

Posted by: | Posted on: April 11, 2024

27% of Saudis in ‘Bombshell’ Study Experienced Heart Issues After mRNA COVID Shots

© April 4, 2024 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc.
Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense?
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense.
Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Reproduced from original article:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mrna-covid-vaccine-cardiac-complications-saudi-arabia
A study from Saudi Arabia reported on by TrialSite News found that 27.11% of participants experienced heart complications following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, with onset ranging from within one month to more than a year later.

By  John-Michael Dumais

covid vaccine ekg sheet

Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender’s Top News of the Day. It’s free.More than a quarter of participants in a study from Saudi Arabia reported cardiac complications after receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, and many of them required hospitalization or intensive care.

The study, led by microbiologist and immunologist Muazzam M. Sheriff and colleagues at Ibn Sina National College for Medical Studies and King Faisal General Hospital, revealed that 27.11% of the surveyed individuals experienced heart-related issues post-COVID-19 vaccination.

The onset of cardiac complications varied among participants, with 14.55% experiencing symptoms within one month of vaccination and others reporting issues up to 12 months or longer.

TrialSite News reported on the “bombshell Saudi Arabian study” on Wednesday.  Founder, Daniel O’Connor, told The Defender that while the study has limitations and was designed to look for cardiac complications, “The rate of hospitalized cases was certainly notable, especially given the existing cardiac (myocarditis/pericarditis) signal associated with the vaccines.”

Cardiologist and epidemiologist Dr. Peter A. McCullough said that in addition to the large number of cardiovascular symptoms warranting hospitalization, 15.8% landed in an intensive care unit (ICU).

“More than half of subjects indicated they were influenced by a healthcare professional or government agency to get vaccinated,” McCullough told The Defender. “Never in recent times has there been such a cardiotoxic vaccine released on the public.”

Highlighting the growing concern surrounding the potential long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccines on cardiovascular health, O’Connor said, “The surge in cardiac-related incidents in the news over the last year or two doesn’t comfort one either.”

 9.45% required medical care for more than 12 months

The Saudi Arabian study, published in the medical journal Cureus, employed a cross-sectional design and recruited 804 participants (379 men, 425 women, ages 18 and above) who had received at least one dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or both — 58 took a different brand).

Nearly 40% took just one shot.

Participants completed a culturally adapted questionnaire covering demographic details, vaccination history, health conditions and perceptions related to the vaccines.

The onset of cardiac complications for the 27.11% of affected participants varied, with 14.55% occurring within one month of vaccination, 6.97% between one and three months, and others experiencing issues up to 12 months or more after receiving the vaccine.

For the 15.8% admitted to critical care units and 11.44% to general hospital wards, inpatient treatment lasted from less than one day to several weeks, with 8.33% spending between four and seven days in the hospital.

Treatment for cardiac complications was ongoing for many participants, with 9.45% receiving medical care for more than 12 months and 7.11% undergoing continuous treatment at the time of the survey.

Sixty-five percent of subjects reported being “neutral,” “somewhat not confident” or “not confident at all” on the safety of mRNA vaccines, while only about 20% said they believed their cardiac symptoms were “strongly related” or “somewhat related” to the vaccines.

The study also found high rates of pre-existing health conditions among the participants, including diabetes (48.26%), hypertension (56.72%), obesity (39.15%) and sedentary lifestyle-related issues (22.14%).

These comorbidities may have contributed to the increased risk of cardiac complications following mRNA vaccination, according to the study authors.

‘Seems like an awfully high rate’

“Despite the bias of recruitment strategy to find patients with cardiovascular side effects from mRNA, these are large percentages requiring hospital and or ICU care,” McCullough said.

“More data are needed on these cases including diagnosis, treatment and outcomes such as recurrent hospitalization and death,” he added.

The study’s authors emphasized the need for further investigation into the specific risk factors and biological mechanisms that may contribute to developing cardiac complications following vaccination.

TrialSite News called it “a strong study in regard to methodology, relevance, and ethical considerations,” noting the authors seemed to “downplay the magnitude of the response,” despite what “seems like an awfully high rate” of cardiac complications.

 

John-Michael Dumais's avatar

John-Michael Dumais

John-Michael Dumais is a news editor for The Defender. He has been a writer and community organizer on a variety of issues, including the death penalty, war, health freedom and all things related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Posted in Coronavirus, Corruption, Heart, mRNA, Vaccinations | No Comments »

Posted by: | Posted on: March 31, 2024

‘Dissolving Illusions’ 10th Anniversary Edition Challenges Vaccine Narratives


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/03/31/dissolving-illusions.aspx

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola     March 31, 2024

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The updated and expanded 10th anniversary edition of “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History,” by Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk, empowers readers with information, encourages critical examination of vaccine policies and advocates for informed consent in medical decisions
  • “Dissolving Illusions” is a seminal book that critically examines vaccine science and history
  • The new edition includes 200 additional pages, offering updated insights and deepening the historical context of vaccine development and its societal impacts
  • The book challenges widely accepted views on vaccines, highlighting discrepancies between public health promises and actual outcomes, including the history of polio and smallpox vaccinations
  • Through extensive research, Humphries and Bystrianyk present evidence suggesting that improvements in sanitation and hygiene, rather than vaccines, played a pivotal role in the decline of certain infectious diseases

In this interview, Dr. Suzanne Humphries discusses the release of the 10th anniversary edition of “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History,” one of my favorite books on vaccines, originally published in 2013. I was honored to write the foreword for the update of this classic.

In that book, Humphries details how vaccine science has been misrepresented to portray them as safe and effective, when in reality they’re neither. The vaccine industry has intentionally deceived us about the risks and benefits to make a profit, with complete disregard for the suffering they cause.

Questioning Vaccines Has Never Been Allowed

Humphries first became aware that vaccines might be problematic when she was working as a nephrologist in northern Maine.

“I was not a pediatrician, so I didn’t come at this from an autism standpoint or from an allergy standpoint,” she says. “I didn’t get to that until later. Early on, it was more about watching my patients who already had kidney failure experience worsening kidney failure after they were vaccinated or watching them bleed out after a biopsy of the kidney after they were vaccinated, because vaccines change your coagulation profile.

That was shown as early as the 1960s by an Italian researcher named Del Campo. He did one of the few studies that really tracked biological indicators and children over days, weeks and months, and found antacid production, inflammatory markers, coagulopathies.

In the end, he said vaccination is a trauma of considerable measure, and it should be undertaken with great caution. And yet, what we’ve seen since then is the addition of more and more vaccines to all of us, not just children …

I was basically watching adults have malignant hypertension, develop proteinuria protein in the urine, really nasty entities that are hard to deal with.”

After a three-year-long struggle with the hospital administration, who refused to listen to any of her concerns, she finally quit in 2011.

“That’s pretty much the history of me, being in the medical system, waking up, thinking that people around me would be interested in the medical literature that I looked at, which they never had looked at,” she says.

“Instead, I was ostracized and pretty much became a pariah. I just didn’t want to be there anymore. So, so I left. But the best decision I ever made was getting free of those golden handcuffs, where you leave medical school with this huge debt, and then you feel like you don’t have a lot of options after that. Pretty much every penny I earned went towards paying off my loans so that I could be free again.”

This is actually very common as the average medical school debt is about a quarter of a million dollars. Such a debt is indeed a pair of golden handcuffs that turn the physician into a debt slave, forcing them to work in positions with little to no autonomy when it comes to practicing the type of medicine they hoped they would when they applied to medical school. This is something I hope to address in the near future.

Dissolving Illusions

Shortly after quitting her job at the hospital, she wrote the first edition of “Dissolving Illusions” together with Roman Bystrianyk, who had been researching the history of disease and vaccines since 1998.

“What we decided to talk about was the history [of vaccines] because everywhere I went, talking about the flu shot that was damaging my kidney patients, I was met with, ‘Well, what about smallpox? And what about polio?’

And so, because I had to answer their questions, I learned a lot of things that I wouldn’t have otherwise learned.

Roman, who had gone through the world’s databases — he’s a computer guy, and he’s real smart — put these graphs and charts together [showing that] the death rate for many diseases was at least 96% decreased, sometimes 99% decreased, when vaccines and antibiotics came onto the scene. And so that was kind of the beginning of ‘Dissolving Illusions.’ We wrote the history around that.”

Save This Article for Later – Get the PDF Now

Download PDF

History Is Repeating Itself

According to Humphries, who has been “knee deep” in the vaccination issue for 16 years now, there’s a bigger picture that is only discernible when you look at the history of vaccines.

“What happens over time is, we’re able to sit back and look at everything that we have learned, and then re-weave it, and we see a bigger picture out of that … COVID, which, by the way, was probably no surprise to you and was no surprise to me … because if you do know your history, you know what’s going to come.

After the whole COVID debacle, and then reading about all the other vaccines, watching what happened with Gardasil, with the new flu vaccines, the old flu vaccines, and the childhood vaccination schedule just ever-growing, I sat back and I thought, ‘You know, this is just a repeating story.’

Vaccines, most of the time, if not all of the time, are marketed to the public as one thing, and then, later, the public discovers that they’re a different thing.

For instance, with COVID, the public was told it was just nice little particles of this virus put into saline, and it would stay in your arm. And then we have scientists that are now coming out — real bench scientists, real genetic scientists — who have broken down the constituents of the vaccine and are saying that there’s so much more in there than we were told.

Well, the same was true the smallpox vaccine. It didn’t have smallpox in it. Sometimes it had cow pox in it, sometimes it didn’t. Sometimes it had rabbit pus, sometimes it had the pus from horses, sometimes it had pus from goats and donkeys. And, and it was passaged back and forth between humans and animals because back then they thought that would strengthen the effectiveness of this so-called pure lymph, which was anything but pure.

So here, the public was told one thing, then doctors start crying out saying, ‘Wait a minute. This disease was not bad enough to cause this problem with the vaccines’ … Every vaccine that has come out, the public was told one thing, the effect is completely different. Doctors come out saying this isn’t what it was supposed to be, the doctors are ostracized, the doctors become afraid and don’t want to give reports.

This has been going on for 225 years. There’s been about 200 years of outcry from really upset doctors who were done in by the system for standing up for their patients and seeing the negative effects of vaccination.

So, we’ve added another 200 pages to our original book, ‘Dissolving Illusions,’ based on what we’ve discovered since. So, people who’ve already bought the book won’t be disappointed because there’ll be some new things included, and people who have never read it will get a bigger, deeper picture of the history.”

Critics’ Most-Oft Used Arguments to Dismiss Clinical Experience

Humphries initial foray into vaccine science centered around flu shots, because she wanted to know if they could cause all the kidney problems she was seeing, things like hematuria proteinuria, kidney failure, glomerular sclerosis or high blood pressure.

“I was just looking at that and wrote a 16-page white paper with 45 medical references and gave it to the CEO of the hospital, the head of nursing, my colleagues. I was met with absolute silence. I was really hurt and shocked by that, because it was a lot of work on my part. I really thought that people would be interested in it,” Humphries says.

“What’s interesting is that people want to nail us clinicians down to do the bench research, to talk about the genetics of a virus, to prove the existence of a virus, when what we’re watching in front of our eyes is a consistent repetitive timeline of somebody either marginally healthy or fully healthy, who gets a jab and then within hours, days or weeks develops horrible new medical problems.

This is what we see with the boots on the ground, but that’s considered irrelevant to people who want to discredit us. Our clinical experience means nothing. This is a way to just split us all into a million bits and say only the bench researchers can prove something. You can’t. So, you have to go do your own study.

That’s what was told to me. The Chief of Medicine of the hospital told me that he would support me if I wanted to do a research project on vaccine injuries in the hospital. To prove that you would need hundreds of patients, and he wasn’t really going to support me. He just wanted to divert me. That’s really what they want to do.

In terms of ‘do viruses exist or not,’ it’s the same thing. What we’re seeing is a consistent pattern. Children get measles one time in their life and don’t get it again. Children get chickenpox one time in their life, and then they don’t get it again. But because I haven’t personally viewed a virus under an electron microscope, my clinical experience means nothing.

So, this is how we’re dismantled and discredited by our critics. What I found is that if people don’t want to hear what I have to say, I just move on. I’m not going to get trapped in arguments with people, because there are so many individuals out there that know nothing.

I couldn’t care less about the brainwashed ignoramuses who are willfully ignorant. If they’re just innocently ignorant, then they’ll change pretty quickly. They’ll have questions and they’ll want to talk. But the people who are just like, ‘Well, what about this?’ … and won’t relent when the facts are piled up in front of them by somebody who’s done the work … Sorry, I have no respect for that.”

Vaccines Didn’t Eradicate Polio

So, just what happened with polio? As it turns out, polio was nearly eradicated well before the first polio vaccine became available. The primary reasons for its disappearance were the relatively rapid change in sanitation and hygiene.

“When I left my job, I spent about a year and a half pretty much doing nothing but researching polio from morning till night,” Humphries says. “I was given a library from the daughter of a very prominent physician in Illinois … He was the health department chair, and he waited to give the oral polio vaccine because he wanted to see what would happen, and because he had his doubts.

His name is Herbert Ratner. He collected a lot of information. So, I had a lot of public health reports to go through. I went through pretty much every book that was ever written about polio, both pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine and everything in between.

If you want to talk about gain-of-function and criminality, go ahead, and let’s talk about polio. Because poliomyelitis is a neurological entity, and it can be caused by a lot of different things.

So, in some ways, it was really brilliant for them to grab on to that pathophysiology and give it a name [after] a virus — a virus that’s actually a commensal [symbiotic] in the human body that’s been shown to cause no harm in most people …

Your immune system is always dealing with it, keeping it under control. But if you add a toxin to that, a toxin that increases permeability of the gastric mucosa, then all bets are off. Then, these entities can gain access.

The natural polio virus was not a thing that was necessarily being pathologically passed around to people. It was only when humans started tinkering around with it, like the gain-of-function experiment that happened at the Rockefeller labs in 1916.

During that exact time, there’s the world’s worst outbreak of polio with a 25% to 50% paralytic ratio. That was unheard of in 1916. So that would have set the stage for terror among the masses. We’ve got to get rid of this horrible disease. It’s crippling children, crippling adults. That’s when the movement to start developing the vaccine really began, and there were some horrifying failures along the way.”

The Failure of Salk’s Polio Vaccine Was Covered Up

As explained by Humphries, Jonas Salk was recruited to produce the first polio vaccine, and a massive propaganda campaign ensued to instill the idea that the polio vaccine was the greatest medical achievement there ever was. In 1954, Salk began a massive field trial of the vaccine that lasted one year. Millions of dollars were spent on it. It was one of the largest medical experiments in history, at the time.

At the end of the trial, there were scientists who disagreed with the design of the vaccine, and there were statisticians who spoke about its flaws. There were biochemist and biologists who warned the vaccine would cause a big problem, because if you don’t kill the virus, it’ll come back stronger. Alas, all detractors were replaced and the vaccine was licensed anyway.

Two years later, access to the complete database finally became available, and scientists who went through it “ripped it up, down and sideways,” Humphries says.

“It was absolutely a terrible design. The interpretations were incorrect. But by then the horse was already out of the barn. And isn’t that how it always happens? … So, that’s one side of the vaccine for polio.

The other side is that it was a very low-incidence disease. If you look at it on the charts in ‘Dissolving Illusions,’ we have all the diseases and the deaths. The incidence of polio, you can barely see it at the bottom.”

Change in Diagnostic Criteria Made Polio Vaccine Appear Effective

In the years that followed, most of the polio cases occurred in those who were vaccinated. In other words, the vaccine itself became a cause of polio. Natural polio was associated with paralysis, but most paralytic cases resolved within 60 days.

To make the vaccine appear effective, the diagnostic criteria for polio was changed. Initially, all you needed for a polio diagnosis was two physical exams, 24 hours apart. After the vaccine was released, the patient had to be reassessed after 60 days.

Since most cases resolved on their own in two months without intervention, this change made it seem as though the vaccine had remarkable effectiveness. Today, most polio cases worldwide are caused by vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV). So, VDPV has replaced natural polio infection.

Smallpox Vaccine Was a Major Killer

While the polio vaccine was rarely lethal, the smallpox vaccine turned out to be a major killer. According to Humphries, the death rate for smallpox infection was about 10 in 100,000. After the vaccine was brought out, the death rate for smallpox rose by 50%.

“That’s all documented from the UK. When they brought out the vaccine, the death rate from smallpox went up, cancer rates went up, tuberculosis rates went up. That’s what [smallpox vaccine creator Edward] Jenner’s subjects died from, they died from tuberculosis (consumption).

So, here we are today. We don’t have smallpox vaccines. The reason I think they got rid of it is because people were really analyzing and showing what was actually in it. And then we have scientists like Thomas Mac, who was still alive during the days of smallpox, saying that the vaccine didn’t get rid of smallpox. It was hygiene, it was cleanliness, and it’s not as easy to spread.”

Ever-Changing Goalposts

Another repeating story with vaccines is the changing of goalposts, such as the frequency at which you needed to get vaccinated, and how many doses you need to be fully protected. For polio, it went from one dose once in a lifetime, to four initial doses and a booster.

Why? Because the vaccine doesn’t offer lifetime protection. Few if any vaccines do, and that’s one of the primary differences between vaccine-induced immunity (which wanes) and natural immunity (which tends to be long-lasting, often for life).

“It’s the same story as the COVID vaccine,” Humphries says. “I’ve got patients now that have had five, six COVID jabs [and still got COVID]. When did it become okay to accept a vaccine and then still get the disease multiple times? …

Why on earth are we injecting ourselves with this putrid concoction with E. coli plasmids in it, when we could just use the technology that we have today, that good common sense that we have to support the divine blueprint instead of doing something diabolically against it, and injecting people numerous times with something that mis-programs their immune system so that when they are back in contact with it later, they’re going to have a worst time of it — original antigenic sin.

It’s been shown with flu, it’s been shown now with COVID. And it’s just a big mess. Seventy-five percent of my practice, for the first year, were vaccine injured people or people who had to go get the jab and didn’t feel they could get out of it and want it to be pretreated or post-treated.”

Humphries COVID Experience

In the interview, Humphries recounts her own experience with COVID. She had a severe case that lasted two weeks. My go-to recommendation for any respiratory infection is nebulized peroxide. She used this, but still had a hard time overcoming the infection. In her case, one of the remedies that made the biggest difference was low-dose aspirin.

“For me, the thing that made me feel like I was not going to make it was the pain. I had total body pain. I don’t get headaches. I didn’t even really understand what headaches were until COVID came along and I just had the most horrible headache. So, for me, I believe in retrospect that it was the vascular aspect of it.

My blood wasn’t flowing properly, and the spike protein is really rough on the endothelium. The day that I took a quarter of a tablet of dissolvable aspirin, my whole world changed. My pain went away, and I felt like I was going to be OK.

So, I think for some of us, we just needed to get our blood flowing again properly. That for me was key, and I’m a big advocate of using very controlled low dose, as needed, aspirin when people are having the effects of COVID.”

I’m a big fan of low-dose aspirin as well. I take it every day. I think it’s a wise strategy for many. The reason aspirin has been vilified is because it’s a massive competitor to their high-priced NSAIDs.

Speaking Your Truth Can Change the World

Like Ashley Armstrong, who took a huge risk by leaving her engineering career to get into regenerative farming, Humphries can attest to the power of following your own truth and inner guidance. Sure, quitting her job at the hospital put her in a tough spot initially, but in the end, she’s better off for it — and so is the world. Over the past decade, her book has educated untold numbers of people about the truth behind the vaccine propaganda, and this update will continue to do so.

“When I left conventional medicine, I didn’t know how I would survive,” she says. “I didn’t have any debt, but I didn’t have any savings. It was friends and family that that helped me out. But when ‘Dissolving Illusions’ was published, we earned a little bit of money. Over the 10 years, it’s been what enabled me to not sink, and to not go into huge amounts of debt. It kept me afloat.

I just feel like God looks after us when we do the right thing. I feel like God has been 100% faithful to me, and that’s really what kept me going. I never imagined that in 2024, we’d be publishing another version of the book. But Roman brought that up to me about a year and a half ago.

I was like, ‘Oh, Roman, I’m so done with vaccines, I just want to have a life. I want to learn about the real physiology, how to really help people in front of me now. I want to start curing some of these diseases.’ That’s what I wanted to focus on. But he really wanted to do this, and I can’t say no to him …

I don’t know what holds for the future. Every year or two I like to bring a new project into my medical practice to learn a new thing and to offer a new thing. Sometimes the new thing ends up being a nothing-burger and I drop it, but I still like to explore, because we’re not at the end of the line in terms of what we can offer people. There are always things we haven’t heard about before.

One of the funniest things is that — and I can say this with great confidence today — health is not made in the doctor’s office; it’s made in the kitchen. When people see me today, I say if you’re not willing to change what you’re eating, forget about it, I’m not going to be of any help to you. And if I’m working harder than you, then you’re not going to get better. The primary focus for me is what people are putting into their mouths.”

Diet and Sanitation Are Key Disease-Prevention Strategies

Indeed, diets have always played a key role in disease. Part of the additions made to the 10th anniversary edition of “Dissolving Illusions” is historical dietary and sanitary information.

“It’s always been a huge part of what changed so that human beings weren’t dying of diseases that were circulating,” she says. “Sewage [exposure] was a big part of it. In the mid-1800s, there was so much horse manure and horse urine in the streets in London and New York City. They had literally tons of this stuff sitting in the street, and where people were living.

People were living in apartments and dwellings that literally had cesspools underneath of them. It was part of the house, part of the basement. So, you’d be walking through horse manure, horse urine and dead horses. The average lifespan of a horse was three years back then. We now know horses live into their 30s. That’s a normal lifespan, sometimes longer.

Three years was the average lifespan because even the horses were sickened by what was going on around them. So, what’s going to happen to human beings as a result of that? You think there were fresh farmers markets on that street? No, there weren’t. In fact, some of the people were basically eating rotten meat mixed with saw dust as a sausage. I mean, that was the diet of the average people.

The average person was living in squalor on top of each other and the disease and death rates were extremely high as a result.

Henry Ford did a big favor to the world by bringing out motorcars so we could get these horses and horse dung and horse urine out of the street. That was one of the beginnings. Environmental cleanup was a huge deal … We also had a white slavery system in place then.

If you talk to someone like Catherine Austin Fitts, a financial expert who watches societal changes, she says slavery is the most profitable [business] that has ever existed, and that was true in the mid-1800s. Pregnant women and children with measles were working in coal mines and in bottle factories. They didn’t care that the kid had measles. It was about productivity.

That was all that these owners cared about. So, we had that form of white slavery in that sense that even though you got to go home to your own house, you got a pittance of pay and you couldn’t make ends meet, so you were stressed out. You were a slave to the system. We’re still not really 100% free, but we’re so much better off in terms of what our bodies can accomplish than those people back in the 1700s 1800s.”

More Information

To learn more, be sure to pick up the 10th anniversary update of “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines and the Forgotten History,” available on dissolvingillusions.com and Amazon. Buying her book is also the best way to support her work, which is so crucial for our future. The world needs to understand the history behind vaccines to really see the big picture.

“When people read it, even if you just use it as a reference book, it gives you some kind of standpoint to start with when you’re talking to other people,” she says.

“In fact, it’s changed a lot of people’s minds who are pretty much dead set against the idea of no vaccines or limited vaccines. It’s like they start to see it in a different way, because the data are the data. It’s the world’s vital statistics.”

Not only are vaccines harming many people, but by focusing public health efforts on vaccination, so many safer and more effective strategies are overlooked as well. We cannot afford to continue the way we have been, and mandatory mass vaccination of our children is one of the failed strategies that needs to be overhauled if we are to turn our disease statistics around.

For your convenience, I’ve also embedded our previous interview above, where we dive further into some of the dishonest tactics used by the vaccine industry, and why the tetanus vaccine is unnecessary.

Posted in Vaccinations | No Comments »

Posted by: | Posted on: March 31, 2024

Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Vital Scientific Papers Parents and Pediatricians Need To Be Aware Of


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/03/24/critical-vaccine-studies.aspx

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola     March 24, 2024

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Comparing vaccination rates in 34 developed nations revealed a significant correlation between infant mortality rates and the number of vaccine doses infants receive. The U.S. requires the most vaccines and has the highest infant mortality
  • Research shows the more vaccines an infant receives simultaneously, the greater their risk of being hospitalized or dying compared to those receiving fewer vaccines
  • The earlier in infancy a child is vaccinated, the greater their risk of being hospitalized or dying compared to children receiving the same vaccines at a later time

Vaccines: Are they safe? Are they effective? To help answer those questions is Neil Z. Miller,1 a medical research journalist and director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute.

Miller has investigated vaccines for three decades and written several books on the subject, including “Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?,” “Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families and Health Practitioners” and “Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers.”

“Miller’s Review,” published in 2016, is a magnificent piece of work. In it, he reviews the concern about vaccine safety and efficacy raised by 400 peer-reviewed published studies. The book doesn’t review studies that support vaccination (almost all of which are funded by the industry and the government, by the way) as those studies are available on the CDC website.

“I got started when my own children were born … over 30 years ago … When my wife was pregnant, I felt I had to do due diligence about vaccines. I have to be honest, though. Before I even started to research vaccines, my wife and I pretty much knew intuitively that we were not going to inject our children with vaccines.

When I give lectures, I often tell people, ‘How can you expect to achieve health by injecting healthy children with toxic substances?’ I intuitively knew that … but still felt an obligation to do my due diligence and to do the research,” Miller says.

“The thing is that when I do things, I do them pretty thoroughly … I was doing my research at medical libraries. I was gathering everything and I started to collate it and coordinate it … People started to find out about the information I had organized. They were asking me about vaccines even way back then. I organized it into a booklet. I started to share that with people. Everything snowballed from that first booklet.”

Don’t Believe the ‘There’s No Evidence’ Argument

“Miller’s Review” was created in response to the common refrain that “there are no studies showing vaccines are unsafe or ineffective.”

“I hear this often,” Miller says. “Parents come to me all the time, saying, ‘My doctor told me that vaccines are safe and there are no studies that prove [otherwise].’ I’ve been doing the research for 30 years. I know of literally thousands of studies that document [concerns]. My books all document [those] studies.”

“Miller’s Review” is unique in that it summarizes 400 studies in bullet points with direct quotes from the study — with one study per page — plus citations so that you can find and read the study in full should you decide to do so. All of the studies are published in peer-reviewed journals and indexed by the National Library of Medicine.

“These are valid studies by valid researchers in many journals that people have heard about — The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, all the mainstream journals (and some of the smaller journals, but they’re still valid peer-reviewed studies) that show there are problems with vaccines: There are safety problems, there are efficacy problems.

They’re all in one place so that people, like doctors, can get this information all in one convenient place. This book has been very effective with medical doctors. When medical doctors who are on the fence, or who are pro-vaccine, get this book and read it, I hear back from parents that their doctor is no longer pressuring them to get the vaccines.

Their doctor is now respecting their decisions to not vaccinate or to go to some sort of alternative vaccine schedule if that’s the choice these parents make …

I am all about having uncensored, unfettered access to all of the available information out there about vaccines. Not just what your medical doctor wants you to know. Not just what the pharmaceutical companies want you to know and not just what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is telling doctors to share with their patients.

I want [parents] to be absolutely free to make a decision whether or not they want to vaccinate their children … It’s really a human rights issue. It’s really about the mandatory aspect of vaccines. I think all vaccines are problematic. I think this not just based on my own feelings, but based on the evidence I’ve researched over the years.”

Uninformed Decision-Making Is Part of the Problem

Ultimately, every parent will make a decision about whether or not to vaccinate. The problem is, most of the time, it’s an uninformed decision. An issue brought up in some of his earlier books is that there’s been a deliberate misinformation campaign aimed at making you believe vaccines are far more effective than they actually are.

For example, disease incidence data is used to suggest vaccines have dramatically reduced the incidence of a given disease, when in fact the disease rate had already declined by 90%, or more in some cases, before a vaccine was ever available.

Measles has been problematic in developing nations, mostly because of malnutrition, vitamin A deficiency, lack of clean water, sanitation and quick access to medical care. As these measures are addressed, the mortality from measles declines on its own.

Vitamin A appears particularly important, and studies sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) have confirmed that high doses of vitamin A supplementation protect children against complications and death associated with the disease.

“By the time the measles vaccine was introduced in the United States in 1963, by the late 1950s, the mortality rate from measles had drastically dropped. This was due to the [fact] that the population had gained protection against the more dangerous ravages of the disease. This happens with a lot of different diseases.

In my book, I’ve got many different types of graphs and illustrations to help the reader understand the main points I’m making … [M]any of these graphs show that these diseases were declining significantly on their own, well before vaccines were introduced.

For example, scarlet fever. Where did scarlet fever go? Why don’t we see cases of scarlet fever when we didn’t have mass vaccinations with a scarlet fever vaccine? That’s an important point to be made.”

Save This Article for Later – Get the PDF Now

Download PDF

Many Childhood Diseases Are Protective Against Cancer

Another significant point is there are dozens of studies demonstrating that contracting certain childhood diseases actually protects you against various types of cancer later in life — everything from melanoma to leukemia.

It’s important to realize that when you have a naturally acquired infection, you’re really exercising your immune system quite profoundly, developing authentic, lifelong immunity in the process, which is radically different from the type of artificial and temporary immunity you get from a vaccine.

One of the reasons for this is because vaccines stimulate a completely different part of your immune system than does fighting off a naturally acquired infection. There’s even evidence suggesting childhood diseases help protect against future heart disease.

“[A] Japanese study … looked at over 100,000 men and women of elderly age. They looked back at their history of catching these common childhood illnesses. Did they catch chickenpox, rubella, measles and mumps? What they found was it’s actually protective against heart disease.

You’re protected against heart attacks and various types of arteriosclerotic disease of the artery systems. It’s protecting the arterial system so that you are protected not only — when you catch these diseases — from cancers, but from heart disease, heart attacks and strokes as well … There are different theories on why that takes place. But the important thing is that study after study confirms that it takes place.”

Vaccines Create Problematic Mutations

Another vaccine-related problem that many are completely unaware of is the fact that vaccines cause mutations in the disease-bearing microorganisms, much in the same way antibiotics cause bacteria to mutate. The diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine (DTaP), for example, has caused the pertussis microorganism, Bordetella pertussis, to mutate and evade the vaccine. The same thing happened with the pneumococcal vaccine and the Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine.

“They’re finding, for example, when you’ve got a vaccine that targets only certain strains of disease where multiple strains are actually causing the disease, the vaccine is pretty effective at reducing the incidence of disease from that particular strain. But what happens is the other strains come and take their place … They come back even stronger.

That’s what [happened] with Prevnar, a vaccine for pneumococcus, pneumococcal disease. All infants that receive vaccines according to the CDC’s standard immunization schedule receive a pneumococcal vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months of age. That vaccine only targeted seven strains. Pneumococcal has 90 different strains capable of causing pneumococcal disease.

They were pretty effective at reducing the amount of disease caused by the pneumococcal strains targeted by the vaccine. But what happened within just a few short years, the other strains became more prevalent … taking the place of the original strains [and] they became more virulent.

They came out with a new vaccine in 2010 … to deal with the vaccine losing its efficacy because of what I just explained. The new vaccine included the original seven strains plus six additional strains, the ones that were causing most of the pneumococcal disease now. Within two years of the new upgraded, updated pneumococcal vaccine, the strains had already mutated …”

Tragically, parents are being blamed and harassed for many of these vaccine failures. Parents are being told that if you don’t vaccinate your kids, you are responsible for spreading the disease. That’s the idea the CDC, the medical industry and the pharmaceutical industry are promoting. However, if you actually read the studies, you’ll find what the scientists know — the real problem is evolutionary adaptation.

Herd Immunity Cannot Be Achieved Through Immunizations

Another core argument for mass vaccinations is achieving herd immunity. Miller believes, and I agree with this belief, that herd immunity may never be achieved through vaccination because high vaccination rates encourage the evolution of more severe disease-causing agents. In a vaccinated population, the virulence increases due to selective pressure, as the pathogen is strengthened and adapts in its fight for survival against the vaccine.

Meanwhile, in an unvaccinated population, the environment actually promotes lowered virulence, as the pathogen does not want to kill its host. A wise pathogen is one that’s able to infect many hosts without killing them, because when the host dies, the pathogen loses the environment upon which its own survival depends.

However, once the disease organism mutates and becomes more virulent within the vaccinated population, it raises the stakes not only among the vaccinated but also among the unvaccinated, who are now faced with a far more virulent foe than normal.

“In terms of herd immunity, you not only have … this selective pressure that’s keeping you from being able to achieve herd immunity (because the microorganisms are always attempting to evade the vaccine), but pertussis vaccine is only 60% effective. That’s with the best estimates. And that’s only for a couple of years.

Studies show that even after three, four or five years, you’re back to almost no efficacy whatsoever, almost back to the pre-vaccine period.

How can you expect to achieve herd immunity with a vaccine that is only 60% effective? You can vaccinate 100% of the population and you cannot achieve herd immunity with a vaccine that is only 60% effective. Influenza vaccines — many years, these vaccines are not good matches for the circulating virus — so you have 0% efficacy. In the best years, you only have 30%, 40% or 50% efficacy.”

Studies Show Vaccinations Increase Infant Mortality

One of the tenets of conventional medicine is that if you vaccinate a population, everyone is going to be healthier. There will be less disease. But when you compare vaccination rates and health statistics, you find the converse is actually true. This is some of the most compelling information Miller shares in his book.

For example, when comparing vaccination rates in 34 developed nations, they found a significant correlation between infant mortality rates and the number of vaccine doses infants received. Developed nations like the United States that require the most vaccines tend to have the highest infant mortality. You can read this study here.2

“I’m the lead author on that study, actually. My co-author was Gary Goldman [Ph.D., who] worked for the CDC for seven years. He quit when he found that the CDC was not allowing anything detrimental [to get out]. Goldman found problems with the chickenpox vaccine and wanted to publish that data. The CDC said, ‘We’re not going to allow you to do that.’ That’s when Goldman quit …

Goldman and I did two peer-reviewed studies … The children in the United States are required — if they follow the CDC’s immunization schedule — to receive the most vaccines in the developed world, actually throughout the world. Globally. Twenty-six vaccines. Other developed nations require less.

Some nations only require 12 vaccines — Switzerland, Sweden, Iceland and other European nations — yet they have better infant mortality rates. That’s what our study looked at. [V]accines are promoted as being lifesaving. They’re given to children to protect them against dying from infectious diseases.

We gathered all the immunization schedules from the 34 nations [and found] the United States had the 34th worst infant mortality rate … It had the worst. Thirty-three nations in the developed world had better infant mortality rates. We did the study and we found what many people would find to be a counterintuitive relationship.

We found a statistically significant relationship. There was a direct correlation between the number of vaccines that a nation required for their infants and the infant mortality rate. The more vaccines that a nation required, the worse the infant mortality rate.”

Why Is This Not Front-Page News?

Many naïvely believe that if all of this is true, if vaccines truly were doing more harm than good, it would be front-page news. The reason you rarely if ever hear anything about studies such as this one is because the vaccine industry has an iron grip on the information being publicly disseminated. Collusion between federal regulatory agencies, the government and the industry is just one of several hurdles preventing this kind of information from being widely known.

You have individuals like Dr. Julie Gerberding, who headed up the CDC and was in charge of infectious disease recommendations for seven years before moving on to become president of Merck Vaccines, one of the largest vaccine manufacturers in the world. That’s just one of many dozens of examples of this revolving door, which in turn has led to the breakdown of true science-based medicine.

“We have a serious problem where top scientists admit that they drop data points from studies that they’ve been influenced by the people who are funding their studies to sometimes not publish the study because it didn’t come up with the results they wanted, and so on,” Miller says.

“We have a serious problem with the pharmaceutical industry controlling which studies get published. Also, there’s a serious problem because the pharmaceutical companies are controlling the advertising dollars that go out to the major media.

Mainstream media makes approximately 70% of its income from pharmaceutical ads. They do not want to publish or promote anything, even in their newscasts that would be critical of vaccines because it could compromise their potential to keep bringing in these millions of dollars they make every year from the pharmaceutical companies.”

The greatest, most serious problem we currently face is the concerted push to mandate vaccines and eliminate personal belief exemptions. For example, to go to school in California, you now have to be fully vaccinated. No exemptions are allowed, which is really a violation of human rights.

Giving Multiple Simultaneous Vaccines Is Extremely Risky, Study Shows

The second study3 Miller and Goldman published analyzed nearly 40,000 reports of infants who suffered adverse reactions after vaccines. Here, they found that infants given the most vaccines were significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die compared to those who received fewer vaccines.

It’s worth noting that this data was obtained from the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) database, a passive reporting system, and that research has confirmed passive reporting systems underreport by 50 to 1.

What this means is that when you find one report in VAERS, you have to multiply that by 50 to get closer to reality because, on average, only 1 in 50 adverse events are ever reported. Doctors have a legal obligation to report side effects to VAERS, but they don’t, and there are no ramifications for failure to make a report. Parents can also make a report to the database, and I encourage all parents to do so, should your child experience a vaccine reaction.

At present, VAERS has over 500,000 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines, and every year, more than 30,000 new reports are added to it. Miller and Goldman downloaded this database and created a program to extract all the reports involving infants. In all, they extracted the reports of 38,000 infants who experienced an adverse reaction following the receipt of one or more vaccines.

They then created a program that was able to determine the number of vaccines each infant had received before suffering an adverse reaction, and stratified the reports by the number of vaccines (anywhere from one to eight) the infants had received simultaneously before the reaction took place. They specifically honed in on serious adverse reactions requiring hospitalization or that led to death. Here’s what they found:

  • Infants who received three vaccines simultaneously were statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die after receiving their vaccines than children who received two vaccines at the same time
  • Infants who received four vaccines simultaneously were statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who received three or two vaccines, and so on all the way up to eight vaccines
  • Children who received eight vaccines simultaneously were “off-the-charts” statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die after receiving those vaccines
  • Children who received vaccines at an earlier age were significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who receive those vaccines at a later age

Childhood Vaccination Schedule Is Based on Convenience, Not Science or Safety

As noted by Miller:

“The industry, the CDC and Dr. Paul Offit tell us that you can take multiple vaccines. Offit said you could theoretically take 10,000 vaccines at one time; that an infant can be exposed to that many pathogens simultaneously without hurting the child. The CDC’s immunization schedule requires that children receive eight vaccines at 2 months of age, eight vaccines at 4 months of age and eight vaccines at 6 months of age.

I ask parents, ‘When did you ever take eight drugs at the same time? … If you did take eight drugs at the same time, would you think it was more likely that you would or would not have an adverse reaction?’ Because toxicologists know that the more drugs you take at the same time, the more potential for some kind of a synergistic or additive toxicity … What this study confirms is that it’s a dangerous practice to give multiple vaccines simultaneously.

The CDC has put together a schedule based on convenience. They say ‘[G]ive eight vaccines at 2 months, give eight more vaccines at 4 months and give eight more booster shots at 6 months’ because it’s convenient. They’re afraid that parents will not come to the pediatrician again and again and again if they have to keep coming back for more vaccines, so they get multiple [shots all at once].

They said, ‘We’re going to make this schedule based on convenience.’ Not based on evidence. Not based on science. There’s nothing scientific about the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule. We’ve shown it with our study …

We also showed that children who received vaccines at an earlier age are statistically significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who receive it at a later age. We divided it up to children who receive their vaccines in the first 6 months of age versus children who receive their vaccines in the last six months of infancy.

Again, off-the-charts statistically significant, it’s much more dangerous to give younger infants multiple vaccines than to give older infants multiple vaccines. This makes sense because they’re giving the same dose to a newborn or a baby that might be 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 pounds at 2 months of age versus a child who might be 15 or 17 pounds … at a later age.”

More Information

You can find “Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers” on ThinkTwice.com. This book is an invaluable resource for parents who want to do their due diligence before making up their mind about whether or not to vaccinate their children. On his website, you will also find his other books, along with studies and publications relating to vaccine safety and efficacy concerns.

Another resource is the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). NVIC is leading the charge when it comes to educating the public about efforts to impose mandatory vaccinations, and how to preserve our health freedoms on the local, state and federal levels.

Ultimately, everyone will have to make a choice about vaccinations. They key is to make it an informed one — to understand and weigh the potential risks and benefits. To do that, you need access to both sides of the debate, and Miller has done us all a great favor by making the largely hidden side of the equation more readily accessible.

Posted in Children, Immunity, Mortality, Vaccinations | No Comments »

Posted by: | Posted on: March 17, 2024

GSK and Pfizer RSV Vaccines for Pregnant Women Increased Risk of Preterm Births — GSK Ended Its Trials, but FDA Approved Pfizer Shots

© March 15, 2024 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc.
Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense?
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense.
Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Reproduced from original article:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/rsv-vaccine-preterm-birth-risk-pregnant-women/

GSK stopped developing a vaccine for pregnant women to protect newborns against syncytial virus (RSV) after identifying an increased risk of preterm births. Pfizer won approval of its nearly identical vaccine after the company said the increased rate of preterm births in its trials was “statistically insignificant”.
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.

pregnant belly and rsv vaccines

GSK on Thursday provided more details on the clinical trials for its maternal respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine. The company halted the trials and stopped developing the vaccine in February 2022, after identifying an increased risk of preterm birth among vaccinated mothers.

The details, published in a peer-reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), came after GSK previously reported the increased risk and subsequent termination of the trials to regulators, GSK’s investors and in the press.

According to the NEJM article, GSK was unable to identify a mechanism by which the vaccine caused the preterm births. However, the company also couldn’t identify any causes other than the vaccine being investigated.

Although GSK ended its trials due to the preterm birth safety signal, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2023 approved Pfizer’s RSV vaccine for pregnant women, — even though Pfizer also reported elevated rates of preterm birth among vaccinated women during clinical trials for the vaccine, Abrysvo.

Pfizer said the rates of preterm birth during the Abrysvo trials were not statistically significant. However, the FDA limited approval of the vaccine for women in weeks 32-36 of their pregnancy.

The authors of an editorial that accompanied the NEJM article noted that although Pfizer’s FDA-approved maternal RSV vaccine is bivalent and GSK’s RSVPreF3-Mat is monovalent, “the vaccines are otherwise similar.”

They also argued that RSV “poses a substantial burden” to infant health and that in considering maternal vaccination, risks and benefits had to be carefully weighed.

Dr. David Healy, a drug safety expert, told The Defender he didn’t think most people were aware of how serious premature birth is for both infants and mothers.
Healy said:
“It leads to having a shorter lifespan, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, types 1 and 2 diabetes, lipid disorders and chronic kidney disease. Any mother who does her research — and women who give birth do more research than any other group of people on the planet — is going to find this out and be very worried.”

Healy said in addition to the risks to the baby, “The vaccine also increases risks to the mother — there is an increased hypertension risk on [the GSK] and Pfizer’s identical vaccine [Abrysvo],” he said.

“Increased hypertension in pregnancy, especially preeclampsia, has long-term health consequences for the mother — rather like the preterm birth issues for her infant,” Healy added.

RSV is a common respiratory virus that usually causes mild cold-like symptoms but in rare cases can lead to hospitalization and death in infants and the elderly. By the age of 2, 97% of all babies have been infected with the RSV virus, which confers partial immunity, making any subsequent episodes less severe.

Midwife and nurse practitioner Mary Lou Singleton told The Defender:

“As a mother and a pediatric primary care provider, I have had many frightening experiences with RSV. Every few years the virus moves through the children of my town, and in these bad RSV years at least a few of the infants and young children in my practice are hospitalized with severe cases of RSV. I am not cavalier about RSV.

“Prematurity carries greater short and long term risks to children than RSV.”

Singleton said that being born between 32 and 36.5 weeks gestation has lifelong negative effects. These babies are significantly more likely to die in the first year of life from all-cause mortality — “including RSV, for which they will only be partially protected according to the results of the study on the vaccine,” she said.

Preterm babies also are more likely to have learning disabilities and behavioral disorders, which affect not only their quality of life but also the lives of their family members and the lives of everyone who interacts with them, Singleton said.
“As they age, they are more likely to develop heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure than people who were born at term.”

Risk of preterm birth in GSK trials 37% higher among vaccinated mothers

GSK launched a Phase 3 clinical trial in November 2020 to test the safety and efficacy of its vaccine against lower respiratory tract disease associated with RSV in infants born to women who had received the vaccine during pregnancy.

The company initially planned to enroll 10,000 pregnant women in the trials. However, after enrolling only 5,328 women and 5,233 infants by February 2022, the company stopped the trials because monitors detected an increase in preterm births.

In the study overall, researchers reported that 6.8% of infants among the vaccinated women were born preterm, as compared with 4.9% of those in the placebo group.

In other words, for every 54 infants born to women who received the vaccine, one additional preterm birth occurred.

The trial was conducted at sites in 24 countries on six continents, with approximately 50% of women located in middle- and low-income countries, where 97% of RSV-attributable deaths occur.

Researchers randomly assigned mothers in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the vaccine or a placebo between 24-34 weeks of gestation. They then tracked 3,426 infants whose mothers received the vaccine and 1,711 infants whose mothers received the placebo until they were 6 months old.

In February 2022, an independent data monitoring committee reported to GSK that at that time it identified there were 7.6% of preterm births in the vaccinated group were born preterm versus 5% in the placebo group.

The “imbalance” identified between the two groups continued after all mothers had delivered their babies. By the end of the trial, 237 of the 3,494 infants in the vaccine group (6.8%) were born before 37 weeks, compared with 86 of 1,739 (4.9%) in the placebo group.

That translated into a 37% increased risk of preterm births among vaccinated women.

Among the infants born prematurely, very preterm births (between 28 and 32 weeks) or extremely preterm births (before 28 weeks) occurred in 5.5% of the vaccine group and 2.3% in the placebo group.

Neonatal deaths also were higher in the vaccine group, occurring in 0.4% of the infants in the vaccine group (13 of 3,494) and 0.2% in the placebo group (3 of 1,739), which they also noted was not statistically significant.

“The use of statistical significance here to discount the existence of a problem is statistically illiterate. There is a very clear increase in risk that should not be discounted in this manner,” Healy said.
He added:
“In the GSK trial, 1 in 54 vaccinated babies were likely to have a preterm birth compared with not being vaccinated and even in these small trials there were neonatal deaths linked to the vaccine.

“In contrast, there were no deaths linked to RSV. And we don’t have any indications that getting RSV as an infant has long-term health consequences — any problems there are more likely linked to another underlying condition the child had prior to the RSV.

“There might be a link to asthma but even this is dubious. The key point is 166 children have to be vaccinated to prevent one severe RSV infection.

“Let me put it like this — forget the 69% efficacy this vaccine has only 0.5% efficacy in absolute terms.”

Another ‘risky gamble’ with the health of pregnant women?

The editorial commentary accompanying the NEJM article was written by Dr. Sonja A. Rasmussen and Dr. Denise J. Jamieson, who was named earlier this month to the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee and was a key spokesperson promoting the COVID-19 vaccines as “safe and effective” for pregnant women.

Noting the researchers in the GSK trial could not identify the mechanism of increased risk of preterm births, Rasmussen and Jamieson walked through a series of potential explanations unrelated to the vaccine itself that could cause the higher rates of preterm births in the vaccine arm of the study.

Preterm births primarily occurred in low- and middle-income countries, they wrote. The study was carried out during COVID-19, and ultrasounds during the first trimester to determine fetal age were not done in nearly half the cases.

However, they then also conceded that there was no relationship to COVID-19 infections identified and misclassification of gestational age would have occurred at the same rate in both groups.

They concluded that “whether the safety signal in the RSVPreF3-Mat trial is real or occurred by chance is unknown.” Still, they conceded that the results were concerning enough to warrant postmarketing surveillance of the bivalent vaccine — which is Abrysvo, currently approved and marketed by Pfizer.

They suggested that even if there does turn out to be a link between the bivalent (Pfizer’s) vaccine and preterm births, “it is essential to weigh this small risk against the proven benefits of maternal RSV vaccination.”

Healy came to a different conclusion, noting that “Based on the Novovax trial, this trial and the Pfizer trial I think any woman who has an RSV vaccine is making a big mistake and has been badly advised.”

“But,” he said, “I think a lot of American women understand this and most are in no rush to get it.”

Singleton said it “would be great if we had a safe and effective way to prevent RSV from ravaging our communities every three to five years. But we don’t.”

Instead, she said, “We have another risky gamble with the health of pregnant women and infants that will further enrich Big Pharma and increase the already abysmally high rate of preterm birth in the United States.”

She said a large percentage of children who get RSV will need to be hospitalized, but “a very small percentage” of children with the virus will die.

Singleton added:

“Even though RSV has me shaking in my boots every few years as I am arranging transport to the hospital for very sick children in my care, I cannot recommend that mothers risk taking this new injectable technology.

“We have no idea the extent of the new problems we may be creating with this new drug, and so far the data shows the risks do not justify the perceived benefit.”

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.'s avatar

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.

Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.

Posted in Children, Corruption, Pregnancy, RSV, Vaccinations | No Comments »

Posted by: | Posted on: March 10, 2024

34 Deaths, 302 Serious Injuries: RSV Vaccines Aren’t Even a Year Old but Some Experts Say It’s Time to Pull Them From the Market

© March 5, 2024 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc.
Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense?
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense.
Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Reproduced from original article:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/rsv-vaccines-deaths-serious-injuries/
Newly approved vaccines for respiratory syncytial virus have been linked to deaths and serious injuries and, most recently, to Guillain-Barré syndrome, but U.S. health officials continue to recommend them as “safe and effective.”

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

rsv vaccine with warning symbol

Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender’s Top News of the Day. It’s free.

It’s been less than a year since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended two new respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines — yet CDC data and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) already show reports of 34 deaths, 302 serious adverse events and according to news reports this week, a safety signal for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS).

Reported cases include several instances of severe adverse events in newborns, including the death of a 27-day-old baby who was wrongly administered the vaccine, and in pregnant women and people in age groups for which the RSV vaccines were not approved.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Pfizer’s Abrysvo and GSK’s Arexvy RSV vaccines for adults ages 60 and older — but not for children or babies.

Abrysvo is also approved for pregnant women, targeting RSV prevention in babies. The FDA approved Abrysvo and Arexvy in May 2023.

According to CDC data, approximately 9.65 million RSV vaccine doses — 6.58 million Arexvy doses and 3.06 million Abrysvo doses — were administered as of Feb. 16.

Members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) presented the data on deaths and adverse events related to the RSV vaccines at a Feb. 29 meeting.

Yet, ACIP — and news media reports — primarily focused on GBS safety signals, glossing over deaths and the administration of the vaccines to unauthorized age groups.

Instead, CDC officials claimed it’s too early to determine if the RSV vaccines caused the adverse events and reiterated that the shots are safe, according to The Associated Press (AP).

Experts who spoke with The Defender disputed the CDC’s reassurances. Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), said “34 deaths in 10 months should be sufficient to pull the RSV vaccines from the market. But the FDA will not do that — nor will there be full investigations regarding these deaths.”

“I am greatly concerned with the excessive application of the RSV vaccine,” said cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough. “We are beginning to see the tip of the iceberg in terms of serious side effects.”

CDC creating ‘illusion of safe and effective’

According to the CDC data presented at the Feb. 29 ACIP meeting, of the 34 deaths reported as of Feb. 16 following RSV vaccination, 22 were linked to Arexvy and nine to Abrysvo. In three instances, the report listed “no brand name.”

Yet, discrepancies in the data are evident, as the public-facing VAERS database indicates only 29 RSV vaccine-related deaths as of Feb. 23. And according to Albert Benavides, founder of VAERSAware.com, three more “hidden” deaths reported after RSV vaccines are listed in VAERS, but the vaccine name is unlabeled.

Benavides, who identified discrepancies and contradictions in VAERS data and has called attention to the existence of two parallel VAERS databases — one that is public-facing and one that is not — said, “It is simply gross and despicable the CDC and FDA are allowed to pass off this data obfuscation as pharmacovigilance.”

He added: “VAERS administration is simply not publishing all legitimate reports received.”

One of the deaths recorded in VAERS involved a 27-day-old baby from New York — even though the RSV vaccines are not approved for children. According to the report, which was entered into the VAERS database on Jan. 8, the newborn was vaccinated at a doctor’s office “and he passed away right there.” The date of death was unspecified.

Other RSV vaccine-related death reports included:

  • A report involving a foreign woman of “unknown” age but who was pregnant. She received Abrysvo Dec. 27, 2023, and died Jan. 1, 2024.
  • A 67-year-old New Jersey man who received Arexvy Oct. 14, 2023, and died two days later — a death acknowledged by GSK as “related to Arexvy.”
  • A 69-year-old Florida man who received Arexvy concurrently with the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine Sept. 28, 2023, and died two days later. According to the VAERS report, an EKG on the date of his death was “grossly ‘abnormal’” despite no known cardiac history and an “unremarkable” cardiac exam two months prior.
  • A 70-year-old California man who received Arexvy concurrently with a flu vaccine on Sept. 5, 2023. Increased coughing and fever began “less than 24 hours later” and lasted for four days, until “the patient was found deceased at home.”
  • A 73-year-old Virginia male who received Arexvy Jan. 24 and was diagnosed with GBS. Symptoms began 11 days after vaccination. He died Feb. 15.
  • A 75-year-old Virginia woman who received Arexvy Jan. 4, died two hours later.
  • A 76-year-old Michigan man who received Arexvy Jan. 11, sustained tachycardia and difficulty breathing, and died of acute sepsis and pneumonia Jan. 15.
  • A 77-year-old Pennsylvania man who received Arexvy Jan. 4 and soon experienced “seizure-like activity” despite no history of seizures. He died Jan. 6.
  • An 81-year-old California man who received Arexvy and a flu vaccine Sept. 18, 2023. He sustained severe cardiopulmonary arrest and died five hours later.
  • An 81-year-old New Mexico woman who received Arexvy concurrently with the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, and pneumonia, adenovirus and flu vaccines, on Oct. 19, 2023. On Oct. 29, 2023, she sustained a hemorrhage and later died.
  • An 85-year-old Colorado man who received Abrysvo and a flu vaccine on Sept. 11, 2023. Two days later, he “developed symptoms of shingles in his eye” and later “developed meningitis/encephalitis that led to a host of other complications that ultimately led to his death” on Dec. 21, 2023.

According to Benavides, other deaths likely related to RSV vaccination are “hidden” within VAERS, with details such as the vaccine name listed as “unknown” in some reports.

This includes the Jan. 8 death of a preterm newborn in Texas. According to VAERS, the baby was “not breathing” hours after vaccination and subsequently died. The vaccine lot number listed in the VAERS report corresponds with Abrysvo.

Benavides said mislabeled reports hide the true extent of adverse events:

“Not publishing legitimate reports is one of their Vegas tricks. They delete legitimate reports after publication, purposely delay published reports, allow reports to be published without critical data fields like age, date of vaccination or death, even when reports are properly documented in the summary narrative.

“It’s not a stretch to believe VAERS administration is systematically and actively scrubbing data fields that were present on initial submission to create the illusion of ‘safe and effective.’”

Two other RSV vaccine-related reports in VAERS list Beyfortus — a monoclonal antibody for RSV administered to babies — in the write-up.

These reports include a male born prematurely in New York who received Beyfortus and the hepatitis B vaccine at birth, and died of “fluid buildup in the lungs.” Another report lists an Arkansas male of “unknown” age who died of cardiac arrest on Feb. 14, although this was deemed unrelated to the “Beyfortus vaccine received” the prior day.

Although Beyfortus is not a vaccine, it is classified as such in some instances. The ACIP recommended adding Beyfortus to the childhood vaccine schedule — giving it a liability waiver — but excluding it from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

 

‘Startling’ number of Guillain-Barré cases following RSV vaccination

VAERS lists 3,834 adverse events relating to the RSV vaccines as of Feb. 23, with approximately two-thirds of the reports pertaining to Arexvy. A total of 302 reports are classified as serious adverse events, with slightly over half connected to Arexvy.

Yet, the ACIP meeting and subsequent news stories largely focused on a single safety signal: a higher-than-normal incidence of GBS in RSV vaccine recipients.

According to The New York Times, GBS causes the immune system to attack the nerves, leading to paralysis and death in severe cases. According to AP, “An estimated 3,000 to 6,000 people develop G.B.S. in the U.S. each year,” mostly older adults.

“Rare cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome have been linked to other vaccines, including those against influenza and shingles,” the Times reported. The Times did not mention incidences of GBS connected to COVID-19 vaccination.

AP reported that health officials estimate “About two cases of Guillain-Barré might be seen in every 1 million people who receive a vaccine.” CDC data indicate the GBS incidence rate for Abrysvo recipients was 4.6 cases per million people.

GBS incidences were lower for Arexvy, but according to AP, officials are also performing “follow-up tracking” in people who received this particular vaccine.

“These data suggest a potential increased risk” from the RSV vaccine, said Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, in remarks quoted by AP.

“Given that the RSV vaccine was first approved in the U.S. on May 3, 2023, the number of VAERS reports for GBS, death and atrial fibrillation are indeed startling,” Hooker said.

According to VAERS, 34 GBS cases related to RSV vaccination were recorded. Most were in the 65-79 age group, but at least two cases were reported in people under age 60, even though the RSV vaccines are not approved for those age groups. CDC data presented at the Feb. 29 ACIP meeting said 23 GBS reports have been “verified.”

From these “verified” reports, 15 involved Abrysvo, 14 patients were male, seven received a COVID-19 vaccine at the same time they received the RSV shot, the median age was 71 and one patient died.

The ACIP presentation referred to one GBS report “in a non-pregnant female patient aged 50s years” who received Abyrsvo. VAERS includes reports of other GBS cases in patients in age groups not authorized to receive the RSV vaccines.

In one instance, a 6-month-old girl from California received Abrysvo and several other vaccines at a military site on Nov. 30, 2023. She sustained “life threatening” cardiac arrest. The RSV vaccine “was given by mistake,” according to her VAERS report.

And a 28-year-old Kentucky female who received Abrysvo on Dec. 1, 2023, soon developed “facial weakness,” despite “no history of similar symptoms.” She was hospitalized for seven days and diagnosed with GBS.

The ACIP also referenced 58 cases of atrial fibrillation, three cases of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, two cases of transverse myelitis and one case of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome and acute encephalitis following RSV vaccination.

Risks of RSV vaccines evident during clinical trials

Despite the deaths and safety signals connected to the RSV vaccines, CDC officials at the Feb. 29 ACIP meeting adopted a reassuring tone regarding the vaccines’ safety.

“Due to the uncertainties and limitations, these early data cannot establish if there is an increased risk for GBS after vaccination,” Shimabukuro said, according to the Times.

According to AP, “CDC officials also presented estimates that the vaccines have prevented thousands of hospitalizations and hundreds of deaths from RSV, and that current data indicates the benefits of vaccination outweigh the possible risks.”

“R.S.V. vaccines may prevent an estimated 120 to 140 in-hospital deaths and about 25,000 outpatient visits per million doses administered,” the Times reported.

“Pfizer is committed to the continuous monitoring and evaluation of the safety of Abrysvo” and is conducting four safety studies examining the risk of GBS, said Reema Mehta, Pfizer’s vice president of risk assessment and safety, in remarks quoted by AP.

“There are limitations to all of these data, and further analysis by FDA, CDC and the vaccine manufacturers are needed to confirm and quantify any potential risk,” said Alison Hunt, a GSK spokesperson, in remarks quoted by the Times.

Experts noted the contradiction of CDC officials identifying safety signals from VAERS, after a Feb. 15 U.S. House of Representatives hearing where CDC and FDA officials downplayed the role of VAERS in the detection of safety signals.

Dr. Daniel Jernigan, director of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, claimed at the hearing that VAERS is “not intended to determine if a vaccine is causing an adverse event.”

Saying that such criticisms were “a ploy to remove emphasis” from adverse events, Hooker said, “VAERS inaccuracies are only in under-reporting, not misreporting.”

“The [2011] Lazarus study conducted at the request of CDC shows that perhaps 1% of all vaccine adverse events are captured by VAERS and that the true vaccine adverse event rate is around 1 in 39,” he said.

According to Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare expert, “The FDA and CDC have enormous amounts of data on well over 100 million Americans” but “refuse to study the data.”

According to AP, public health officials were aware of GBS instances identified during clinical trials and “different systems were watching for signs of problems.”

Nass said there is little evidence that RSV vaccines are saving lives in either babies or the elderly.” But, she said, “There was good evidence, even in the pre-marketing data, that the RSV vaccines caused neurologic complications, including GBS.”

“Why would anyone take an RSV vaccine that has a reasonable chance of causing a neurologic illness to prevent colds? The answer is that they are not being told the truth,” Nass said, calling for RSV vaccines to not be licensed or used until their safety is proven.

McCullough said RSV “is like a mild cold and easily treated at home. He said the risk of “fatal paralysis, cardiac side effects and vaccine death far outweigh the occasional case of RSV, which we have been managing for many years in internal medicine.”

“I do not recommend the new RSV vaccine to older adults,” he said.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.'s avatar

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

Posted in CDC, FDA, Guillain-Barré, Mortality, RSV, Vaccinations, VAERS | No Comments »

Next Entries »