Multiple people have sent me the same story, on various blogs, in the last 48 hours. Just released medical studies show that mRNA COVID "vaccines" teach the human immune system to ignore and tolerate coronavirus-spike-protein, and also cancer-cells.

 We have multiple kinds of immunoglobulins ("antibodies") that we make to help us maintain health.

• IgM is the rapid-response immunoglobulin, like EMS.
• IgG comes in just before 2 weeks, and is the long-term learned antibody response. There are 4 kinds of IgG examined here, IgG1-4.
• IgG 1-3 antibodies bind to foreign proteins, like viral membranes, coat them, prevent them from working, and prepare them to be chewed-up by certain types of white blood cells. 
• IgG4 is different, a tolerance-antibody, which tags a thing in the body as "Don't-Destroy".

IgG4 responses are appropriate when the body is repeatedly exposed to non-harmful things like ragweed-pollen, which should not be ferociously attacked, because that causes more harm than ignoring them. When a person gets "Allergy Shots" of small amounts of what they are allergic to over a long time, and slowly increasing the amount, they are training this kind of immune response to ignore the allergen.

The Pfizer/Biontech mRNA product is what has been primarily tested, and it is assumed that the Moderna product, being so very similar, has the same effect of inducing IgG4 antibodies to the spike-protein of SARS-CoV2, as well as IgG3 antibodies, "blocking antibodies" early-on. The graphs show that after the first and second shot, the blocking antibodies increase and predominate, but as the months go by, following the second shot, the IgG3 blocking antibodies wane, and the IgG4 tolerance-antibodies increase. 

This is the same time frame that we have seen for the transition from "vaccines" inhibiting the coronavirus initially, but seeming to make infection with the coronavirus more-likely after 5-6 months. The world is now 3 years into this pandemic, and should be over it for the most part, but cases of infection are increasing across the world, notably in the more "vaccinated" countries and cities. The coronavirus levels in city sewage are the highest that they have ever been. in highly-"vaccinated" cities.

After a third "booster" injection of mRNA "vaccine", there is essentially no measurable IgG3, just high levels of IgG4. The immune system has been taught to ignore the SARS-CoV2 spike protein from January 2020. There is more to the virus than the 20% which is the spike-protein. People who caught COVID before getting mRNA "vaccine products" will still have their natural antibodies to the other 80% of the virus, but those who were mRNA "vaccinated" first, will probably have little to no antibodies other than those induced by the injection. Most of the human population has a gaping hole, the very same gaping hole in its immunologic defenses. 

Igor s Newsletter - Booster-Caused IgG4 Immune Tolerance Explains Excess Mortality and "Chronic Covid"

The world is therefore extremely susceptible to an infection which will breach that hole in the defenses of the "vaccinated". An engineered military coronavirus could be designed specifically to exploit that vulnerability, but coronaviruses will naturally mutate to whatever works, and exploit it without laboratory assistance. The current strains of coronavirus in circulation are very contagious, especially to the "vaccinated" and "boosted", but not often fatal, since they do not bind to ACE-2 receptors in the lungs and blood-vessels, as the pre-Omicron strains all did. The Omicron and later strains bind to the upper airways, like a "normal cold".

Arkmedic's blog - Two papers have appeared in quick succession that just need to be put together

Unacceptable Jessica - The immunological mechanism of action for lost immunity, a shift to tolerance and autoimmunity from the shots

Alex Berenson - Do Covid mRNA vaccines damage our ability to control the coronavirus after a booster shot?

The same NK-cells ("natural killer cells") that destroy viral-infected-human-cells also destroy mutated cells which become cancers if they multiply unchecked.

The suppression of this cancer-surveillance function leads to rapid growth of existing cancers. This is seen with people who have been undergoing treatment for cancer, and suddenly worsen after "vaccination" and "boosting". It would also allow new cancers to develop from mutated cells, which would take a little longer to notice, but would present as "suddenly developed cancer". This is happening, too. I recently posted this story below.

Academic Medical Oncologist Angus Dalgleish in the UK has been trying to get government agencies to evaluate the sudden rash of cancer recurrences, new diagnoses and deaths among the "vaccinated". Other cancer specialists agree with me about vaccine harm, but the authorities still won't listen

To summarize the timeline of adverse events we can say that some people get severe reactions like anaphylaxis and heart-inflammation quickly, which may kill them within hours to days. Other clotting disorders may kill them from bleeding, perhaps into their brains, within the first 2-4 weeks following the first or second injection. Production of large blood clots that block the lungs, major arteries, coronary arteries, or arteries feeding the brain, eyes or other vital organs may cause severe disability or death. Autoimmune disease, caused by similarities between parts of the spike protein, and normal proteins in the body, can cause chronic inflammation of organs like the liver and heart. Spike-protein in the bloodstream can cross into the brain, and cause it to be inflamed from autoimmune disease.

The function of the mRNA "vaccine products" is to get into human cells and induce them to produce and release January 2020 COVID spike-protein, which process continues for half a year, based upon spike-protein being found in the blood of "fully-vaccinated" 2-shot recipients at 6 months following the second injection. mRNA usually is degraded by enzymes in human cells after a few minutes, but the mRNA in these "vaccine products" has been modified so that it is not  ever broken down by those enzymes. 

What we see happening is analogous to the person getting "allergy shots" to become tolerant to pollen allergies. There is a long-term presence of January 2020 COVID spike-protein in the bodies of mRNA COVID "vaccine product" recipients. 

It stands to reason that this is what induces the IgG4 "tolerance antibody" response by the immune system. That has not yet been "proven", but it is a useful way to look at what has now been revealed, and it fits well with our understanding. It provides a working hypothesis, unless that hypothesis must later be revised for new information about the mechanisms of action of these experimental products in human immune systems.

Regrets:

Professor Shmuel Shapira, who headed the Israel Institute for Biological Research from 2013 to 2021, and led Israel's domestic coronavirus vaccine development program, has castigated the Health Ministry both over its push to impose lockdowns in 2020 and 2021, as well its support for the mass-vaccination campaign beginning in December 2020.

In a series of tweets, Professor Shapira criticized the Health Ministry for deeming Pfizer s mRNA vaccines safe and effective, and lamented having received three doses of the vaccine himself. "I am telling the unpleasant truth out the vaccine that is neither effective nor safe, " Shapira wrote. "I was wrong 3 times: In the first shot, in the second shot, and in the third shot."

Who said that those who are injected do not admit that they were wrong? People keep forgetting Israel was volunteered as the Lab of the World. There was hardly any data but very brief and minimal size clinical studies.

Global Disaster. Govt. Database Shows 10,000% Increase In Cancer Reports Due To Covid Vaccines. The damage caused by the coronavirus and the halting of studies in Israel (second place in the world) reveal a wave of problems in reading comprehension. So we will explain to you slowly and in easy Hebrew. _Hello First Grade: Those who are opponents and victims of injecting what is ineffective and unsafe are not opponents of vaccines, and certainly not vaccine deniers.

Jessica Rose Ph.D. has more on the cover-up of deaths and adverse events from COVID "vaccination". Information, already released, is "disappeared". Unacceptable Jessica - The lost myocarditis, death, neuropathy and pulmonary embolism safety signals as part of the free text purge from the VAERS Foreign data set

Questions about fertility issues, stillbirths, and neonatal deaths began to be raised last winter when Scotland experienced a month of higher infant mortality than at any time over the past three decades. Then in the spring of 2022, roughly nine months after most young adults were jabbed with the COVID shots, COVID data analysts began noticing unusual drops in birth rates. The hope was that these numbers were just short-term aberrations due to some unknown transient cause. But months later, the evidence is growing too strong to ignore, suggesting a much longer-term problem, which bizarrely has garnered little concern from policymakers, governments, the medical establishment, or the media. It ranks alongside died suddenly both in terms of its magnitude to humanity and the shocking degree of silence in response.

In fact, some media outlets were even celebrating the low birth rates without expressing any curiosity as to the sudden cause.

Sweden is a perfect country to study because it never locked down and should not have been affected socially by the lockdowns. Yet not only did the Swedes experience a sharp decline in births nine months after their vaccination program, the numbers are further deteriorating over time.

Furthermore, any hypothesis as to the cause of the plummeting birth rates would also have to logically account for the rise in neonatal deaths. For example, lockdowns would not explain why the babies being born are experiencing more health problems. The spike protein embedded in the babies blood, however, would.

Israeli researcher Josh Guetzkow obtained neonatal death data from Israeli health insurance fund Maccabi, which covers 25% of Israelis. He found a tripling of neonatal deaths in two of the quarters post-vaccination.

What if the  world is "sane" but the owners want to quietly kill half of us? In a sane world, the makers of these therapies would be behind bars, but instead they are getting a promotion to concoct even more products with this same dangerous technology.

Typically, failure of a corporate partner is an impetus for a government to break the partnership. In the case of vaccines, however, the more they fail, the more they are elevated, subsidized, and even mandated. Unless their definition of failure is the opposite of how humanity would define it.

A few years ago a group of researchers in Scotland studying learning in apes did some experiments (involving opening boxes to get a piece of candy inside) that showed that chimpanzees learn in a variety of “flexibly adaptive” ways, and that 3 year old children being presented with a similar task most often did it in ways that appear to be less intelligent than the apes. They “suggest that the difference in performance of chimpanzees and children may be due to a greater susceptibility of children to cultural conventions.” (Horner and Whiten, 2005; Whiten, et al., 2004).

In my newsletter on puberty, I described some of the effects of foods and hormones on intelligence. Here, I want to consider the effects of culture on the way people learn and think. Culture, it seems, starts to make us stupid long before the metabolic problems appear.

For many years I described culture as the perceived limits of possibility, but people usually prefer to think of it as the learned rules of conduct in a society. In the late 1950s I was talking with a psychologist about the nature of “mental maps,” and I said that I found my way around campus by reference to mental pictures of the locations of things, and he said that his method was to follow a series of rules, “go out the front door and turn left, turn left at the first corner, walk three blocks and turn right, ....up the stairs, turn right, fourth office on the left.” He had been studying mental processes for about 40 years, so his claim made an impression on me.

I thought this style of thinking might have something to do with the growing technological preference for digital, rather than analog, devices. The complexity and continuity of the real world is made to seem more precise and concrete by turning it into rules and numbers.

Around the same time, I found that some people dream in vivid images, while others describe dreams as “listening to someone tell a story.”

Several years later, a graduate student of “language philosophy” from MIT told me that I was just confused if I believed that I had mental images that I could use in thinking. His attitude was that language, in its forms and in the ways it could convey meaning, was governed by rules. He was part of an effort to define consciousness in terms of rules that could be manipulated formally. This was just a new variation on the doctrine of an “ideal language” that has concerned many philosophers since Leibniz, but now its main use is to convince people that cultural conventions and authority are rooted in the nature of our minds, rather than in particular things that people experience and the ways in which they are treated.

George Orwell, whose novels showed some of the ways language is used to control people, believed that language should be like a clear window between minds, but knew that it was habitually used to distort, mislead, and control. Scientific and medical practices often follow the authority of culture and indoctrination, instead of intelligently confronting the meaning of the evidence, the way chimpanzees are able to do.

Not so many years ago, people believed that traits were “determined by genes,” and that the development of an organism was the result of--was caused by--the sequential expression of genes in the nucleus of the fertilized egg. When B.F. Skinner in the 1970s said “a gestating baby isn't influenced by what happens to its mother,” he was expressing a deeply rooted bio-medical dogma. Physicians insisted that a baby couldn't be harmed by its mother's malnutrition, as long as she lived to give birth. People could be quite vicious when their dogma was challenged, but their actions were systematically vicious when they weren't challenged.

An ovum doesn't just grow from an oocyte according to instructions in its genes, it is constructed, with surrounding nurse cells adding substances to its cytoplasm. Analogously, the fertilized egg doesn't just grow into a human being, it is constructed, by interactions with the mother's physiology. At birth, the environment continues to influence the ways in which cells develop and interact with each other.

Even during adulthood, the ways in which our cells--in the brain, immune system, and other organs--develop and interact are shaped by the environment. When Skinner was writing, many biologists still believed that each synapse of a nerve was directed by a gene, and couldn't be influenced by experience.

Our brain grows into our culture, and the culture lives in our nervous system. If a person grows up without hearing people speak, he will have grown a special kind of brain, making it difficult to learn to speak. (Genie, wolf boy, Kaspar Hauser, for example.)

When we ask a question and find an answer, we are changed. Thinking with learning is a developmental process. But many people learn at an early age not to question. This changes the nature of subsequent learning and brain development.

In the 1960s, many textbooks were published that claimed to use scientific language theory to improve the instruction of English, from grade school level to college level. They didn't work, and at the time they were being published they appeared fraudulent to people who didn't subscribe to the incipient cults of “Generative Grammar” and “Artificial Intelligence” that later developed into “Cognitive Science.”

At the time that Artificial Intelligence was coming to the attention of investors and academicians, Neodarwinism had already cleansed the university biology departments of its opponents who advocated more holistic views, and the idea of a brain that was “hard-wired” according to genetic instructions had entered both neurology and psychology. The field concept was disappearing from developmental biology, as Gestalt psychology was disappearing from the universities and journals.

In the humanities and social sciences, a fad appeared in the 1960s, in which a theory of grammar advocated by Noam Chomsky of MIT was said to explain human thinking and behavior, and specialists in anthropology, psychology, literature, rhetoric, sociology, and other academic fields, claimed that it informed their work in an essential way. The rapid spread of a doctrine for which there was essentially no evidence suggests that it was filling a need for many people in our culture. This doctrine was filling some of the gaps left by the failure of genetic determinism that was starting to be recognized. It gave new support to the doctrine of inborn capacities and limitations, in which formulaic indoctrination can be justified by the brain's natural structure.

Chomsky was committed to an idealistic, “rationalist” doctrine of innate ideas, and to argue for that doctrine, which held that there are transcendent forms (or “deep structures”) that control mind, he disposed of the opposing “empiricist” approach to mind by claiming that children simply learn language so rapidly that it would be impossible to explain on the basis of learning from experience. Separating vocabulary from grammar, he acknowledged that each language is different, and can be learned as easily by the children of immigrants of different ethnicity as by children whose ancestors spoke it, but that all humans have a genetically encoded “universal grammar,” a “language organ.” It is this “inborn grammar” that allows children to learn what he said would be inconceivable to learn so quickly from experience.

The abstract, computational nature of the “inborn” functions of the “language organ” would make a nice program for a translating machine, and the absence of such a useful program, after more than 50 years of trying to devise one, argues against the possibility of such a thing.

Since Plato's time, some people have believed that, behind the changing irregularities of real languages, there is a timeless, context-free language. In the late 1950s, when I was studying language and the “ideal languages” of the philosophers, I realized that George Santayana was right when he pointed out that each time an artificial language is used by real people in real situations, it is altered by the experience that accrues to each component, from the context in which it is used. If real language were the model for mathematics, then the values of numbers would change a little with every calculation.

Adults are usually slower than children at learning a new language, but they can make the process much quicker by memorizing paradigms. With those models, they can begin speaking intelligible sentences when they know only a few words. These basics of grammar are often outlined in just a few pages, but listing irregularities and exceptions can become very detailed and complex. The grammar that children use isn't as subtle as the grammar some adults use, and college freshmen are seldom masters of the grammar of their native language.

There have been various studies that have investigated the number of words understood by children at different ages.

The Virginia Polytechnic Institute website says that

By age 4 a person probably knows 5,600 words

By age 5 a person probably knows 9,600 words

By age 6 a person probably knows 14,700 words

By age 7 a person probably knows 21,200 words

By age 8 a person probably knows 26,300 words

By age 9 a person probably knows 29,300 words

By age 10 a person probably knows 34,300 words

By age 20 a college sophomore probably knows 120,000 words

A dictionary with 14,000 words is a substantial book. The grammar used by a 6 year old person isn't very complex, because at that age a person isn't likely to know all of the subtleties of their language. There is no reason to assume that a mind that can learn thousands of words and concepts in a year can't learn the grammatical patterns of a language--a much smaller number of patterns and relationships--in a few years.

Idioms and clichés are clusters of words that are frequently used together in the same pattern to express a stereotyped meaning. There are thousands of them in English, and some of them have existed for centuries, while others are regional and generational. It is possible to speak or write almost completely in clichés, and they are such an important part of language that their acquisition along with the basic vocabulary deserves more attention than linguists have given it. A mind that can learn so many clichés can certainly learn the relatively few stereotypical rules of phrasing that make up the grammar of a language. In fact, a grammar in some ways resembles a complex cliché.

Recognition of patterns, first of things that are present, then of meaningful sequences, is what we call awareness or consciousness. There is biological evidence, from the level of single cells through many types of organism, both plant and animal, that pattern recognition is a basic biological function. An organism that isn't oriented in space and time isn't an adapted, adapting, organism. Environments change, and the organization of life necessarily has some flexibility.

A traveling bird or dog can see a pattern once, and later, going in the opposite direction, can recognize and find specific places and objects. An ant or bee can see a pattern once, and communicate it to others.

If dogs and birds lived in colonies or cities, as bees and ants do, and carried food home from remote locations, they might have a need to communicate their knowledge. The fact that birds and dogs use their vocal organs and brains to communicate in ways that people have seldom cared to study doesn't imply that their brains differ radically from human brains in lacking a “language organ.”

People whose ideology says that “animals use instinct rather than intelligence,” and that they lack “the language instinct,” refuse to perceive animals that are demonstrating their ability to generalize or to understand language.

Organisms have genes, so a person could say that pattern recognition is genetically determined, but it would be a foolish and empty thing to say. (Nevertheless, people do say it.) The people who believe that there are “genes for grammar” believe that these mind-controlling genes give us the ability to generalize, and therefore say that animals aren't able to generalize, though their “instinctive behaviors” might sometimes seem to involve generalization.

In language, patterns are represented symbolically by patterned sounds, and some of those symbolically represented patterns are made up of other patterns. Different languages have different ways of representing different kinds of patterns.

“Things” are recognizable when they are far or near, moving or still, bright or dark, or upside down, because the recognition of a pattern is an integration involving both spatial and temporal components. The recognition of an object involves both generalization and concreteness.

Things that are very complex are likely to take longer to recognize, but the nature of any pattern is that it is a complex of parts and properties.

A name for “a thing” is a name for a pattern, a set of relationships.

The method of naming or identifying a relationship can make use of any way of patterning sound that can be recognized as making distinctions. Concepts and grammar aren't separable things, “semantics” and “syntax” are just aspects of a particular language's way of handling meaning.

As a child interacts with more and more things, and learns things about them, the patterns of familiar things are compared to the patterns of new things, and differences and similarities are noticed and used to understand relationships. The comparison of patterns is a process of making analogies, or metaphors. Similarities perceived become generalizations, and distinctions allow things to be grouped into categories.

When things are explored analogically, the exploration may first identify objects, and then explore the factors that make up the larger pattern that was first identified, in a kind of analysis, but this analysis is a sort of expansion inward, in which the discovered complexity has the extra meaning of the larger context in which it is found.

When something new is noticed, it excites the brain, and causes attention to be focused, in the “orienting reflex.” The various senses participate in examining the thing, in a physiological way of asking a question. Perception of new patterns and the formation of generalizations expands the ways in which questions are asked. When words are available, questions may be verbalized. The way in which questions are answered verbally may be useful, but it often diverts the questioning process, and provides rules and arbitrary generalizations that may take the place of the normal analogical processes of intelligence. The vocabulary of patterns no longer expands spontaneously, but tends to come to rest in a system of accepted opinions.

A few patterns, formulated in language, are substituted for the processes of exploration through metaphorical thinking. In the first stages of learning, the process is expansive and metaphorical. If a question is closed by an answer in the form of a rule that must be followed, subsequent learning can only be analytical and deductive.

Learning of this sort is always a system of closed compartments, though one system might occasionally be exchanged for another, in a “conversion experience.”

The exploratory analogical mind is able to form broad generalizations and to make deductions from those, but the validity of the generalization is always in a process of being tested. Both the deduction and the generalization are constantly open to revision in accordance with the available evidence.

If there were infallible authorities who set down general rules, language and knowledge could be idealized and made mathematically precise. In their absence, intelligence is necessary, but the authorities who would be infallible devise ways to confine and control intelligence, so that, with the mastery of a language, the growth of intelligence usually stops.

In the 1940s and '50s, W.J.J. Gordon organized a group called Synectics, to investigate the creative process, and to devise ways to teach people to solve problems effectively. It involved several methods for helping people to think analogically and metaphorically, and to avoid stereotyped interpretations. It was a way of teaching people to recover the style of thinking of young children, or of chimps, or other intelligent animals.

When the acquisition of language is burdened by the acceptance of clichés, producing the conventionalism mentioned by Horner and Whiten, with the substitution of deductive reasoning for metaphorical-analogical thinking, the natural pleasures of mental exploration and creation are lost, and a new kind of personality and character has come into existence.

Bob Altemeyer spent his career studying the authoritarian personality, and has identified its defining traits as conventionalism, submission to authority, and aggression, as sanctioned by the authorities. His last book, The Authoritarians (2006) is available on the internet.

Altemeyer found that people who scored high on his scale of authoritarianism tended to have faulty reasoning, with compartmentalized thinking, making it possible to hold contradictory beliefs, and to be dogmatic, hypocritical, and hostile.

Since he is looking at a spectrum, focusing on differences, I think he is likely to have underestimated the degree to which these traits exist in the mainstream, and in groups such as scientists, that have a professional commitment to clear reasoning and objectivity. With careful training, and in a culture that doesn't value creative metaphorical thinking, authoritarianism might be a preferred trait.

Konrad Lorenz (who with Niko Tinbergen got the Nobel Prize in 1973) believed that specific innate structures explained animal communication, and that natural selection had created those structures. Chomsky, who said that our genes create an innate “Language Acquisition Device,” distanced himself slightly from Lorenz's view by saying that it wasn't certain that natural selection was responsible for it. However, despite slightly different names for the hypothetical innate “devices,” their views were extremely similar.

Both Lorenz and Chomsky, and their doctrine of innate rule-based consciousness, have been popular and influential among university professors. When Lorenz wrote a book on degeneration, which was little more than a revised version of the articles he had written for the Nazi party's Office for Race Policy in the late 1930s and early 1940s, advocating the extermination of racial “mongrels” such as jews and gypsies, most biologists in the US praised it. Lorenz identified National Socialism with evolution as an agent of racial purification. His lifelong beliefs and activities--the loyalty to a strong leader, advocating the killing of the weak--identified Lorenz as an extreme authoritarian.

When a famous professor went on a lecture tour popularizing and affirming the scientific truth and importance of those publications, and asserting that all human actions and knowledge, language, work, art, and belief, are specified and determined by genes, he and his audience (which, at the University of Oregon, included members of the National Academy of Sciences and Jewish professors who had been refugees from Nazism, who listened approvingly) were outraged when a student mentioned the Nazi origin and intention of the original publications.

They said “you can't say that a man's work has anything to do with his life and political beliefs,” but in fact the lecturer had just finished saying that everything a person does is integral to that person's deepest nature, just as Lorenz said that a goose with a pot belly and odd beak, or a person with non-nordic physical features and behavior and cultural preferences--should be eliminated for the improvement of the species. Not a single professor in the audience questioned the science that had justified Hitler's racial policies, and some of them showed great hostility toward the critic.

In the 1960s, a professor compared graduate students' scores on the Miller Analogies Test, which is a widely used test of analogical thinking ability, to their academic grades. She found that the students who scored close to the average on the test had the highest grades and the greatest academic success, and those who deviated the most from the average on that test, in either direction, had the worst academic grades. If the ability to think analogically is inversely associated with authoritarianism, then her results would indicate that graduate schools select for authoritarianism. (If not, then they simply select for mediocrity.)

Although Bob Altemeyer's scale mainly identified right-wing, conservative authoritarians, he indicated that there could be left-wing authoritarians, too. Noam Chomsky is identified with left-wing political views, but his views of genetic determinism and a “nativist” view of language learning, and his anti-empiricist identification of himself as a philosophical Rationalist, have a great correspondence to the authoritarian character. The “nativist” rule-based nature of “Cognitive Science” is just the modern form of an authoritarian tradition that has been influential since Plato's time.

The first thing a person is likely to notice when looking at Chomsky's work in linguistics is that he offers no evidence to support his extreme assertions. In fact, the main role evidence plays in his basic scheme is negative, that is, his doctrine of “Poverty of the Stimulus” asserts that children aren't exposed to enough examples of language for them to be able to learn grammar--therefore, grammar must be inborn.

I think Chomsky discovered long ago that the people around him were sufficiently authoritarian to accept assertions without evidence if they were presented in a form that looked complexly technical. Several people have published their correspondence with him, showing him to be authoritarian and arrogant, even rude and insulting, if the person questioned his handling of evidence, or the lack of evidence.

For example, people have argued with him about the JFK assassination, US policy in the Vietnam war, the HIV-AIDS issue, and the 9/11 investigation. In each case, he accepts the official position of the government, and insults those who question, for example, the adequacy of the Warren Commission report, or who believe that the pharmaceutical industry would manipulate the evidence regarding AIDS, or who doubt the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission investigation.

He says that investigation of such issues is “diverting people from serious issues,” as if those aren't serious issues. And “even if it's true” that the government was involved in the 9/11 terrorism, “who cares? I mean, it doesn't have any significance. I mean it's a little bit like the huge amount of energy that's put out on trying to figure out who killed John F. Kennedy. I mean, who knows, and who cares…plenty of people get killed all the time. Why does it matter that one of them happens to be John F. Kennedy?"

"If there was some reason to believe that there was a high level conspiracy" in the JFK assassination, "it might be interesting, but the evidence against that is just overwhelming." "And after that it's just a matter of, uh, if it's a jealous husband or the mafia or someone else, what difference does it make?" "It's just taking energy away from serious issues onto ones that don't matter. And I think the same is true here," regarding the events of 9/11. These reactions seem especially significant, considering his reputation as America's leading dissenter.

The speed with which Chomskyism spread through universities in the US in the 1960s convinced me that I was right in viewing the instruction of the humanities and social sciences as indoctrination, rather than objective treatment of knowledge. The reception of the authoritarian ideas of Lorenz and his apologists in biology departments offered me a new perspective on the motivations involved in the uniformity of the orthodox views of biology and medicine.

In being introduced into a profession, any lingering tendency toward analogical-metaphoric thinking is suppressed. I have known perceptive, imaginative people who, after a year or two in medical school, had become rigid rule-followers.

One of the perennial questions people have asked when they learn of the suppression of a therapy, is “if the doctors are doing it to defend the profitable old methods, how can they refuse to use the better method even for themselves and their own family?” The answer seems to be that their minds have been radically affected by their vocational training.

For many years, cancer and inflammation have been known to be closely associated, even to be aspects of a single process. This was obvious to “analog minded” people, but seemed utterly improbable to the essentialist mentality, because of the indoctrination that inflammation is a good thing, that couldn't coexist with a bad thing like cancer.

The philosophy of language might seem remote from politics and practical problems, but Kings and advertisers have understood that words and ideas are powerfully influential in maintaining relationships of power.

Theories of mind and language that justify arbitrary power, power that can't justify itself in terms of evidence, are more dangerous than merely mistaken scientific theories, because any theory that bases its arguments on evidence is capable of being disproved.

In the middle ages, the Divine Right of Kings was derived from certain kinds of theological reasoning. It has been replaced by newer ideologies, based on deductions from beliefs about the nature of mind and matter, words and genes, “Computational Grammar,” or numbers and quantized energy, but behind the ideology is the reality of the authoritarian personality.

I think if we understand more about the nature of language and its acquisition we will have a clearer picture of what is happening in our cultures, especially in the culture of science.

REFERENCES

New Yorker, April 16, 2007, “The Interpreter: Has a remote Amazonian tribe upended our understanding of language?” by John Colapinto. “Dan Everett believes that Pirahã undermines Noam Chomsky's idea of a universal grammar.”

Language & Communication Volume 23, Issue 1, January 2003, Pages 1-43. “Remarks on the origins of morphophonemics in American structuralist linguistics,” E. F. K. Koerner. Chomsky has led the public to believe that he originated things which he borrowed from earlier linguists.

Science. 2008 Feb 1;319(5863):569; author reply 569. Comparing social skills of children and apes. De Waal FB, Boesch C, Horner V, Whiten A. Letter

Curr Biol. 2007 Jun 19;17(12):1038-43. Epub 2007 Jun 7. Transmission of multiple traditions within and between chimpanzee groups. Whiten A, Spiteri A, Horner V, Bonnie KE, Lambeth SP, Schapiro SJ, de Waal FB. Centre for Social Learning and Cognitive Evolution and Scottish Primate Research Group, School of Psychology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews KY16 9JP, United Kingdom. A.whiten@st-andrews.ac.uk Field reports provide increasing evidence for local behavioral traditions among fish, birds, and mammals. These findings are significant for evolutionary biology because social learning affords faster adaptation than genetic change and has generated new (cultural) forms of evolution. Orangutan and chimpanzee field studies suggest that like humans, these apes are distinctive among animals in each exhibiting over 30 local traditions. However, direct evidence is lacking in apes and, with the exception of vocal dialects, in animals generally for the intergroup transmission that would allow innovations to spread widely and become evolutionarily significant phenomena. Here, we provide robust experimental evidence that alternative foraging techniques seeded in different groups of chimpanzees spread differentially not only within groups but serially across two further groups with substantial fidelity. Combining these results with those from recent social-diffusion studies in two larger groups offers the first experimental evidence that a nonhuman species can sustain unique local cultures, each constituted by multiple traditions. The convergence of these results with those from the wild implies a richness in chimpanzees' capacity for culture, a richness that parsimony suggests was shared with our common ancestor.

J Comp Psychol. 2007 Feb;121(1):12-21. Learning from others' mistakes? limits on understanding a trap-tube task by young chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Horner V, Whiten A. Centre for Social Learning and Cognitive Evolution, School of Psychology, University of St Andrews, Fife, Scotland, UK. Vhorner@rmy.emory.edu A trap-tube task was used to determine whether chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens) who observed a model's errors and successes could master the task in fewer trials than those who saw only successes. Two- to 7-year-old chimpanzees and 3- to 4-year-old children did not benefit from observing errors and found the task difficult. Two of the 6 chimpanzees developed a successful anticipatory strategy but showed no evidence of representing the core causal relations involved in trapping. Three- to 4-year-old children showed a similar limitation and tended to copy the actions of the demonstrator, irrespective of their causal relevance. Five- to 6-year-old children were able to master the task but did not appear to be influenced by social learning or benefit from observing errors.

Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Feb 7;274(1608):367-72. Spread of arbitrary conventions among chimpanzees: a controlled experiment. Bonnie KE, Horner V, Whiten A, de Waal FB. Living Links, Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA. Kebonni@emory.edu Wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) have a rich cultural repertoire--traditions common in some communities are not present in others. The majority of reports describe functional, material traditions, such as tool use. Arbitrary conventions have received far less attention. In the same way that observations of material culture in wild apes led to experiments to confirm social transmission and identify underlying learning mechanisms, experiments investigating how arbitrary habits or conventions arise and spread within a group are also required. The few relevant experimental studies reported thus far have relied on cross-species (i.e. human-ape) interaction offering limited ecological validity, and no study has successfully generated a tradition not involving tool use in an established group. We seeded one of two rewarded alternative endpoints to a complex sequence of behaviour in each of two chimpanzee groups. Each sequence spread in the group in which it was seeded, with many individuals unambiguously adopting the sequence demonstrated by a group member. In one group, the alternative sequence was discovered by a low ranking female, but was not learned by others. Since the action-sequences lacked meaning before the experiment and had no logical connection with reward, chimpanzees must have extracted both the form and benefits of these sequences through observation of others.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Sep 12;103(37):13878-83. Faithful replication of foraging techniques along cultural transmission chains by chimpanzees and children. Horner V, Whiten A, Flynn E, de Waal FB. Centre for Social Learning and Cognitive Evolution, School of Psychology, University of St. Andrews, Fife KY16 9JP, United Kingdom. Observational studies of wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) have revealed population-specific differences in behavior, thought to represent cultural variation. Field studies have also reported behaviors indicative of cultural learning, such as close observation of adult skills by infants, and the use of similar foraging techniques within a population over many generations. Although experimental studies have shown that chimpanzees are able to learn complex behaviors by observation, it is unclear how closely these studies simulate the learning environment found in the wild. In the present study we have used a diffusion chain paradigm, whereby a behavior is passed from one individual to the next in a linear sequence in an attempt to simulate intergenerational transmission of a foraging skill. Using a powerful three-group, two-action methodology, we found that alternative methods used to obtain food from a foraging device ("lift door" versus "slide door") were accurately transmitted along two chains of six and five chimpanzees, respectively, such that the last chimpanzee in the chain used the same method as the original trained model. The fidelity of transmission within each chain is remarkable given that several individuals in the no-model control group were able to discover either method by individual exploration. A comparative study with human children revealed similar results. This study is the first to experimentally demonstrate the linear transmission of alternative foraging techniques by non-human primates. Our results show that chimpanzees have a capacity to sustain local traditions across multiple simulated generations.

Nature. 2005 Sep 29;437(7059):737-40. Conformity to cultural norms of tool use in chimpanzees. Whiten A, Horner V, de Waal FB. Centre for Social Learning and Cognitive Evolution, School of Psychology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9JP, UK. A.whiten@st-and.ac.uk Rich circumstantial evidence suggests that the extensive behavioural diversity recorded in wild great apes reflects a complexity of cultural variation unmatched by species other than our own. However, the capacity for cultural transmission assumed by this interpretation has remained difficult to test rigorously in the field, where the scope for controlled experimentation is limited. Here we show that experimentally introduced technologies will spread within different ape communities. Unobserved by group mates, we first trained a high-ranking female from each of two groups of captive chimpanzees to adopt one of two different tool-use techniques for obtaining food from the same 'Pan-pipe' apparatus, then re-introduced each female to her respective group. All but two of 32 chimpanzees mastered the new technique under the influence of their local expert, whereas none did so in a third population lacking an expert. Most chimpanzees adopted the method seeded in their group, and these traditions continued to diverge over time. A subset of chimpanzees that discovered the alternative method nevertheless went on to match the predominant approach of their companions, showing a conformity bias that is regarded as a hallmark of human culture.

Anim Cogn. 2005 Jul;8(3):164-81. Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Horner V, Whiten A. Centre for Social Learning and Cognitive Evolution, School of Psychology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9JU, UK. Vkh1@st-andrews.ac.uk This study explored whether the tendency of chimpanzees and children to use emulation or imitation to solve a tool-using task was a response to the availability of causal information. Young wild-born chimpanzees from an African sanctuary and 3- to 4-year-old children observed a human demonstrator use a tool to retrieve a reward from a puzzle-box. The demonstration involved both causally relevant and irrelevant actions, and the box was presented in each of two conditions: opaque and clear. In the opaque condition, causal information about the effect of the tool inside the box was not available, and hence it was impossible to differentiate between the relevant and irrelevant parts of the demonstration. However, in the clear condition causal information was available, and subjects could potentially determine which actions were necessary. When chimpanzees were presented with the opaque box, they reproduced both the relevant and irrelevant actions, thus imitating the overall structure of the task. When the box was presented in the clear condition they instead ignored the irrelevant actions in favour of a more efficient, emulative technique. These results suggest that emulation is the favoured strategy of chimpanzees when sufficient causal information is available. However, if such information is not available, chimpanzees are prone to employ a more comprehensive copy of an observed action. In contrast to the chimpanzees, children employed imitation to solve the task in both conditions, at the expense of efficiency. We suggest that the difference in performance of chimpanzees and children may be due to a greater susceptibility of children to cultural conventions, perhaps combined with a differential focus on the results, actions and goals of the demonstrator.

Learn Behav. 2004 Feb;32(1):36-52. How do apes ape? Whiten A, Horner V, Litchfield CA, Marshall-Pescini S. Centre for Social Learning and Cognitive Evolution, Scottish Primate Research Group, School of Psychology, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland. A.whiten@st-and.ac.uk In the wake of telling critiques of the foundations on which earlier conclusions were based, the last 15 years have witnessed a renaissance in the study of social learning in apes. As a result, we are able to review 31 experimental studies from this period in which social learning in chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans has been investigated. The principal question framed at the beginning of this era, Do apes ape? has been answered in the affirmative, at least in certain conditions. The more interesting question now is, thus, How do apes ape? Answering this question has engendered richer taxonomies of the range of social-learning processes at work and new methodologies to uncover them. Together, these studies suggest that apes ape by employing a portfolio of alternative social-learning processes in flexibly adaptive ways, in conjunction with nonsocial learning. We conclude by sketching the kind of decision tree that appears to underlie the deployment of these alternatives.

http://www.ucc.vt.edu/stdysk/vocabula.html

© Ray Peat Ph.D. 2009. All Rights Reserved. www.RayPeat.com

Biomedicine (Taipei). 2022; 12(3): 1–4.

• Published online 2022 Sep 1. doi: 10.37796/2211-8039.1371
• PMCID: PMC9629406
• PMID: 36381188

Covid 19 vaccines and the misinterpretation of perceived side effects clarity on the safety of vaccines

Raymond D. Palmera,b

Raymond D. Palmer

• Full Spectrum Biologics, South Perth, WA, 6151, Australia
• Full Spectrum Biologics, WA, 6102, Australia
• Find articles by Raymond D. Palmer
• [E-mail address: moc.em@remlap.yar.
• Received 2022 Mar 12; Revised 2022 Apr 20; Accepted 2022 May 4.
• Copyright © the Author(s)

This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

In the era of Covid 19 and mass vaccination programs, the anti-vaccination movement across the world is currently at an all-time high. Much of this anti-vaccination sentiment could be attributed to the alleged side effects that are perpetuated across social media from anti-vaccination groups.

Fear mongering and misinformation being peddled by people with no scientific training to terrorise people into staying unvaccinated is not just causing people to remain susceptible to viral outbreaks, but could also be causing more side effects seen in the vaccination process. This brief review will offer data that may demonstrate that misinformation perpetuated by the anti-vaccination movement may be causing more deaths and side effects from any vaccine.

A mini review of published literature has been conducted and found that mental stress clearly causes vasoconstriction and arterial constriction of the blood vessels. Therefore, if subjects are panicked, concerned, stressed or scared of the vaccination, their arteries will constrict and become smaller in and around the time of receiving the vaccine. This biological mechanism (the constriction of veins, arteries and vessels under mental stress) is the most likely cause for where there has been blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, dizziness, fainting, blurred vision, loss of smell and taste that may have been experienced shortly after vaccine administration. The extreme mental stress of the patient could most likely be attributed to the fear mongering and scare tactics used by various anti-vaccination groups.

This paper does not aim to rule in or out every side effect seen, but it is highly likely that many apparent side effects seen shortly after a subject has received a vaccine could be the result of restricted or congested blood flow from blood vessel or arterial constriction caused by emotional distress or placebo based on fear around vaccines.

Keywords: Covid 19, Vaccines, Side effects, Misinterpretation, Ischemia, Stress, Cardiovascular

Introduction

Vaccines introduced in late 2020 or early 2021 were closely watched, scrutinised, and monitored by the world’s mainstream population due to their fast to market delivery. Subsequent health concerns were quickly made public across social media and news outlets driving further vaccine hesitancy. One of the most common health concerns was that various types of Covid 19 vaccines were causing strokes or blood clots. The science for the vaccines causing blood clots has not been found, but other causes for this cascade from vaccines to blood clotting events may be found in existing medical literature.

Covid 19 vaccines use many of the same ingredients that have been safely used for many years, with the only major difference being the mRNA [1,2]. However, anti-vaccination sentiment and side effects are at an all time high, and this may point to a statistical significance.

Vaccines include antigens that produce an immune response which is adept at providing protection from disease [3]. However, reactogenicity from vaccines is very rare according to Herve et al. and mostly associated with mild irritations or other discomfort at the site of injection. Once vaccine antigens enter the body, they are distinguished as pathogens by the body’s immune system, the pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) or damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), pattern-recognition receptors (PRRs), including Toll-like receptors (TLR) that are located on peripheral circulating immune cells [3,4].

Even though the likelihood of mental stress causing strokes, heart attacks or blood clots may at first appear unlikely, a brief investigation of current medical literature clearly shows that simple tasks under clinical observing conditions such as public speaking can induce serious adverse outcomes [5]. Krantz et al. demonstrated that subjects with ischemia from mental stress experienced cardiac episodes more frequently than subjects without mental stress ischemia (8 of 34; 23%; p = 0.048).

Mental stress-induced myocardial ischemia (MSIMI) is a condition where blood flow to the heart is restricted due to emotional distress. MSIMI has been found to be more severe in females when peripheral blood vessels are constricted [6]. If MSIMI results in ischemia, it can also double the chance of a heart attack or death in subjects where heart disease is present [7]. Jiang et al. found a significant increase in nonfatal and fatal cardiac events in subjects with MSIMI.

It has been found that the level of microvascular constriction but not the angiographic burden of coronary artery disease (CAD) is correlated with MSIMI [8]. Patients with CAD and exercise induced ischemia (EII) with the existence of MSIMI were highly predicted to undergo a loss of life event [9].

Visceral arteries are also implicated in constriction from mental stress. Notably the renal artery showed decreased blood flow during mental stress testing [10]. The superior mesenteric artery (SMA) did not display any significant difference according to Hayashi et al. The findings of renal artery constriction also may lead into serious downstream kidney events. This data clearly indicates that mental stress can prevent blood flow far beyond the cardiovascular system inducing many other aberrations.

Adverse cardiovascular events that were reported from Covid 19 vaccines have been monitored closely by The World Health Organisation (WHO) [11]. Of those events, palpitations (717(14.74)), increased heart rate (439 (9,03), flushing (592(12.17) and tachycardia (798 (16.41)) were all reported as having the highest rate of incidence. However, Kaur et al. does not find any causality from the vaccines listed. Furthermore, restricted blood flow or blockages caused by MSIMI inducing vasoconstriction could be the smoking gun in all the aforementioned conditions such as palpitations, increased heart rate, flushing and tachycardia [12,13].

Vaccines monitored by Kaur et al. were Comirnaty (BNT162b2), Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine (mRNA1273), COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca (AZD1222); also known as Covishield, Sputnik V, COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen (JNJ-78436735; Ad26.COV2.S), CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, Epi-VacCorona, Convidicea (Ad5-nCoV), Covaxin, CoviVac, ZF2001.

Moreover, vasoconstriction could also result in hyperpnea, postural faint, light headedness or dizziness which have all been included as possible side effects from the Covid 19 vaccines [14,15]. Post vaccine smell and taste disorders have also been implicated as side effects of Covid 19 vaccines, however both these disorders may be attributed to blood flow disorders from mental stress induced vasoconstriction [16].

The litany of suspected or perceived side effects discussed here from Covid 19 vaccines correlates firmly with well-established vasoconstriction disorders where blood flow is reduced or blocked completely. MSIMI is found in 70% of people with CAD [17], and it is predicted that approximately 16.3 million Americans above the age of twenty have CAD. Notably The American Heart Association (AHA) reports that approximately 82.6 million people in the United States have some form of cardiovascular disease [18]. When MSIMI is combined with these conditions, it presents a further aggravated risk for mortality.

The data presented herein, poses an interesting question, is the fear mongering around vaccines causing many of these perceived side effects by inducing unnecessary stress in vulnerable people? Is the movement and character of anti-vaccination information that may strike fear into the general population causing anxiety and vascular constriction resulting in pathologies such as dizziness, hypernea, fainting, blood clotting, stroke and heart attack? The science discussed here clearly establishes that anxiety and fear causes vasoconstriction disorders, and that a particular movement that is trying to save people with a profound lack of scientific and medical training (the anti-vaccination movement) from vaccine side effects may actually be the entity causing the majority of side effects.

Sullivan et al. had demonstrated that MSIMI was found to be more dangerous in females when peripheral blood vessels were constricted. When females underwent a tonometry exam the average ratio was associated at 0.11–0.35, just over a threefold ratio [6]. The Centre for Disease Control (CDC) also found that there was approximately between a three and fourfold increase in females reporting adverse side effects than men from the Covid 19 vaccine [19]. The numbers reported from the CDC were 4296 adverse side effects from females, and 1056 from men. The parallel in this data is quite clear, and may profoundly exonerate Covid 19 vaccines as ground zero for the perceived side effects and implicate the well established and studied condition of MSIMI and other blood flow conditions as the smoking gun.

Apart from MSIMI and other cardiac impairments discussed here, the placebo effect is also a strong marker in potential side effects, as the belief in detrimental side effects (the nocebo effect) can cause detrimental side effects [20]. It has also been shown that the placebo effect can be so powerful that it can affect end-organ functions that are controlled by the autonomic nervous system [21]. Both the placebo and nocebo effect are both noted here due to MSIMI being caused by mental stress, that is the connection between mental state and biological disorder which is already well established across the literature. This shows major cause for concern where fear mongering around vaccines is being perpetuated, as those with expectations of getting adverse side effects may increase their risk of experiencing adverse side effects [22].

Obesity may also play a role in poor outcomes for Covid 19 vaccines [23]. Obese subjects also appear to be at higher risk of MSIMI [24] which is consistent with this paper’s findings. An increase in adverse reactions was also found in obese subjects when using the Pfizer vaccine [25]. Obesity or poor arterial health may heighten the chances of a vaccine side effect.

Conclusion

This mini review finds that subjects with a history of heart disease, obesity, poor health combined with extreme stress or fear of vaccines should visit their medical practitioner and discuss the use of therapies or medications such as vaso or arterial dilators or possibly anticoagulants prior to their vaccines, as these measures under professional guidance may assist in maintaining healthy blood flow through a subject’s system and may offer benefits to ensure adverse reactions from underlying health conditions are not confused with adverse reactions from vaccines.

All data or claims of adverse reactions from vaccines should first be weighed against a subject’s health history with a focus on their vascular and arterial systems, cardiologic fitness and propensity for mental stress induced ischemia.

This brief review is not exhaustive but finds that it is highly probable that many adverse reports from recent vaccines are associated with vasoconstriction in conjunction with MSIMI or CAD.

This paper also presents the opportunity for governments to peer back into the claims of adverse vaccine side effects and weigh up the volume of existing health conditions that many of those subjects may have had. If it can be established in a high volume of cases of apparent side effects that CAD, HD, MSIMI or EII were present, then the adverse reactions can be laid against emotional distress or anxiety as opposed to the vaccines. The cause or source of that emotional distress and fear must then be investigated, recognised, and managed for future vaccination programs. Humanity on average has experienced a viral outbreak every two years for the last decade. So, managing this alarmism over perceived vaccine side effects is paramount in delivering fast to market solutions for future vaccination programs.

Limitations of study

This review is limited by primarily focusing on vasoconstriction conditions caused by a stress response, and also by a lack of large-scale clinical trial studies to determine whether using novel combinations of vasodilators or anticoagulants with vaccines could reduce vaccine side effects, which may also assist in clarifying whether side effects were emanating from vaccines or conditions such as MSIMI. Further investigation into whether side effects could be attributed as a stress response is required.

Footnotes

• Dates Written - Monday, 22 November 2021.
• Contributors - Raymond D Palmer.
• Conflict of interest - Raymond D Palmer is Chief Science Officer of Full Spectrum Biologics.

References

1. Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, Absalon J, Gurtman A, Lockhart S, et al. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA covid-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(27):26032615. doi: 10.1056/NEJMOA2034577. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

2. Kaur SP, Gupta V. COVID-19 Vaccine: a comprehensive status report. Virus Res. 2020;288:198114. doi: 10.1016/J.VIRUSRES.2020.198114. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

3. Hervé C, Laupèze B, Del Giudice G, Didierlaurent AM, Da Silva FT. The how’s and what’s of vaccine reactogenicity. NPJ Vaccines. 2019;4(1):1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41541-0190132-6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

4. Beutler B. Microbe sensing, positive feedback loops, and the pathogenesis of inflammatory diseases. Immunol Rev. 2009;227(1):248–63. doi: 10.1111/J.1600-065X.2008.00733.X. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

5. Krantz DS, Santiago HT, Kop WJ, Merz CNB, Rozanski A, Gottdiener JS. Prognostic value of mental stress testing in coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1999;84(11):1292–7. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9149(99)00560-3. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

6. Sullivan S, Hammadah M, Al Mheid I, Wilmot K, Ramadan R, Alkhoder A, et al. Sex differences in hemodynamic and microvascular mechanisms of myocardial ischemia induced by mental stress. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2018;38(2):473–80. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.117.309535. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Vaccarino V, Sullivan S, Hammadah M, Wilmot K, Al Mheid I, Ramadan R, et al. Mental stress induced-myocardial ischemia in young patients with recent myocardial infarction: sex differences and mechanisms. Circulation. 2018;137(8):794. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.030849. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Ramadan R, Sheps D, Esteves F, Zafari AM, Bremner JD, Vaccarino V, et al. Myocardial ischemia during mental stress: role of coronary artery disease burden and vasomotion. J Am Hear Assoc Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013;2(5) doi: 10.1161/JAHA.113.000321. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9. Sheps DS, McMahon RP, Becker L, Carney RM, Freedland KE, Cohen JD, et al. Mental stress-induced ischemia and all-cause mortality in patients with coronary artery disease: results from the Psychophysiological Investigations of Myocardial Ischemia study. Circulation. 2002;105(15):1780–4. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000014491.90666.06. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Hayashi N, Someya N, Endo MY, Miura A, Fukuba Y. Vasoconstriction and blood flow responses in visceral arteries to mental task in humans. Exp Physiol. 2006;91(1):215–20. doi: 10.1113/EXPPHYSIOL.2005.031971. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

11. Kaur RJ, Dutta S, Charan J, Bhardwaj P, Tandon A, Yadav D, et al. Cardiovascular adverse events reported from COVID-19 vaccines: a study based on WHO database. Int J Gen Med. 2021;14:3909. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S324349. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Clementy N, Fourquet A, Andre C, Bisson A, Pierre B, Fauchier L, et al. Benefits of an early management of palpitations. Medicine (Baltim) 2018;97(28) doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011466. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

13. Heusch G. Heart rate in the pathophysiology of coronary blood flow and myocardial ischaemia: benefit from selective bradycardic agents. Br J Pharmacol. 2008;153(8):1589. doi: 10.1038/SJ.BJP.0707673. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. Taylor S, Asmundson GJG. Immunization stress-related responses: implications for vaccination hesitancy and vaccination processes during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Anxiet Disord. 2021;84:102489. doi: 10.1016/J.JANXDIS.2021.102489. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

15. Taneja I, Medow MS, Glover JL, Raghunath NK, Stewart JM. Increased vasoconstriction predisposes to hyperpnea and postural faint. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2008;295(1):H372. doi: 10.1152/AJPHEART.00101.2008. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

16. Lechien JR, Diallo AO, Dachy B, Le Bon SD, Maniaci A, Vaira LA, et al.COVID-19: postvaccine smell and taste disorders: report of 6 cases. Ear Nose Throat J. 2021. Published online. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

17. Mental stress-induced myocardial ischemia: an under-recognized cardiac risk factor? American college of cardiology; [Accessed 1 December 2021]. https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2014/07/18/18/35/mental-stress-inducedmyocardial-ischemia-an-underrecognized-cardiac-risk-factor . [Google Scholar]

18. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, Adams RJ, Berry JD, Brown TM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2011 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123(4) doi: 10.1161/CIR.0B013E3182009701. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Gee J, Marquez P, Su J, Liu R, Myers T, Nair N, et al. First month of COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring — United States, December 14, 2020–January 13, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70(8):283–8. doi: 10.15585/MMWR.MM7008E3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

20. Wager TD, Atlas LY. The neuroscience of placebo effects: connecting context, learning and health. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2015;16(7):403. doi: 10.1038/NRN3976. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

21. Meissner K. The placebo effect and the autonomic nervous system: evidence for an intimate relationship. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011;366(1572):1808–17. doi: 10.1098/RSTB.2010.0403. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. Benedetti F, Carlino E, Pollo A. How placebos change the patient’s brain. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2011;36(1):339–54. doi: 10.1038/NPP.2010.81. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

23. Kipshidze N, Kipshidze N, Fried M. COVID-19 vaccines: special considerations for the obese population. Obes Surg. 2021;31(8):1. doi: 10.1007/S11695-021-05404-Y. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

24. Soufer R, Fernandez AB, Meadows J, Collins D, Burg MM. Body mass index and risk for mental stress-induced ischemia in coronary artery disease. Mol Med. 2016;22:286. doi: 10.2119/MOLMED.2016.00128. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Menni C, Klaser K, May A, Polidori L, Capdevila J, Louca P, et al. Vaccine side-effects and SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in users of the COVID Symptom Study app in the UK: a prospective observational study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021;21(7):939–49. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00224-3/ATTACHMENT/05D885CC-88B3-43A5-BE70912E3DD2F3A6/MMC1.PDF. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Articles from BioMedicine are provided here courtesy of China Medical University

Other Formats

• PubReader
• PDF (123K)

Peter Aaby at the Symposium about Scientific Freedom, Copenhagen, 9 March 2019.

Lecture: "WHO is the brain in the system - The sound of silence? A case study of how public health vaccinology deals with fundamental contradictions of current policy."

Anthropologist, Dr Peter Aaby is credited for the discovery of non-specific effects of vaccines, leading the World Health Organization, WHO, to change its measles vaccine programme in the early 1990s.
For almost 40 years, he has run the Bandim Health Project, a health and demographic surveillance system site that he established in Guinea-Bissau in 1978.

This lecture is part of the Symposium about Scientific Freedom and the inauguration of the Institute for Scientific Freedom, which took place in Copenhagen, Denmark, 9 March 2019.

World renowned Danish scientist Peter C Gøtzsche is the founder of the institute. The Institute’s primary area of focus is healthcare and the institute has three main visions:

• All science should strive to be free from financial conflicts of interest.
• All science should be published as soon as possible, and made freely accessible.
• All scientific data, including study protocols, should be freely accessible, allowing others to do their own analyses.

The Vilification of Healthy People; Especially Children

Throughout the past several years apparently healthy people have been re-defined as being potential asymptomatic spreaders of a disease that can be lethal in high-risk individuals. The disease is known as the novel coronavirus disease that was first identified in 2019 (COVID-19). People around the world have been instilled with near-paralyzing fear that their family member, friend, neighbour and/or colleague who has no signs or symptoms can kill them by spreading severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is the causative agent of COVID-19.

This paradigm that a person has no way of knowing who is safe to be around has formed the rationale for mass lockdowns, masking, and mandating ‘vaccines’ for which the initial clinical experiments are still ongoing. This has caused massive fracturing of relationships around the globe. Nobody has been spared. Families have split, best friendships that lasted decades ended abruptly, and colleagues lashed out.

We were told that everyone had to do their part to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. Those who felt healthy could not be trusted. Unbeknown to them they might have a wicked pathogen oozing out of their body. Healthy children who were at a statistical risk equivalent to zero of dying from COVID-19 would almost certainly kill their grandparents if they were not locked down, masked and ‘vaccinated’. Those who resisted lockdowns, masking, and mandating of so-called vaccines that could neither prevent the disease nor transmission of its causative agent have been treated like uncaring villains that are deserving of segregation. Remember this front page of one of Canada’s best-known newspapers that was published on August 26, 2021?…

The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, has been a classic example of a leader who has vigorously promoted this kind of hatred and division within his own country.

So, how did we get so far off-track with our response to COVID-19?

Why will future history books, if accurate, document this as the most mismanaged crisis of our time?

Most of the blame rests on the scientific and medical community allowing a very elegant scientific test to be chronically misused. This test is known as the ‘reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction’ (RT-PCR).

Did we follow the science?

In court, I have often seen judges puzzled by the apparent contradictions in the scientific evidence being put forward by various experts. These judges often question how scientists can interpret the same data so differently. When it comes to the science underpinning COVID-19, published papers can be placed into two bins:

1. Those that are trustworthy because they are based on sound scientific methods.

2. Those that are untrustworthy because they are based on flawed scientific methods.

In the past several years science in bin 2 has become voluminous and has contributed excessively to the rationale for the so-called prevailing ‘COVID-19 narrative’. The problem is that the science in bin 2 cannot be properly interpreted because it is built on a fundamentally flawed foundation. Too many scientists failed to critically assess the methods used to generate the early COVID-19 data. This has resulted in this junk science to snowball out of control. The RT-PCR test is at the heart of this problem.

The House Built on Sand Must be Dismantled

If one goes back to the birth of COVID-19 science and critically assesses it, misusing the RT-PCR test jumps out as a key fundamental flaw that caused substantial overestimation of the number of cases of COVID-19 and erroneous labeling of healthy people as asymptomatic spreaders of a deadly disease. The only way to correct course and stop the avalanche of faulty COVID-19 science is to establish which papers can and cannot be trusted. Importantly, editors of scientific journals cannot allow any more COVID-19 ‘facts’ to be published unless the authors unequivocally demonstrate that their data are based on methods that have been implemented properly. Most notably, authors must demonstrate that their research methodologies have been appropriately calibrated such that their conclusions are justified.

Misuse of An Elegant Scientific Technique Has Plagued COVID-19 Science From the Very Beginning

To properly gauge the scope of an outbreak of an infectious disease, one first needs to accurately diagnose it. Diseases are diagnosed primarily based on two things:

1. Accurately detecting the presence of a pathogen using a laboratory-based test.

2. Detection of signs and/or symptoms consistent with the disease, which is usually done by a physician.

Symptoms are aspects of a disease that a person experiences but cannot be assessed easily by an observer. Examples include general malaise, pain, and a loss of appetite. In contrast, signs of illness can be objectively observed and documented by others, and include coughing, sneezing, or a fever that can measured with a thermometer. Often, symptoms precede the onset of signs of illness.

When it comes to defining what it means to be ‘asymptomatic’, there are three relevant scenarios:

1. A person who is not infected with a pathogen will never be at risk of developing the disease associated with that pathogen. These are healthy individuals who are asymptomatic by virtue of not having been infected. They cannot infect others.

2. A person can be infected with a potential pathogen but never develop symptoms of a disease because the causative agent fails to cause substantial harm in the body. In many cases, this might be because the immune system can respond rapidly and effectively. There have also been examples of people getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 but never apparently experiencing symptoms nor developing signs of COVID-19. Infection does not always result in disease. For example, billions of microbes, including many bacteria and viruses, live on and in our bodies without causing us harm. They have invaded our bodies but do not cause disease, even though some of them can cause serious disease in other people or even ourselves should they get into an inappropriate physiological location (e.g., some fecal bacteria entering a body via the oral route). Infected but asymptomatic (disease-free) people are also healthy (i.e., there is no impairment to their ability to function in their daily activities).

3. People who get infected and then progress to a diseased state always have a period in between when they are ‘asymptomatic’. Technically, these individuals that do eventually get sick are referred to as being ‘pre-symptomatic’. One does not know if a person is truly asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic until the typical incubation period for a pathogen has passed; this is the expected time from infection to the onset of symptoms in a susceptible person. A person who is infected and symptomatic can spread the causative agent of the disease to others.

When people have COVID-19, they experience obvious symptoms and signs also usually become apparent. This is the scenario that has been easy to manage throughout the declared COVID-19 pandemic. People who are sick have been asked to stay home. From a social hygiene perspective, it is my expert opinion that this should be encouraged for all the infectious diseases we live with. This would reduce infectious disease-related morbidities and mortalities.

In the context of COVID-19, most masking, isolation and vaccination policies around the world are predicated on the assumption that transmission of SARS-CoV-2 can be efficiently mediated by asymptomatic people who are transiently infected but never get COVID-19 and/or pre-symptomatic individuals. This is based on the assumption that SARS-CoV-2 can replicate to the point where a person who is not coughing or sneezing can expel a threshold dose required to potentially infect another person. Although this is theoretically possible and likely occurs rarely, it is incorrect to conclude that this is commonplace and a significant driver of the spread of COVID-19. This incorrect concept is based on an array of scientific studies that relied on RT-PCR testing that was inappropriately calibrated.

How to Define a Case of COVID-19

Cases of COVID-19 should only be determined as follows:

1. It should be a physician making the diagnosis.

2. It should be based on the presence of signs and symptoms that are consistent with the clinical definition of COVID-19.

3. The presence of symptoms and/or signs should be supported by laboratory results derived from properly calibrated tests that demonstrate the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virions. A virion is a single virus particle. Virions can be replication-competent; these are the only ones that can potentially infect another person and cause disease. Or they can be replication-incompetent; these ones can never spread to others and cause COVID-19.

Throughout the declared pandemic many so-called ‘cases’ of COVID-19 were incorrectly ‘diagnosed’. Cases, especially early in the declared pandemic, have been defined by individuals other than physicians, assumed based on signs and symptoms only, or exclusively based on a positive laboratory test result. The latter has been extremely common. This contradicts the World Health Organization, which noted that “Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information”.

The core definition, and all-too-often the sole definition of ‘cases’ of COVID-19 has been based on the use of a laboratory testing method referred to as ‘RT-PCR’. To understand how asymptomatic people were mislabeled as significant sources of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, one must first understand how RT-PCR testing should have been properly calibrated around the world.

A polymerase is a protein that can copy DNA, which is a genetic blueprint. So, the PCR method requires this genetic blueprint known as DNA to be present in order to work. If DNA is in a sample, when a scientist adds a polymerase, a few other ingredients, and then varies the temperature, new copies of tiny portions of the DNA will be made. With each ‘cycle’ that the PCR test is run, more copies of these fragments of the genetic blueprint will be made. Once a threshold number of copies appear in the sample, they can be detected. Think of it like a photocopier. From a great distance, you might not be able to tell if a single copy of a page has been made. However, once you have a stack of five hundred pages sitting on the output tray, you know for sure that the photocopier is churning out copies. In short, PCR is a method that scientists can use to determine whether a particular genetic blueprint is present in a sample.

The genetic blueprint for SARS-CoV-2 is not made of DNA. Instead, it is made of a related structure called ‘RNA’. Therefore, to use the PCR test to determine whether an RNA-based virus is present in a sample requires one additional step at the beginning. Specifically, a ‘reverse transcriptase’ is used to convert the RNA from SARS-CoV-2 into DNA, portions of which can then be detected with the PCR test. This is how the RT-PCR test is used to detect the presence of small pieces of the genetic material from SARS-CoV-2.

The Inappropriate Use of RT-PCR Testing Caused a Disconnect Between Laboratory Studies and ‘Real World’ Data

Laboratory studies suggested that asymptomatic individuals could potentially shed infectious SARS-CoV-2 one to two days before the onset of symptoms of COVID-19. However, the largest ‘real world’ study done to date looked at the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in ~10 million people in Wuhan, China and found no evidence of asymptomatic transmission. This typical disconnect in the results of laboratory-based studies and ‘real world’ data is due to the former types of experiments having relied on the use of uncalibrated or incorrectly calibrated RT-PCR tests. An RT-PCR test can only determine if tiny fragments of the genetic material from a virus is present in a sample. It can never indicate, on its own, whether that material is from virus particles that have the potential to infect and cause disease, or from replication-incompetent virions or even portions thereof that cannot cause disease.

Flawed RT-PCR Testing Caused Over-Diagnosis of COVID-19

On its own, a positive result on a RT-PCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 is insufficient to diagnose COVID-19, yet this became routine in most parts of the world. In addition to the potential for false positive tests, true positive results can also be obtained from genomes of SARS-CoV-2 particles that are no longer infectious. An example of the latter would be an individual who has mounted an effective immune response and may have remnant replication-incompetent viral particles or partially degraded viral genetic material inside relatively long-lived white blood cells that have killed the virus. These cells are known as ‘phagocytes’ and are part of our immune system. Indeed, following clearance of SARS-CoV-2 from the body, full and/or partial genomes of SARS-CoV-2 can remain for up to several weeks. Phagocytosis (or ‘eating’) of SARS-CoV-2 is a mechanism to kill and remove the virus from the body. These phagocytic cells tend to hang on to these ‘killed’ virions so that they can activate other immunological effector cells, including B cells that produce the antibodies we have heard so much about. As such, these phagocytes can be a source of SARS-CoV-2 genomes that could be amplified by a PCR test. However, these genomes would not have the potential to cause COVID-19. Instead it would evidence that the infection has resolved or is resolving. Persistence of whole or partial genomes that are not associated with infectious particles is well-documented for a variety of other viruses, including measles, Middle East respiratory syndrome-coronavirus, and other coronaviruses. A positive RT-PCR test for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 should never be used, on its own, to define cases of COVID-19; and definitely should not be used to claim that someone has the potential to infect another person.

Building a Rock-Solid Foundation for COVID-19 Science:

The Gold Standard Functional Virology Assay that Should Always be Used to Calibrate RT-PCR Tests

A gold standard test for infectivity of a virus is a cell-based functional assay that determines the potential to replicate and cause cell death. The assay works like this: Cells that are stripped of their anti-viral properties are put into a dish and allowed to adhere to the bottom. The cells would typically cover the entire bottom of the dish. A scientist can look under a microscope to confirm the cells are healthy. A sample then gets added to the cells. If the sample contains replication-competent (i.e., potentially disease-causing) virions, these will infect and kill the cells. A day or two later, the scientist can check the cells under a microscope again. If they see what is called a ‘cytopathic effect’, which means the cells have died, this indicates that replication-competent virions were present. If there was no cytopathic effect, there were no replication-competent virions. Here are pictures from my research team that show how this virology test works…

…the cells on the left were not exposed to a replication-competent (infectious) virus. They remain happily adhered to the bottom of the dish. There was no cytopathic effect. The cells on the right were exposed to a replication-competent virus that infected and killed them. As the cells died, they rounded up and lost their ability to remain stuck to the bottom of the plate. This is a classic example of cytopathic effect. You can see how easy it is to use this test to determine whether a sample contains any infectious virions.

To calibrate a RT-PCR test for SARS-Cov-2, samples from nasopharyngeal swabs of a large array of people would be split into two; one for RT-PCR testing and the other for testing in the gold standard virology assay. Scientists would note the cycle threshold values from the RT-PCR test that are associated with evidence of replication-competent virions from the cellular virology assay versus those that did not cause a cytopathic effect. This allows a cycle threshold cut-off to be determined. Above this threshold, there is no evidence of replication-competent virions in samples from the nasopharyngeal swabs. This is the objective and proper way to calibrate a RT-PCR test when studying transmission of a virus. Without doing this, RT-PCR test results cannot be interpreted in a meaningful way, and they would lead to inappropriate conclusions, like asymptomatic people being spreaders of COVID-19.

Early in the declared COVID-19 pandemic the Public Health Agency of Canada appropriately performed this calibration of their RT-PCR test. For the test they were using, they identified a cycle threshold cut-off of 24 for declaring people to have the potential to infect others. If they had subsequently offered this service to support studies of the spread of COVID-19, only samples yielding a signal at 24 or fewer cycles would be declared to have evidence of potentially infectious SARS-CoV-2. However, with no explanation provided, this initial and appropriate way of calibrating the RT-PCR assay was not required for labs around the world that were studying transmission of SARS-CoV-2. In fact, cycle threshold cut-offs were arbitrarily assigned. As such, RT-PCR data used to determine global cases of COVID-19 have been highly unreliable.

Even so-called ‘fact-checkers’ of people who criticized the inappropriate designation of the RT-PCR as a stand-alone gold standard diagnostic test have had to admit that it cannot possibly distinguish between infectious and non-infectious virions or parts thereof. For example, a ‘fact check’ from Reuters concluded “PCR tests are being used widely in England to show that SARS-CoV-2 viral genetic material is present in the patient”. I bolded the relevant text. Indeed, RT-PCR tests are a valuable tool for determining whether portions of a virus’s genetic material are present in a sample. They cannot determine whether that genetic material is from a replication-competent virion that would have the potential to infect someone.

Positive RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic people are almost universally based on high cycle threshold values, which raises the question of whether these individuals harbor infectious viral particles. The absence of a functional cell-based assay to prove infectivity renders results of asymptomatic testing impossible to interpret accurately. Indeed, the World Health Organization, agreeing with many health professionals around the world, has emphasized that spreading of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic individuals is rare and an emphasis should be placed, therefore, on testing people with signs or symptoms of illness, not those who are apparently healthy.

In addition to the Canadian study that identified a cycle threshold of 24 as an appropriate cut-off for declaring samples positive for infectious SARS-CoV-2, other studies reported results of similar calibrations of other RT-PCR assays for SARS-CoV-2. They identified cycle threshold cut-offs of 22-27 and 30. Altogether, this suggests that tests with cycle threshold values above 22-30 are likely not indicative of the presence of replication-competent SARS-CoV-2.

The logical conclusion is that it is erroneous to declare samples with high cycle threshold values, especially those above 30, as being positive for infectious SARS-CoV-2. However, in many countries people were assumed to be infectious when their samples were declared positive using RT-PCR assays with cycle threshold cut-offs as high as 45 cycles. Such an unjustifiably high cut-off would have resulted in a substantial overestimation of cases of COVID-19 and would have led to erroneous labeling of asymptomatic people as potential spreaders of COVID-19.

Failure to Calibrate the RT-PCR Test Shows How a Representative Influential Scientific Study Incorrectly Concluded that Asymptomatic People Might be a Risk for Spreading COVID-19

The figure below shows results of a published study that claimed to depict the frequency at which asymptomatic people tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 relative to that observed for people with symptomatic infections. Specifically, graphs are shown from figure 2 of a paper published in the influential Journal of the American Medical Association - Internal Medicine. The argument being made was that the frequency at which asymptomatic people tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 was like that observed for people with symptomatic infections. However, the authors failed to calibrate their RT-PCR assay.

Following is the description the authors of the study provided in the methods section of their paper. The most important portion of this text is the last sentence, which is bolded.

“Specimen Collection and RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2

The URT specimens were collected from both nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs obtained by trained medical staffs (physicians and nurses). For LRT specimens, participants were given instructions the night before to collect a first morning sputum (after gargling) in a specimen cup; RT-PCR assays for SARS-CoV-2 were performed using Allplex 2020-nCoV assay (Seegene, Seoul, ROK) to determine the presence of virus through the identification of 3 genetic markers: envelope (env) gene, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) gene, and nucleocapsid protein (N) gene. The cycle threshold (Ct) during RT-PCR testing refers to when the detection of viral amplicons occurs, it is inversely correlated with the amount of RNA present. A lower Ct value indicates large quantities of viral RNA. It was considered positive when the Ct values of all genes were less than 40 cycles.”

Remarkably, the authors applied an arbitrary cycle threshold of 40 to define a positive test result. Proper calibration of the test was not performed. I applied a new cycle threshold cut-off of 24, based on the published results of the Canadian study for calibrating a RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. This is shown as a red dotted line on the graphs in the figure above. Symbols appearing in the light red rectangle above this line would be considered negative, in contrast to the positive designation that the authors had assigned. Remarkably, 99.7% of the people the authors declared to be harbouring infectious SARS-CoV-2 likely had no evidence of potentially infectious SARS-CoV-2 virions, had the test been properly calibrated. This represents a fatal flaw in this paper; one that negates its conclusion that “Isolation of asymptomatic patients may be necessary to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2”. It should also precipitate its retraction. Such a paper should never have been allowed to be published in the first place.

This highlights a fatal flaw that has been extremely common in publications throughout the declared pandemic that claimed asymptomatic people could be a significant source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 that could cause COVID-19 in other people. Every paper making this claim should have the materials and methods section carefully evaluated to determine whether the cycle threshold cut-off for the RT-PCR assay was based on the appropriate calibration method or was selected arbitrarily.

Here is a list of other influential publications of original research studies that erroneously concluded that asymptomatic people might be significant sources of replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 virions. Most are based on fatally flawed RT-PCR testing and the remaining papers fail to disclose how they defined an ‘infection’. All of them should be retracted. None of their conclusions can be trusted…

1. Bai, Y. et al. Presumed Asymptomatic Carrier Transmission of COVID-19. Jama 323, 1406-1407 (2020).

2. Arons, M.M. et al. Presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Transmission in a Skilled Nursing Facility. The New England journal of medicine 382, 2081-2090 (2020).

3. Stock, A.D. et al. COVID-19 Infection Among Healthcare Workers: Serological Findings Supporting Routine Testing. Front Med (Lausanne) 7, 471 (2020).

4. Bi, Q. et al. Epidemiology and transmission of COVID-19 in 391 cases and 1286 of their close contacts in Shenzhen, China: a retrospective cohort study. The Lancet. Infectious diseases 20, 911-919 (2020).

5. Böhmer, M.M. et al. Investigation of a COVID-19 outbreak in Germany resulting from a single travel-associated primary case: a case series. The Lancet. Infectious diseases 20, 920-928 (2020).

6. Chan, J.F. et al. A familial cluster of pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating person-to-person transmission: a study of a family cluster. Lancet (London, England) 395, 514-523 (2020).

7. Van Vinh Chau, N. et al. The Natural History and Transmission Potential of Asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 71, 2679-2687 (2020).

8. Chaw, L. et al. Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in Different Settings, Brunei. Emerging infectious diseases 26, 2598-2606 (2020).

9. Cheng, H.Y. et al. Contact Tracing Assessment of COVID-19 Transmission Dynamics in Taiwan and Risk at Different Exposure Periods Before and After Symptom Onset. JAMA internal medicine 180, 1156-1163 (2020).

10. Gao, M. et al. A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers. Respiratory medicine 169, 106026 (2020).

11. Gao, Y. et al. A cluster of the Corona Virus Disease 2019 caused by incubation period transmission in Wuxi, China. The Journal of infection 80, 666-670 (2020).

12. Guan, W.J. et al. Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China. The New England journal of medicine 382, 1708-1720 (2020).

13. He, X. et al. Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19. Nat Med 26, 672-675 (2020).

14. Hodcroft, E.B. Preliminary case report on the SARS-CoV-2 cluster in the UK, France, and Spain. Swiss medical weekly 150 (2020).

15. Hoehl, S. et al. Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Returning Travelers from Wuhan, China. The New England journal of medicine 382, 1278-1280 (2020).

16. Lauer, S.A. et al. The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application. Annals of internal medicine 172, 577-582 (2020).

17. Li, R. et al. Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Science (New York, N.Y.) 368, 489-493 (2020).

18. Li, C. et al. Asymptomatic and Human-to-Human Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a 2-Family Cluster, Xuzhou, China. Emerging infectious diseases 26, 1626-1628 (2020).

19. Liu, Y., Funk, S. & Flasche, S. The contribution of pre-symptomatic infection to the transmission dynamics of COVID-2019. Wellcome open research 5, 58 (2020).

20. Lu, X. et al. SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Children. The New England journal of medicine 382, 1663-1665 (2020).

21. Lu, S. et al. Alert for non-respiratory symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 patients in epidemic period: A case report of familial cluster with three asymptomatic COVID-19 patients. Journal of medical virology 93, 518-521 (2021).

22. Luo, S.H. et al. A confirmed asymptomatic carrier of 2019 novel coronavirus. Chinese medical journal 133, 1123-1125 (2020).

23. Mizumoto, K., Kagaya, K., Zarebski, A. & Chowell, G. Estimating the asymptomatic proportion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship, Yokohama, Japan, 2020. Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin 25 (2020).

24. Sun, K. et al. Transmission heterogeneities, kinetics, and controllability of SARS-CoV-2. Science (New York, N.Y.) 371 (2021).

25. Nishiura, H. et al. Estimation of the asymptomatic ratio of novel coronavirus infections (COVID-19). Int J Infect Dis 94, 154-155 (2020).

26. Nishiura, H., Linton, N.M. & Akhmetzhanov, A.R. Serial interval of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) infections. Int J Infect Dis 93, 284-286 (2020).

27. Pan, Y., Zhang, D., Yang, P., Poon, L.L.M. & Wang, Q. Viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples. The Lancet. Infectious diseases 20, 411-412 (2020).

28. Pan, X. et al. Asymptomatic cases in a family cluster with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Lancet. Infectious diseases 20, 410-411 (2020).

29. Park, S.Y. et al. Coronavirus Disease Outbreak in Call Center, South Korea. Emerging infectious diseases 26, 1666-1670 (2020).

30. Payne, D.C. et al. SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Serologic Responses from a Sample of U.S. Navy Service Members - USS Theodore Roosevelt, April 2020. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report 69, 714-721 (2020).

31. Kimball, A. et al. Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Residents of a Long-Term Care Skilled Nursing Facility - King County, Washington, March 2020. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report 69, 377-381 (2020).

32. Qian, G. et al. COVID-19 Transmission Within a Family Cluster by Presymptomatic Carriers in China. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 71, 861-862 (2020).

33. Ran, L. et al. Risk Factors of Healthcare Workers With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Retrospective Cohort Study in a Designated Hospital of Wuhan in China. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 71, 2218-2221 (2020).

34. Rosenberg, E.S. et al. COVID-19 Testing, Epidemic Features, Hospital Outcomes, and Household Prevalence, New York State-March 2020. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 71, 1953-1959 (2020).

35. Sakurai, A. et al. Natural History of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection. The New England journal of medicine 383, 885-886 (2020).

36. Samsami, M., Zebarjadi Bagherpour, J., Nematihonar, B. & Tahmasbi, H. COVID-19 Pneumonia in Asymptomatic Trauma Patients; Report of 8 Cases. Archives of academic emergency medicine 8, e46 (2020).

37. Tabata, S. et al. Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in 104 people with SARS-CoV-2 infection on the Diamond Princess cruise ship: a retrospective analysis. The Lancet. Infectious diseases 20, 1043-1050 (2020).

38. Tong, Z.D. et al. Potential Presymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2, Zhejiang Province, China, 2020. Emerging infectious diseases 26, 1052-1054 (2020).

39. Treibel, T.A. et al. COVID-19: PCR screening of asymptomatic health-care workers at London hospital. Lancet (London, England) 395, 1608-1610 (2020).

40. Wei, W.E. et al. Presymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 - Singapore, January 23-March 16, 2020. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report 69, 411-415 (2020).

41. Xu, J., Li, Y., Gan, F., Du, Y. & Yao, Y. Salivary Glands: Potential Reservoirs for COVID-19 Asymptomatic Infection. Journal of dental research 99, 989 (2020).

42. Yang, R., Gui, X. & Xiong, Y. Comparison of Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Asymptomatic vs Symptomatic Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China. JAMA network open 3, e2010182 (2020).

43. Yang, N. et al. In-flight transmission cluster of COVID-19: a retrospective case series. Infectious diseases (London, England) 52, 891-901 (2020).

44. Ye, F. et al. Delivery of infection from asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 in a familial cluster. International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases 94, 133-138 (2020).

45. Yu, P., Zhu, J., Zhang, Z. & Han, Y. A Familial Cluster of Infection Associated With the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Indicating Possible Person-to-Person Transmission During the Incubation Period. The Journal of infectious diseases 221, 1757-1761 (2020).

46. Zhang, J., Tian, S., Lou, J. & Chen, Y. Familial cluster of COVID-19 infection from an asymptomatic. Critical care (London, England) 24, 119 (2020).

47. Almadhi, M.A. et al. The high prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection reveals the silent spread of COVID-19. International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases 105, 656-661 (2021).

48. Choi, A. et al. Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in K-12 Schools, British Columbia, Canada April to June 2021. Microbiology spectrum, e0062222 (2022).

…these 48 papers represent most, if not all, of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence that has been used by most public health officials to mislabel asymptomatic people as sources of COVID-19-causing SARS-CoV-2. All of it is fatally flawed.

It was even concluded in a study that patients testing ‘positive’ with cycle threshold values above 33 could likely be discharged from hospitals. Such a recommendation would never be made if there was any evidence that these people harboured SARS-CoV-2 virions with the potential to infect others. So one must wonder why testing labs were allowed to arbitrarily pick cycle thresholds ranging from 38 to 45 as upper limits for defining the presence of infectious SARS-CoV-2.

Exclusive reliance on improperly calibrated RT-PCR testing as an indication of ‘infection’ has also led to the erroneous conclusion that post-symptomatic people may also need to be masked and/or isolated.

I have yet to see appropriate scientific evidence to justify the unusually high cycle threshold values being used in studies that label people as asymptomatic sources of COVID-19. In the absence of such data, there is no justification for masking, isolating or mandating experimental vaccine technologies for asymptomatic people.

Others have also criticized the exclusive use of RT-PCR tests in diagnosing COVID-19 and drawing conclusions about transmission in the absence of infectivity testing.

How RT-PCR Testing Should Have Been Used to Support Diagnoses of COVID-19

All labs should have been required to calibrate their RT-PCR test prior to providing any ‘real world’ data to public health officials that would be used to study the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Use of the gold standard functional virology assay to do this calibration would have provided each lab with a strong objective rationale for their specific cycle threshold cut-off value when determining whether a person could have the potential to infect others. And this should have always been married to a clinical diagnosis rendered by a physician. As mentioned earlier, if this standard is applied retroactively to the COVID-19 scientific literature, it becomes obvious that much of it is untrustworthy.

Much of the Foundational COVID-19 Science is Fundamentally Flawed

RT-PCR testing has generally been misused during the declared COVID-19 pandemic due to failures to calibrate it properly. The result has been mislabeling asymptomatic people as significant potential sources for transmission of COVID-19. This, in turn, has resulted in inappropriate mandating of masking, isolation, and ‘vaccines’ for people who do not represent a genuine health risk to others. It has also taken the diagnostic expertise away from physicians and placed it in the hands of anonymous laboratory technicians.

Now, we are left with a mountain of COVID-19 science that cannot be interpreted properly. Scientists with integrity and the relevant expertise know that a substantial but undefined number of people that tested ‘positive for COVID-19’ never had the potential to spread SARS-CoV-2 to others and many of these also did not actually have the disease known as COVID-19.

Resolving the Apparent Conflicts in Evidence Presented by ‘Experts’

To judges who are puzzled by the differing interpretations of experts in their courts, the explanation is fairly simple. If you remove the fundamentally flawed science from expert reports, you will be left with trustworthy data that generally do not support what has been the prevailing narrative over the past several years. When scientists talk about following the overall weight of the scientific evidence, what we really mean is to follow the weight of the trustworthy scientific evidence. Do not get bedazzled by the numerous reports that have accumulated, often in ‘prestigious’ journals, that were based on flawed scientific methods. Don’t get distracted by the number of health ‘authorities’ that have blindly propagated this flawed science. Truth is not a democracy. It is not defined by a majority vote.

Harm to Public Trust in Science

The global propagation of poorly conducted science over the past several years has caused massive and irreparable harm. Children and teenagers took the brunt of this damage. They were given no choice. They had no voice. They became shields used in a conflict waged by adults who wielded faulty science like it was the gospel truth.

As a scientist with deep expertise in viral immunology, I am incredibly disheartened by the state of my scientific disciplines. My colleagues that sat in their ivory towers allowing junk science to justify crushing constitutional freedoms should be ashamed of themselves. I am proud of the relatively few who stood tall on a foundation of integrity and endured brutal treatment for the past couple of years. I can only hope that the harm done to public trust in the health sciences can be remedied.

Both COVID-19 illness, caused by infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and COVID-19 vaccination, ostensibly to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and serious COVID-19 morbidity, have been associated with the development of myopericarditis, i.e., inflammation of the heart muscle itself (myocarditis) or its suspending sack (pericarditis). This brief review demonstrates, first, the dubious association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and myopericarditis, and second, the robust association between COVID-19 vaccination, especially with mRNA vaccines, and myopericarditis, including, in particular, the study of fatal cases upon autopsy.

The direct relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection and myocarditis remains tenuous at best. Recent ecological, controlled retrospective cohort and autopsy data do not support an association. The overall absence of support for a specific ‘SARS-CoV-2 myocarditis syndrome’ from focused autopsy studies of presumed myocarditis deaths is consistent with findings from general necropsy studies of COVID-19 deaths. These investigations have established SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to fatal COVID-19 is indeed, as the name implies, a respiratory illness. Wong et al., for example, described how, “No overt pathological findings attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection could be recognised outside of the lung… [B]eyond the respiratory tract [SARS-CoV-2 infection] does not induce any major pathology… in fatal cases.”

A systematic review of primarily spontaneously reported data from the U.K., USA and European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA), beginning with vaccine launch through mid-March 2022, found 0.22% (n=30) of 13,571 Covid vaccine-associated myocarditis or pericarditis events were fatal. These data are complemented by a much smaller, but growing autopsy literature. The limited necropsy data characterising COVID-19 vaccine-associated deceased persons with myocarditis and myopericarditis repeatedly affirm heart-related pathologies directly attributable to very recent vaccination. Such findings contrast with the lack of definitive epidemiologic or autopsy evidence for a unique SARS-CoV-2 infection myocarditis, as Caforio et al. note:

Strong evidence for a SARS-CoV-2 role in direct infection of cardiac myocytes leading to virus induced myocarditis in patients is missing… [T]here is not yet definitive EMB [endomyocardial biopsy]/autopsy proof that SARS-CoV-2 causes direct cardiomyocyte damage in association with histological myocarditis.

Tables 1-3 detail the published autopsy findings from six fatal cases of post-Covid mRNA vaccine-associated myocarditis. The etiologies for cases 1 and 2 were most consistent with an epinephrine-mediated ‘toxic myocarditis’, whereas cases 3-6 evidenced hyperinflammatory myocarditis. Ultimately, after extensive investigation, each case was deemed a Covid vaccine-caused fatal myocarditis.

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by official lies in an unending stream lead by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies.[3,6,57] We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence.

For the first time in American history a president, governors, mayors, hospital administrators and federal bureaucrats are determining medical treatments based not on accurate scientifically based or even experience based information, but rather to force the acceptance of special forms of care and “prevention”—including remdesivir, use of respirators and ultimately a series of essentially untested messenger RNA vaccines. For the first time in history medical treatment, protocols are not being formulated based on the experience of the physicians treating the largest number of patients successfully, but rather individuals and bureaucracies that have never treated a single patient—including Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, EcoHealth Alliance, the CDC, WHO, state public health officers and hospital administrators.[23,38]

The media (TV, newspapers, magazines, etc), medical societies, state medical boards and the owners of social media have appointed themselves to be the sole source of information concerning this so-called “pandemic”. Websites have been removed, highly credentialed and experienced clinical doctors and scientific experts in the field of infectious diseases have been demonized, careers have been destroyed and all dissenting information has been labeled “misinformation” and “dangerous lies”, even when sourced from top experts in the fields of virology, infectious diseases, pulmonary critical care, and epidemiology. These blackouts of truth occur even when this information is backed by extensive scientific citations from some of the most qualified medical specialists in the world.[23] Incredibly, even individuals, such as Dr. Michael Yeadon, a retired ex-Chief Scientist, and vice-president for the science division of Pfizer Pharmaceutical company in the UK, who charged the company with making an extremely dangerous vaccine, is ignored and demonized. Further, he, along with other highly qualified scientists have stated that no one should take this vaccine.

Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the most cited experts in his field, who has successfully treated over 2000 COVID patients by using a protocol of early treatment (which the so-called experts completely ignored), has been the victim of a particularly vicious assault by those benefiting financially from the vaccines. He has published his results in peer reviewed journals, reporting an 80% reduction in hospitalizations and a 75% reduction in deaths by using early treatment.[44] Despite this, he is under an unrelenting series of attacks by the information controllers, none of which have treated a single patient.

Neither Anthony Fauci, the CDC, WHO nor any medical governmental establishment has ever offered any early treatment other than Tylenol, hydration and call an ambulance once you have difficulty breathing. This is unprecedented in the entire history of medical care as early treatment of infections is critical to saving lives and preventing severe complications. Not only have these medical organizations and federal lapdogs not even suggested early treatment, they attacked anyone who attempted to initiate such treatment with all the weapons at their disposal—loss of license, removal of hospital privileges, shaming, destruction of reputations and even arrest.[2]

A good example of this outrage against freedom of speech and providing informed consent information is the recent suspension by the medical board in Maine of Dr. Meryl Nass’ medical license and the ordering of her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation for prescribing Ivermectin and sharing her expertise in this field.[9,65] I know Dr, Nass personally and can vouch for her integrity, brilliance and dedication to truth. Her scientific credentials are impeccable. This behavior by a medical licensing board is reminiscent of the methodology of the Soviet KGB during the period when dissidents were incarcerated in psychiatric gulags to silence their dissent.

OTHER UNPRECEDENTED ATTACKS

Another unprecedented tactic is to remove dissenting doctors from their positions as journal editors, reviewers and retracting of their scientific papers from journals, even after these papers have been in print. Until this pandemic event, I have never seen so many journal papers being retracted— the vast majority promoting alternatives to official dogma, especially if the papers question vaccine safety. Normally a submitted paper or study is reviewed by experts in the field, called peer review. These reviews can be quite intense and nit picking in detail, insisting that all errors within the paper be corrected before publication. So, unless fraud or some other major hidden problem is discovered after the paper is in print, the paper remains in the scientific literature.

We are now witnessing a growing number of excellent scientific papers, written by top experts in the field, being retracted from major medical and scientific journals weeks, months and even years after publication. A careful review indicates that in far too many instances the authors dared question accepted dogma by the controllers of scientific publications—especially concerning the safety, alternative treatments or efficacy of vaccines.[12,63] These journals rely on extensive adverting by pharmaceutical companies for their revenue. Several instances have occurred where powerful pharmaceutical companies exerted their influence on owners of these journals to remove articles that in any way question these companies’ products.[13,34,35]

Worse still is the actual designing of medical articles for promoting drugs and pharmaceutical products that involve fake studies, so-called ghostwritten articles.[49,64] Richard Horton is quoted by the Guardian as saying “journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.”[13,63] Proven fraudulent “ghostwritten” articles sponsored by pharmaceutical giants have appeared regularly in top clinical journals, such as JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine—never to be removed despite proven scientific abuse and manipulation of data.[49,63]

Ghostwritten articles involve using planning companies whose job it is to design articles containing manipulated data to support a pharmaceutical product and then have these articles accepted by high-impact clinical journals, that is, the journals most likely to affect clinical decision making of doctors. Further, they supply doctors in clinical practice with free reprints of these manipulated articles. The Guardian found 250 companies engaged in this ghostwriting business. The final step in designing these articles for publication in the most prestigious journals is to recruit well recognized medical experts from prestigious institutions, to add their name to these articles. These recruited medical authors are either paid upon agreeing to add their name to these pre- written articles or they do so for the prestige of having their name on an article in a prestigious medical journal.[11]

Of vital importance is the observation by experts in the field of medical publishing that nothing has been done to stop this abuse. Medical ethicists have lamented that because of this widespread practice “you can’t trust anything.” While some journals insist on disclosure information, most doctors reading these articles ignore this information or excuse it and several journals make disclosure more difficult by requiring the reader to find the disclosure statements at another location. Many journals do not police such statements and omissions by authors are common and without punishment.

As concerns the information made available to the public, virtually all the media is under the control of these pharmaceutical giants or others who are benefitting from this “pandemic”. Their stories are all the same, both in content and even wording. Orchestrated coverups occur daily and massive data exposing the lies being generated by these information controllers are hidden from the public. All data coming over the national media (TV, newspaper and magazines), as well as the local news you watch every day, comes only from “official” sources—most of which are lies, distortions or completely manufactured out of whole cloth—all aimed to deceive the public.

Television media receives the majority of its advertising budget from the international pharmaceutical companies—this creates an irresistible influence to report all concocted studies supporting their vaccines and other so-called treatments.[14] In 2020 alone the pharmaceutical industries spent 6.56 billion dollars on such advertising.[13,14] Pharma TV advertising amounted to 4.58 billion, an incredible 75% of their budget. That buys a lot of influence and control over the media. World famous experts within all fields of infectious diseases are excluded from media exposure and from social media should they in any way deviate against the concocted lies and distortions by the makers of these vaccines. In addition, these pharmaceutical companies spend tens of millions on social media advertising, with Pfizer leading the pack with $55 million in 2020.[14]

While these attacks on free speech are terrifying enough, even worse is the virtually universal control hospital administrators have exercised over the details of medical care in hospitals. These hirelings are now instructing doctors which treatment protocols they will adhere to and which treatments they will not use, no matter how harmful the “approved” treatments are or how beneficial the “unapproved” treatments are.[33,57]

Never in the history of American medicine have hospital administrators dictated to its physicians how they will practice medicine and what medications they can use. The CDC has no authority to dictate to hospitals or doctors concerning medical treatments. Yet, most physicians complied without the slightest resistance.

The federal Care Act encouraged this human disaster by offering all US hospitals up to 39,000 dollars for each ICU patient they put on respirators, despite the fact that early on it was obvious that the respirators were a major cause of death among these unsuspecting, trusting patients. In addition, the hospitals received 12,000 dollars for each patient that was admitted to the ICU—explaining, in my opinion and others, why all federal medical bureaucracies (CDC, FDA, NIAID, NIH, etc) did all in their power to prevent life- saving early treatments.[46] Letting patients deteriorate to the point they needed hospitalization, meant big money for all hospitals. A growing number of hospitals are in danger of bankruptcy, and many have closed their doors, even before this “pandemic”.[50] Most of these hospitals are now owned by national or international corporations, including teaching hospitals.[10]

It is also interesting to note that with the arrival of this “pandemic” we have witnessed a surge in hospital corporate chains buying up a number of these financially at-risk hospitals.[1,54] It has been noted that billions in Federal Covid aid is being used by these hospital giants to acquire these financially endangered hospitals, further increasing the power of corporate medicine over physician independence. Physicians expelled from their hospitals are finding it difficult to find other hospitals staffs to join since they too may be owned by the same corporate giant. As a result, vaccine mandate policies include far larger numbers of hospital employees. For example, Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees for exercising their right to refuse a dangerous, essentially untested experimental vaccine.[51,57] Mayo Clinic did this despite the fact that many of these employees worked during the worst of the epidemic and are being fired when the Omicron variant is the dominant strain of the virus, has the pathogenicity of a common cold for most and the vaccines are ineffective in preventing the infection.

In addition, it has been proven that the vaccinated asymptomatic person has a nasopharyngeal titer of the virus as high as an infected unvaccinated person. If the purpose of the vaccine mandate is to prevent viral spread among the hospital staff and patients, then it is the vaccinated who present the greatest risk of transmission, not the unvaccinated. The difference is that a sick unvaccinated person would not go to work, the asymptomatic vaccinated spreader will.

What we do know is that major medical centers, such as Mayo Clinic, receive tens of millions of dollars in NIH grants each year as well as monies from the pharmaceutical makers of these experimental “vaccines”. In my view, that is the real consideration driving these policies. If this could be proven in a court of law the administrators making these mandates should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and sued by all injured parties.

The hospital bankruptcy problem has grown increasingly acute due to hospitals vaccine mandates and resulting large number of hospitals staff, especially nurses, refusing to be forcibly vaccinated.[17,51] This is all unprecedented in the history of medical care. Doctors within hospitals are responsible for the treatment of their individual patients and work directly with these patients and their families to initiate these treatments. Outside organizations, such as the CDC, have no authority to intervene in these treatments and to do so exposes the patients to grave errors by an organization that has never treated a single COVID-19 patient.

When this pandemic started, hospitals were ordered by the CDC to follow a treatment protocol that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of patients, most of whom would have recovered had proper treatments been allowed.[43,44] The majority of these deaths could have been prevented had doctors been allowed to use early treatment with such products as Ivermectin, hydroxy-chloroquine and a number of other safe drugs and natural compounds. It has been estimated, based on results by physicians treating the most covid patients successfully, that of the 800,000 people that we are told died from Covid, 640,000 could have not only been saved, but could have, in many cases, returned to their pre-infection health status had mandated early treatment with these proven methods been used. This neglect of early treatment constitutes mass murder. That means 160,000 would have actually died, far less than the number dying at the hands of bureaucracies, medical associations and medical boards that refused to stand up for their patients. According to studies of early treatment of thousands of patients by brave, caring doctors, seventy-five to eighty percent of the deaths could have been prevented.[43,44]

Incredibly, these knowledgeable doctors were prevented from saving these Covid-19 infected people. It should be an embarrassment to the medical profession that so many doctors mindlessly followed the deadly protocols established by the controllers of medicine.

One must also keep in mind that this event never satisfied the criteria for a pandemic. The World Health Organization changed the criteria to make this a pandemic. To qualify for a pandemic status the virus must have a high mortality rate for the vast majority of people, which it didn’t (with a 99.98% survival rate), and it must have no known existing treatments—which this virus had—in fact, a growing number of very successful treatments.

The draconian measures established to contain this contrived “pandemic” have never been shown to be successful, such as masking the public, lockdowns, and social distancing. A number of carefully done studies during previous flu seasons demonstrated that masks, of any kind, had never prevented the spread of the virus among the public.[60]

In fact, some very good studies suggested that the masks actually spread the virus by giving people a false sense of security and other factors, such as the observation that people were constantly breaking sterile technique by touching their mask, improper removal and by leakage of infectious aerosols around the edges of the mask. In addition masks were being disposed of in parking lots, walking trails, laid on tabletops in restaurants and placed in pockets and purses.

Within a few minutes of putting on the mask, a number of pathogenic bacteria can be cultured from the masks, putting the immune suppressed person at a high risk of bacterial pneumonia and children at a higher risk of meningitis.[16] A study by researchers at the University of Florida cultured over 11 pathogenic bacteria from the inside of the mask worn by children in schools.[40]

It was also known that children were at essentially no risk of either getting sick from the virus or transmitting it.

In addition, it was also known that wearing a mask for over 4 hours (as occurs in all schools) results in significant hypoxia (low blood oxygen levels) and hypercapnia (high CO2 levels), which have a number of deleterious effects on health, including impairing the development of the child’s brain.[4,72,52]

We have known that brain development continues long after the grade school years. A recent study found that children born during the “pandemic” have significantly lower IQs—yet school boards, school principals and other educational bureaucrats are obviously unconcerned.[18]

TOOLS OF THE INDOCTRINATION TRADE

The designers of this pandemic anticipated a pushback by the public and that major embarrassing questions would be asked. To prevent this, the controllers fed the media a number of tactics, one of the most commonly used was and is the “fact check” scam. With each confrontation with carefully documented evidence, the media “fact checkers” countered with the charge of “misinformation”, and an unfounded “conspiracy theory” charge that was, in their lexicon, “debunked”. Never were we told who the fact checkers were or the source of their “debunking” information—we were just to believe the “fact checkers”. A recent court case established under oath that facebook “fact checkers” used their own staff opinion and not real experts to check “facts”.[59] When sources are in fact revealed they are invariably the corrupt CDC, WHO or Anthony Fauci or just their opinion. Here is a list of things that were labeled as “myths” and “misinformation” that were later proven to be true.

• The asymptomatic vaccinated are spreading the virus equally as with unvaccinated symptomatic infected.

• The vaccines cannot protect adequately against new variants, such as Delta and Omicron.

• Natural immunity is far superior to vaccine immunity and is most likely lifelong.

• Vaccine immunity not only wanes after several months, but all immune cells are impaired for prolonged periods, putting the vaccinated at a high risk of all infections and cancer.

• COVID vaccines can cause a significant incidence of blood clots and other serious side effects

• The vaccine proponents will demand numerous boosters as each variant appears on the scene.

• Fauci will insist on the covid vaccine for small children and even babies.

• Vaccine passports will be required to enter a business, fly in a plane, and use public transportation

• There will be internment camps for the unvaccinated (as in Australia, Austria and Canada)

• The unvaccinated will be denied employment.

• There are secret agreements between the government, elitist institutions, and vaccine makers

• Many hospitals were either empty or had low occupancy during the pandemic.

• The spike protein from the vaccine enters the nucleus of the cell, altering cell DNA repair function.

• Hundreds of thousands have been killed by the vaccines and many times more have been permanently damaged.

• Early treatment could have saved the lives of most of the 700,000 who died.

• Vaccine-induced myocarditis (which was denied initially) is a significant problem and clears over a short period.

• Special deadly lots (batches) of these vaccines are mixed with the mass of other Covid-19 vaccines

Several of these claims by those opposing these vaccines now appear on the CDC website—most still identified as “myths”. Today, extensive evidence has confirmed that each of these so-called “myths” were in fact true. Many are even admitted by the “saint of vaccines”, Anthony Fauci. For example, we were told, even by our cognitively impaired President, that once the vaccine was released all the vaccinated people could take off their masks. Oops! We were told shortly afterward— the vaccinated have high concentrations (titers) of the virus in their noses and mouths (nasopharynx) and can transmit the virus to others in which they come into contact—especially their own family members. On go the masks once again— in fact double masking is recommended. The vaccinated are now known to be the main superspreaders of the virus and hospitals are filled with the sick vaccinated and people suffering from serious vaccine complications.[27,42,45]

Another tactic by the vaccine proponents is to demonize those who reject being vaccinated for a variety of reasons. The media refers to these critically thinking individuals as “anti-vaxxers”, “vaccine deniers”, “Vaccine resisters”, “murders”, “enemies of the greater good” and as being the ones prolonging the pandemic. I have been appalled by the vicious, often heartless attacks by some of the people on social media when a parent or loved one relates a story of the terrible suffering and eventual death, they or their loved one suffered as a result of the vaccines. Some psychopaths tweet that they are glad that the loved one died or that the dead vaccinated person was an enemy of good for telling of the event and should be banned. This is hard to conceptualize. This level of cruelty is terrifying, and signifies the collapse of a moral, decent, and compassionate society.

It is bad enough for the public to sink this low, but the media, political leaders, hospital administrators, medical associations and medical licensing boards are acting in a similar morally dysfunctional and cruel way.

LOGIC, REASONING, AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE HAS DISAPPEARED IN THIS EVENT

Has scientific evidence, carefully done studies, clinical experience and medical logic had any effect on stopping these ineffective and dangerous vaccines? Absolutely not! The draconian efforts to vaccinate everyone on the planet continues (except the elite, postal workers, members of Congress and other insiders).[31,62]

In the case of all other drugs and previous conventional vaccines under review by the FDA, the otherwise unexplained deaths of 50 or less individuals would result in a halt in further distribution of the product, as happened on 1976 with the swine flu vaccine. With over 18,000 deaths being reported by the VAERS system for the period December 14, 2020 and December 31st, 2021 as well as 139,126 serious injuries (including deaths) for the same period there is still no interest in stopping this deadly vaccine program.[61] Worse, there is no serious investigation by any government agency to determine why these people are dying and being seriously and permanently injured by these vaccines.[15,67] What we do see is a continuous series of coverups and evasions by the vaccine makers and their promoters.

The war against effective cheap and very safe repurposed drugs and natural compounds, that have proven beyond all doubt to have saved millions of lives all over the world, has not only continued but has stepped up in intensity.[32,34,43]

Doctors are told they cannot provide these life-saving compounds for their patients and if they do, they will be removed from the hospital, have their medical license removed or be punished in many other ways. A great many pharmacies have refused to fill prescriptions for lvermectin or hydroxy- chloroquine, despite the fact that millions of people have taken these drugs safely for over 60 years in the case of hydroxy chloroquine and decades for Ivermectin.[33,36] This refusal to fill prescriptions is unprecedented and has been engineered by those wanting to prevent alternative methods of treatment, all based on protecting vaccine expansion to all. Several companies that make hydroxy chloroquine agreed to empty their stocks of the drug by donating them to the Strategic National Stockpile, making this drug far more difficult to get.[33] Why would the government do that when over 30 well-done studies have shown that this drug reduced deaths anywhere from 66% to 92% in other countries, such as India, Egypt, Argentina, France, Nigeria, Spain, Peru, Mexico, and others?[23]

The critics of these two life-saving drugs are most often funded by Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci, both of which are making millions from these vaccines.[48,15]

To further stop the use of these drugs, the pharmaceutical industry and Bill Gates/Anthony Fauci funded fake research to make the case that hydroxy chloroquine was a dangerous drug and could damage the heart.[34] To make this fraudulent case the researchers administered the sickest of covid patients a near lethal dose of the drug, in a dose far higher than used on any covid patient by Dr. Kory, McCullough and other “real”, and compassionate doctors, physicians who were actually treating covid patients.[23]

The controlled, lap-dog media, of course, hammered the public with stories of the deadly effect of hydroxy- chloroquine, all with a terrified look of fake panic. All these stories of ivermectin dangers were shown to be untrue and some of the stories were incredibly preposterous.[37,43]

The attack on Ivermectin was even more vicious than against hydroxy-chloroquine. All of this, and a great deal more is meticulously chronicled in Robert Kennedy, Jr’s excellent new book—The Real Anthony Fauci. Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health.[32] If you are truly concerned with the truth and with all that has occurred since this atrocity started, you must not only read, but study this book carefully. It is fully referenced and covers all topics in great detail. This is a designed human tragedy of Biblical proportions by some of the most vile, heartless, psychopaths in history.

Millions have been deliberately killed and crippled, not only by this engineered virus, but by the vaccine itself and by the draconian measures used by these governments to “control the pandemic spread”. We must not ignore the “deaths by despair” caused by these draconian measures, which can exceed hundreds of thousands. Millions have starved in third world countries as a result. In the United States alone, of the 800,000 who died, claimed by the medical bureaucracies, well over 600,000 of these deaths were the result of the purposeful neglect of early treatment, blocking the use of highly effective and safe repurposed drugs, such as hydroxy-chloroquine and Ivermectin, and the forced use of deadly treatments such as remdesivir and use of ventilators. This does not count the deaths of despair and neglected medical care caused by the lockdown and hospital measures forced on healthcare systems.

To compound all this, because of vaccine mandates among all hospital personnel, thousands of nurses and other hospital workers have resigned or been fired.[17,30,51] This has resulted in critical shortages of these vital healthcare workers and dangerous reductions of ICU beds in many hospitals. In addition, as occurred in the Lewis County Healthcare System, a specialty-hospital system in Lowville, N.Y., closed its maternity unit following the resignation of 30 hospital staff over the state’s disastrous vaccine mandate orders. The irony in all these cases of resignations is that the administrators unhesitatingly accepted these mass staffing losses despite rantings about suffering from short staffing during a “crisis”. This is especially puzzling when we learned that the vaccines did not prevent viral transmission and the present predominant variant is of extremely low pathogenicity.

DANGERS OF THE VACCINES ARE INCREASINGLY REVEALED BY SCIENCE

While most researchers, virologists, infectious disease researchers and epidemiologists have been intimidated into silence, a growing number of high integrity individuals with tremendous expertise have come forward to tell the truth—that is, that these vaccines are deadly.

Most new vaccines must go through extensive safety testing for years before they are approved. New technologies, such as the mRNA and DNA vaccines, require a minimum of 10 years of careful testing and extensive follow-up. These new so-called vaccines were “tested” for only 2 months and then the results of these safety test were and continue to be kept secret. Testimony before Senator Ron Johnson by several who participated in the 2 months study indicates that virtually no follow-up of the participants of the pre-release study was ever done.[67] Complains of complications were ignored and despite promises by Pfizer that all medical expenses caused by the “vaccines” would be paid by Pfizer, these individuals stated that none were paid.[66] Some medical expenses exceed 100,000 dollars.

As an example of the deception by Pfizer, and the other makers of mRNA vaccines, is the case of 12-year-old Maddie de Garay, who participated in the Pfizer vaccine pre-release safety study. At Sen. Johnson’s presentation with the families of the vaccine injured, her mother told of her child’s recurrent seizures, that she is now confined to a wheelchair, must be tube fed and suffers permanent brain damage. On the Pfizer safety evaluation submitted to the FDA her only side effect is listed as having a “stomachache”. Each person submitted similar horrifying stories.

The Japanese resorted to a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) lawsuit to force Pfizer to release its secret biodistribution study. The reason Pfizer wanted it kept secret is that it demonstrated that Pfizer lied to the public and the regulatory agencies about the fate of the injected vaccine contents (the mRNA enclosed nano-lipid carrier). They claimed that it remained at the site of the injection (the shoulder), when in fact their own study found that it rapidly spread throughout the entire body by the bloodstream within 48 hours.

The study also found that these deadly nano-lipid carriers collected in very high concentrations in several organs, including the reproductive organs of males and females, the heart, the liver, the bone marrow, and the spleen (a major immune organ). The highest concentration was in the ovaries and the bone marrow. These nano-lipid carriers also were deposited in the brain.

Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist from Idaho reported a dramatic spike in highly aggressive cancers among vaccinated individuals, (not reported in the Media). He found a frighteningly high incidence of highly aggressive cancers in vaccinated individuals, especially highly invasive melanomas in young people and uterine cancers in women.[26] Other reports of activation of previously controlled cancers are also appearing among vaccinated cancer patients.[47] Thus far, no studies have been done to confirm these reports, but it is unlikely such studies will be done, at least studies funded by grants from the NIH.

The high concentration of spike proteins found in the ovaries in the biodistribution study could very well impair fertility in young women, alter menstruation, and could put them at an increased risk of ovarian cancer. The high concentration in the bone marrow, could also put the vaccinated at a high risk of leukemia and lymphoma. The leukemia risk is very worrisome now that they have started vaccinating children as young as 5 years of age. No long-term studies have been conducted by any of these makers of Covid-19 vaccines, especially as regards the risk of cancer induction. Chronic inflammation is intimately linked to cancer induction, growth and invasion and vaccines stimulate inflammation.

Cancer patients are being told they should get vaccinated with these deadly vaccines. This, in my opinion, is insane. Newer studies have shown that this type of vaccine inserts the spike protein within the nucleus of the immune cells (and most likely many cell types) and once there, inhibits two very important DNA repair enzymes, BRCA1 and 53BP1, whose duty it is to repair damage to the cell’s DNA.[29] Unrepaired DNA damage plays a major role in cancer.

There is a hereditary disease called xeroderma pigmentosum in which the DNA repair enzymes are defective. These ill-fated individuals develop multiple skin cancers and a very high incidence of organ cancer as a result. Here we have a vaccine that does the same thing, but to a less extensive degree.

One of the defective repair enzymes caused by these vaccines is called BRCA1, which is associated with a significantly higher incidence of breast cancer in women and prostate cancer in men.

It should be noted that no studies were ever done on several critical aspects of this type of vaccine.

• They have never been tested for long term effects

• They have never been tested for induction of autoimmunity

• They have never been properly tested for safety during any stage of pregnancy

• No follow-up studies have been done on the babies of vaccinated women

• There are no long-term studies on the children of vaccinated pregnant women after their birth (Especially as neurodevelopmental milestone occur).

• It has never been tested for effects on a long list of medical conditions:

  • Diabetes

  • Heart disease

  • Atherosclerosis

  • Neurodegenerative diseases

  • Neuropsychiatric effects

  • Induction of autism spectrum disorders and schizophrenia

  • Long term immune function

  • Vertical transmission of defects and disorders

  • Cancer

  • Autoimmune disorders

Previous experience with the flu vaccines clearly demonstrates that the safety studies done by researchers and clinical doctors with ties to pharmaceutical companies were essentially all either poorly done or purposefully designed to falsely show safety and coverup side effects and complications. This was dramatically demonstrated with the previously mentioned phony studies designed to indicate that hydroxy Chloroquine and Ivermectin were ineffective and too dangerous to use.[34,36,37] These fake studies resulted in millions of deaths and severe health disasters worldwide. As stated, 80% of all deaths were unnecessary and could have been prevented with inexpensive, safe repurposed medications with a very long safety history among millions who have taken them for decades or even a lifetime.[43,44]

It is beyond ironic that those claiming that they are responsible for protecting our health approved a poorly tested set of vaccines that has resulted in more deaths in less than a year of use than all the other vaccines combined given over the past 30 years. Their excuse when confronted was—“we had to overlook some safety measures because this was a deadly pandemic”.[28,46]

In 1986 President Reagan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which gave blanket protection to pharmaceutical makers of vaccines against injury litigation by families of vaccine injured individuals. The Supreme Court, in a 57-page opinion, ruled in favor of the vaccine companies, effectively allowing vaccine makers to manufacture and distribute dangerous, often ineffective vaccines to the population without fear of legal consequences. The court did insist on a vaccine injury compensation system which has paid out only a very small number of rewards to a large number of severely injured individuals. It is known that it is very difficult to receive these awards. According to the Health Resources and Services Administration, since 1988 the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has agreed to pay 3,597 awards among 19,098 vaccine injured individuals applying amounting to a total sum of $3.8 billion. This was prior to the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccines, in which the deaths alone exceed all deaths related to all the vaccines combined over a thirty-year period.

In 2018 President Trump signed into law the “right-to-try” law which allowed the use of experimental drugs and all unconventional treatments to be used in cases of extreme medical conditions. As we have seen with the refusal of many hospitals and even blanket refusal by states to allow Ivermectin, hydroxy-chloroquine or any other unapproved “official” methods to treat even terminal Covid-19 cases, these nefarious individuals have ignored this law.

Strangely, they did not use this same logic or the law when it came to Ivermectin and Hydroxy Chloroquine, both of which had undergone extensive safety testing by over 30 clinical studies of a high quality and given glowing reports on both efficacy and safety in numerous countries. In addition, we had a record of use for up to 60 years by millions of people, using these drugs worldwide, with an excellent safety record. It was obvious that a group of very powerful people in conjunction with pharmaceutical conglomerates didn’t want the pandemic to end and wanted vaccines as the only treatment option. Kennedy’s book makes this case using extensive evidence and citations.[14,32]

Dr. James Thorpe, an expert in maternal-fetal medicine, demonstrates that these covoid-19 vaccines given during pregnancy have resulted in a 50-fold higher incidence of miscarriage than reported with all other vaccines combined.[28] When we examine his graph on fetal malformations there was a 144-fold higher incidence of fetal malformation with the Covid-19 vaccines given during pregnancy as compared to all other vaccines combined. Yet, the American Academy of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology endorse the safety of these vaccines for all stages of pregnancy and among women breast feeding their babies.

It is noteworthy that these medical specialty groups have received significant funding from Pfizer pharmaceutical company. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, just in the 4th quarter of 2010, received a total of $11,000 from Pfizer Pharmaceutical company alone.[70] Funding from NIH grants are much higher.[20] The best way to lose these grants is to criticize the source of the funds, their products or pet programs. Peter Duesberg, because of his daring to question Fauci’s pet theory of AIDS caused by HIV virus, was no longer awarded any of the 30 grant applications he submitted after going public. Prior to this episode, as the leading authority on retroviruses in the world, he had never been turned down for an NIH grant.[39] This is how the “corrupted” system works, even though much of the grant money comes from our taxes.

HOT LOTS—DEADLY BATCHES OF THE VACCINES

A new study has now surfaced, the results of which are terrifying.[25] A researcher at Kingston University in London, has completed an extensive analysis of the VAERs data (a subdepartment of the CDC which collects voluntary vaccine complication data), in which he grouped reported deaths following the vaccines according to the manufacturer’s lot numbers of the vaccines. Vaccines are manufactured in large batches called lots. What he discovered was that the vaccines are divided into over 20,000 lots and that one out of every 200 of these batches (lots) is demonstrably deadly to anyone who receives a vaccine from that lot, which includes thousands of vaccine doses.

He examined all manufactured vaccines—Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen), etc. He found that among every 200 batches of the vaccine from Pfizer and other makers, one batch of the 200 was found to be over 50x more deadly than vaccines batches from other lots. The other vaccine lots (batches) were also causing deaths and disabilities, but nowhere near to this extent. These deadly batches should have appeared randomly among all “vaccines” if it was an unintentional event. However, he found that 5% of the vaccines were responsible for 90% of the serious adverse events, including deaths. The incidence of deaths and serious complications among these “hot lots” varied from over 1000% to several thousand percent higher than comparable safer lots. If you think this was by accident—think again. This is not the first time “hot lots” were, in my opinion, purposefully manufactured and sent across the nation—usually vaccines designed for children. In one such scandal, “hot lots” of a vaccine ended up all in one state and the damage immediately became evident. What was the manufacture’s response? It wasn’t to remove the deadly batches of the vaccine. He ordered his company to scatter the hot lots across the nation so that authorities would not see the obvious deadly effect.

All lots of a vaccine are numbered—for example Modera labels them with such codes as 013M20A. It was noted that the batch numbers ended in either 20A or 21A. Batches ending in 20A were much more toxic than the ones ending in 21A. The batches ending in 20A had about 1700 adverse events, versus a few hundred to twenty or thirty events for the 21A batches. This example explains why some people had few or no adverse events after taking the vaccine while others are either killed or severely and permanently harmed. To see the researcher’s explanation, go to https://www.bitchute.com/video/6xIYPZBkydsu/ In my opinion these examples strongly suggest an intentional alteration of the production of the “vaccine” to include deadly batches.

I have met and worked with a number of people concerned with vaccine safety and I can tell you they are not the evil anti-vaxxers you are told they are. They are highly principled, moral, compassionate people, many of which are top researchers and people who have studied the issue extensively. Robert Kennedy, Jr, Barbara Lou Fisher, Dr. Meryl Nass, Professor Christopher Shaw, Megan Redshaw, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, Dr. Joseph Mercola, Neil Z. Miller, Dr. Lucija Tomjinovic, Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Dr. Steve Kirsch and Dr. Peter McCullough just to name a few. These people have nothing to gain and a lot to lose. They are attacked viciously by the media, government agencies, and elite billionaires who think they should control the world and everyone in it.

WHY DID FAUCI WANT NO AUTOPSIES OF THOSE WHO DIED AFTER VACCINATION?

There are many things about this “pandemic” that are unprecedented in medical history. One of the most startling is that at the height of the pandemic so few autopsies, especially total autopsies, were being done. A mysterious virus was rapidly spreading around the world, a selected group of people with weakened immune systems were getting seriously ill and many were dying and the one way we could rapidly gain the most knowledge about this virus—an autopsy, was being discouraged.

Guerriero noted that by the end of April, 2020 approximately 150,000 people had died, yet there were only 16 autopsies performed and reported in the medical literature.[24] Among these, only seven were complete autopsies, the remaining 9 being partial or by needle biopsy or incisional biopsy. Only after 170,000 deaths by Covid-19 and four months into the pandemic were the first series of autopsies actually done, that is, more than ten. And only after 280,000 deaths and another month, were the first large series of autopsies performed, some 80 in number.[22] Sperhake, in a call for autopsies to be done without question, noted that the first full autopsy reported in the literature along with photomicrographs appeared in a medico-legal journal from China in February 2020.[41,68] Sperhake expressed confusion as to why there was a reluctance to perform autopsies during the crisis, but he knew it was not coming from the pathologists. The medical literature was littered with appeals by pathologist for more autopsies to be performed.[58] Sperhake further noted that the Robert Koch Institute (The German health monitoring system) at least initially advised against doing autopsies. He also knew that at the time 200 participating autopsy institutions in the United States had done at least 225 autopsies among 14 states.

Some have claimed that this dearth of autopsies was based on the government’s fear of infection among the pathologists, but a study of 225 autopsies on Covid-19 cases demonstrated only one case of infection among the pathologist and this was concluded to have been an infection contracted elsewhere.[19] Guerriero ends his article calling for more autopsies with this observation: “Shoulder to shoulder, clinical and forensic pathologists overcame the obstructions of autopsy studies in Covid-19 victims and hereby generated valuable knowledge on the pathophysiology of the interaction between the SARS-CoV-2 and the human body, thus contributing to our understanding of the disease.”[24]

Suspicion concerning the worldwide reluctance of nations to allow full post mortem studies of Covid-19 victims may be based on the idea that it was more than by chance. There are at least two possibilities that stand out. First, those leading the progression of this “non-pandemic” event into a perceived worldwide “deadly pandemic”, were hiding an important secret that autopsies could document. Namely, just how many of the deaths were actually caused by the virus? To implement draconian measures, such as mandated mask wearing, lockdowns, destruction of businesses, and eventually mandated forced vaccination, they needed very large numbers of covid-19 infected dead. Fear would be the driving force for all these destructive pandemic control programs.

Elder et al in his study classified the autopsy findings into four groups.[22]

1. Certain Covid-19 death
2. Probably Covid-19 death
3. Possible Covid-19 death
4. Not associated with Covid-19, despite the positive test.

What possibly concerned or even terrified the engineers of this pandemic was that autopsies just might, and did, show that a number of these so-called Covid-19 deaths in truth died of their comorbid diseases. In the vast majority of autopsy studies reported, pathologists noted multiple comorbid conditions, most of which at the extremes of life could alone be fatal. Previously it was known that common cold viruses had an 8% mortality in nursing homes.

In addition, valuable evidence could be obtained from the autopsies that would improve clinical treatments and could possibly demonstrate the deadly effect of the CDC mandated protocols all hospitals were required to follow, such as the use of respirators and the deadly, kidney-destroying drug remdesivir. The autopsies also demonstrated accumulating medical errors and poor-quality care, as the shielding of doctors in intensive care units from the eyes of family members inevitably leads to poorer quality care as reported by several nurses working in these areas.[53-55]

As bad as all this was, the very same thing is being done in the case of Covid vaccine deaths—very few complete autopsies have been done to understand why these people died, that is, until recently. Two highly qualified researchers, Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi a microbiologist and highly qualified expert in infectious disease and Dr. Arne Burkhardt, a pathologist who is a widely published authority having been a professor of pathology at several prestigious institutions, recently performed autopsies on 15 people having died after vaccination. What they found explains why so many are dying and experiencing organ damage and deadly blood clots.[5]

They determined that 14 of the fifteen people died as a result of the vaccines and not of other causes. Dr. Burkhardt, the pathologist, observed widespread evidence of an immune attack on the autopsied individuals’ organs and tissues— especially their heart. This evidence included extensive invasion of small blood vessels with massive numbers of lymphocytes, which cause extensive cell destruction when unleashed. Other organs, such as the lungs and liver, were observed to have extensive damage as well. These findings indicate the vaccines were causing the body to attack itself with deadly consequences. One can easily see why Anthony Fauci, as well as public health officers and all who are heavily promoting these vaccines, publicly discouraged autopsies on the vaccinated who subsequently died. One can also see that in the case of vaccines, that were essentially untested prior to being approved for the general public, at least the regulatory agencies should have been required to carefully monitor and analyze all serious complications, and certainly deaths, linked to these vaccines. The best way to do that is with complete autopsies.

While we learned important information from these autopsies what is really needed are special studies of the tissues of those who have died after vaccination for the presence of spike protein infiltration throughout the organs and tissues. This would be critical information, as such infiltration would result in severe damage to all tissues and organs involved—especially the heart, the brain, and the immune system. Animal studies have demonstrated this. In these vaccinated individuals the source of these spike proteins would be the injected nanolipid carriers of the spike protein producing mRNA. It is obvious that the government health authorities and pharmaceutical manufacturers of these “vaccines” do not want these critical studies done as the public would be outraged and demand an end to the vaccination program and prosecution of the involved individuals who covered this up.

CONCLUSIONS

We are all living through one of the most drastic changes in our culture, economic system, as well as political system in our nation’s history as well as the rest of the world. We have been told that we will never return to “normal” and that a great reset has been designed to create a “new world order”. This has all been outlined by Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, in his book on the “Great Reset”.[66] This book gives a great deal of insight as to the thinking of the utopians who are proud to claim this pandemic “crisis” as their way to usher in a new world. This new world order has been on the drawing boards of the elite manipulators for over a century.[73,74] In this paper I have concentrated on the devastating effects this has had on the medical care system in the United States, but also includes much of the Western world. In past papers I have discussed the slow erosion of traditional medical care in the United States and how this system has become increasingly bureaucratized and regimented.[7,8] This process was rapidly accelerating, but the appearance of this, in my opinion, manufactured “pandemic” has transformed our health care system over night.

As you have seen, an unprecedented series of events have taken place within this system. Hospital administrators, for example, assumed the position of medical dictators, ordering doctors to follow protocols derived not from those having extensive experience in treating this virus, but rather from a medical bureaucracy that has never treated a single COVID-19 patient. The mandated use of respirators on ICU Covid-19 patients, for example, was imposed in all medical systems and dissenting physicians were rapidly removed from their positions as caregivers, despite their demonstration of markedly improved treatment methods. Further, doctors were told to use the drug remdesivir despite its proven toxicity, lack of effectiveness and high complication rate. They were told to use drugs that impaired respiration and mask every patient, despite the patient’s impaired breathing. In each case, those who refused to abuse their patients were removed from the hospital and even faced a loss of license—or worse.

For the first time in modern medical history, early medical treatment of these infected patients was ignored nationwide. Studies have shown that early medical treatment was saving 80% of higher number of these infected people when initiated by independent doctors.[43,44] Early treatment could have saved over 640,000 lives over the course of this “pandemic”. Despite the demonstration of the power of these early treatments, the forces controlling medical care continued this destructive policy.

Families were not allowed to see their loved ones, forcing these very sick individuals in the hospitals to face their deaths alone. To add insult to injury, funerals were limited to a few grieving family members, who were not allowed to even sit together. All the while large stores, such as Walmart and Cosco were allowed to operate with minimal restrictions. Nursing home patients were also not allowed to have family visitations, again being forced to die a lonely death. All the while, in a number of states, the most transparent being in New York state, infected elderly were purposefully transferred from hospitals into nursing homes, resulting in a very high death rates of these nursing home residents. At the beginning of this “pandemic” over 50% of all death were occurring in nursing homes.

Throughout this “pandemic” we have been fed an unending series of lies, distortions and disinformation by the media, the public health officials, medical bureaucracies (CDC, FDA and WHO) and medical associations. Physicians, scientists, and experts in infectious treatments who formed associations designed to develop more effective and safer treatments, were regularly demonized, harassed, shamed, humiliated, and experience a loss of licensure, loss of hospital privileges and, in at least one case, ordered to have a psychiatric examination.[2,65,71]

Anthony Fauci was given essentially absolute control of all forms of medical care during this event, including insisting that drugs he profited from be used by all treating physicians. He ordered the use of masks, despite at first laughing at the use of masks to filter a virus. Governors, mayors, and many businesses followed his orders without question.

The draconian measures being used, masking, lockdowns, testing of the uninfected, use of the inaccurate PCR test, social distancing, and contact tracing had been shown previously to be of little or no use during previous pandemics, yet all attempts to reject these methods were to no avail. Some states ignored these draconian orders and had either the same or fewer cases, as well as deaths, as the states with the most strictly enforced measures. Again, no amount of evidence or obvious demonstration along these lines had any effect on ending these socially destructive measures. Even when entire countries, such as Sweden, which avoided all these measures, demonstrated equal rates of infections and hospitalization as nations with the strictest, very draconian measures, no policy change by the controlling institutions occurred. No amount of evidence changed anything.

Experts in the psychology of destructive events, such as economic collapses, major disasters and previous pandemics demonstrated that draconian measures come with an enormous cost in the form of “deaths of despair” and in a dramatic increase in serious psychological disorders. The effects of these pandemic measures on children’s neurodevelopment is catastrophic and to a large extent irreversible.

Over time tens of thousands could die as a result of this damage. Even when these predictions began to appear, the controllers of this “pandemic” continued full steam ahead. Drastic increases in suicides, a rise in obesity, a rise in drug and alcohol use, a worsening of many health measures and a terrifying rise in psychiatric disorders, especially depression and anxiety, were ignored by the officials controlling this event.

We eventually learned that many of the deaths were a result of medical neglect. Individuals with chronic medical conditions, diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and neurological diseases were no longer being followed properly in their clinics and doctor’s offices. Non-emergency surgeries were put on hold. Many of these patients chose to die at home rather than risk going to the hospitals and many considered hospitals “death houses”.

Records of deaths have shown that there was a rise in deaths among those aged 75 and older, mostly explained by Covid-19 infections, but for those between the ages of 65 to 74, deaths had been increasing well before the pandemic onset.[69] Between ages of 18 and aged 65 years, records demonstrate a shocking hike in non-Covid-19 deaths. Some of these deaths were explained by a dramatic increase in drug-related deaths, some 20,000 more than 2019. Alcohol related deaths also increased substantially, and homicides increased almost 30% in the 18 to 65-year group.

The head of the insurance company OneAmerica stated that their data indicated that the death rate for individuals aged 18 to 64 had increased 40% over the pre-pandemic period.[21] Scott Davidson, the company’s CEO, stated that this represented the highest death rate in the history of insurance records, which does extensive data collections on death rates each year. Davidson also noted that this high of a death rate increase has never been seen in the history of death data collection. Previous catastrophes of monumental extent increased death rates no more than 10 percent, 40% is unprecedented.

Dr. Lindsay Weaver, Indiana’s chief medical officer, stated that hospitalizations in Indiana are higher than at any point in the past five years. This is of critical importance since the vaccines were supposed to significantly reduce deaths, but the opposite has happened. Hospitals are being flooded with vaccine complications and people in critical condition from medical neglect caused by the lockdowns and other pandemic measures.[46,56]

A dramatic number of these people are now dying, with the spike occurring after the vaccines were introduced. The lies flowing from those who have appointed themselves as medical dictators are endless. First, we were told that the lockdown would last only two weeks, they lasted over a year. Then we were told that masks were ineffective and did not need to be worn. Quickly that was reversed. Then we were told the cloth mask was very effective, now it’s not and everyone should be wearing an N95 mask and before that that they should double mask. We were told there was a severe shortage of respirators, then we discover they are sitting unused in warehouses and in city dumps, still in their packing crates. We were informed that the hospitals were filled mostly with the unvaccinated and later found the exact opposite was true the world over. We were told that the vaccine was 95% effective, only to learn that in fact the vaccines cause a progressive erosion of innate immunity.

Upon release of the vaccines, women were told the vaccines were safe during all states of pregnancy, only to find out no studies had been done on safety during pregnancy during the “safety tests” prior to release of the vaccine. We were told that careful testing on volunteers before the EUA approval for public use demonstrated extreme safety of the vaccines, only to learn that these unfortunate subjects were not followed, medical complications caused by the vaccines were not paid for and the media covered this all up.[67] We also learned that the pharmaceutical makers of the vaccines were told by the FDA that further animal testing was unnecessary (the general public would be the Guinea pigs.) Incredibly, we were told that the Pfizer’s new mRNA vaccines had been approved by the FDA, which was a cleaver deception, in that another vaccine had approval (comirnaty) and not the one being used, the BioNTech vaccine. The approved comirnaty vaccine was not available in the United States. The national media told the public that the Pfizer vaccine had been approved and was no longer classed as experimental, a blatant lie. These deadly lies continue. It is time to stop this insanity and bring these people to justice.

Footnotes

How to cite this article: Blaylock RL. COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Surg Neurol Int 2022;13:167.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Journal or its management.

REFERENCES

1. Abelson R. Buoyed by federal Covid aid, big hospital chains buy up competitors. The New York Times Mat 21, 2021 (updated Oct 22, 2022) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/health/covid-bailout-hospital-merger.html .

2. Albright L. Medical nonconformity and its persecution. Brownstone Institute. https://brownstone.org/articles/medical-nonconformaity-and-its-persecution [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

3. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. What is the truth? United States: James I. and Carolyn R. Ausman Education Foundation (AEF); 2021. The China Virus. [Google Scholar]

4. Beder A, Buyukkocak U, Sabuncuoglu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008;19 [Google Scholar]

5. Bhakdi S. Presentation of autopsy findings. https://www.brighteon.com/4b6cc929-f559-4577-b4f8-3b40f0cd2f77 Pathology presentation on findings https://pathologie-konferenz.de/en [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

6. Blaylock RL. Covid-19 pandemic: What is the truth? Surg Neurol Inter. 2021;12(151) [Google Scholar]

7. Blaylock RL. National Health Insurance (Part 1): the socialist nightmare. Aug 19, 2009 https://haciendapublishing.com/national-health-insurance-part-i-the-socialist-nightmare-by-russell-l-blaylock-md [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

8. Blaylock RL. Regimentation in medicine and its human price (part 1 & 2) Hacienda publishing. March 20, 2015 https://haciendapublishing.com/regimentation-in-medicine-and-its-human-price-part-2-by-russell-l-blaylock-md [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06] [Google Scholar]

9. Blaylock RL. Haciendia Publishing; When rejecting orthodoxy becomes a mental illness. Aug 15, 2013 https://haciendapublishing.com/when-rejecting-orthodoxy-becomes-a-mental-illness-by-russell-l-blaylock-m-d [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06] [Google Scholar]

10. Bloche MG. Corporate takeover of Teaching Hospitals. Georgetown Univ Law Center. 1992. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1731&context=facpub [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

11. Bosh X, Ross JS. Ghostwriting: Research misconduct, plagiarism, or Fool’s gold. Amer J Med. 2012;125(4):324–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Breggin PR, Breggin GR. Breggin PR, Breggin GR. Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We are the Prey. Ithaca, NY: Lake Edge Press; 2021. Top Medical Journals Sell their Souls; pp. 285–292. [Google Scholar]

13. Breggin, p133 [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

14. Bulik BS. The top 10 ad spenders in Big Pharma for 2020. Fierce Pharma Apr 19, 2021 https://www.fiercepharma.com/special-report/top-10-ad-spenders-big-pharma-for-2020 [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

15. Children’s Health Defense Team Harvard experts critique cozy FDA-Pharma relationship. The Defender. Jan 28, 29020.

16. Chughtai AA, Stelzer-Braid S, Rawlinson W, Pontivivi G, Wang Q, Pan Y, et al. Contamination by respiratory viruses on outer surface of medical mask used by hospital healthcare workers. BMC Infect Dis. 2019. Article number 491.

17. Coleman-Lochner L. U.S. Hospitals pushed to financial ruin as nurses quit during pandemic. Bloomberg. Dec 21, 2021 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-21/u-s-hospitals-pushed-to-financial-ruin-as-nurses-quit-en-masse [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

18. D’Souza K. Pandemic effects may have lowered baby’s IQs, study says EdSource. https://edsource.org/2021/pandemic-may-have-lowered-baby-iq-study-says/661285. [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

19. Davis GG, Williamson AK. Risk of covid-19 transmission during autopsy. Arch Path Lab Med. 2020;144(12):1445a–1445. [Google Scholar]

20. Department of Health and Human Services: Part 1. Overview Information. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-HD-20-013.html [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

21. Durden T. Life Insurance CEO says deaths up 40% among those aged 18 to 64. Tyler Durden Report. 2022. Jan 3,

22. Elder C, Schroder AS, Aepfelbacher M, Fitzek A, Heinemann A, Heinrich F, et al. Dying with SARS-CoV-2 infection an autopsy study of the first consecutive 80 cases in Hamberg, Germany. Inter J Legal Med. 2020;134:1275–84. [Google Scholar]

23. Front Line Covid Critical Care Alliance. https://covid19criticalcare.com [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

24. Gueriero M. Restriction of autopsies during the Covid-19 epidemic in Italy. Prudence or fear? Pathologica. 2020;112:172–3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Hope JR. Sudden death by “hot lot”—Dr. Michael Yeadon sounds the alarm. The Desert review. 2022. Jan 24,

26. Huff E. Idaho doctor reports “20 times increase” in cancer among those “vaccinated” for covid. Natural News. 2021. Sept 14, https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-09-14-idaho-doctor-20times-increase-cancer-vaccinated-covid.html [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

27. Ioannou P, Karakonstantis S, Astrinaki E, Saplamidou S, Vitsaxaki E, Hamilos G, et al. Transmission of SARS-C0V-2 variant B1.1.7 among vaccinated health care workers. Infect Dis. 2021:1–4. [Google Scholar]

28. James Thorpe interview by Dr. Steve Kirsch. Rumble https://rumble.com/vru732-dr.-james-thorp-on-medical-censorship.html [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

29. Jiang H, Mei Y-F. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein impairs DNA damage repair and inhibits V(D)J recombination in vitro. Viruses. 2021;13:2056. doi: 10.3390/10.3390/v13102056. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] Retracted

30. Jimenez J, Vigdor N. Covid-19 news: Over 150 Texas hospital workers are fired or resign over vaccine mandates. The New York Times. 2021. Jun 22, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/06/22/world/covid-vaccine-coronavirus-mask [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

31. Katz E. Postal service seeks temporary exemption from Biden’s vaccine-or-test mandate. Government Executive. 2022. Jan 22, https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2022/01/postal-service-seeks-temporary-exemption-bidens-vaccine-or-test-mandate/360376 [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

32. Kennedy R., Jr . Skyhorse Publishing; 2021. The Real Anthony Fauci. Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health; pp. 24–29. [Google Scholar]

33. Kennedy RF., Jr pp. 24–25.

34. Kennedy RF., Jr pp. 26–30.

35. Kennedy RF., Jr p. 32.

36. Kennedy RF., Jr pp. 35–56.

37. Kennedy RF., Jr pp. 47–56.

38. Kennedy RF., Jr p. 135.

39. Kennedy RF., Jr p. 217.

40. Lee M. University of Florida finds dangerous pathogens on children’s face mask. NTD https://www.ntd.com/university-of-florida-lab-finds-dangerous-pathogens-on-childrens-face-masks_630275.html [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

41. Liu Q, Wang RS, Qu GQ, Wang YY, Liu P, Zhu YZ, et al. Gross examination report of a Covid-19 death autopsy. Fa Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2020;36:21–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

42. Loffredo J. Fully vaccinated are Covid ‘Superspreaders’ Says inventor of mRNA technology. https://childrenshealthdefernce.org/defender/justin-Williams-Robert-Malone-fully-vaccinated-covid-super-spreaders [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

43. Marik PE, Kory P, Varon J, Iglesias J, Meduri GU. MATH+ protocol for the treatment oof SARS-CoV-2 infection: the scientific rationale. Exp rev Ant-infective Ther. 2020 doi: 10.1080/14787210.2020.1808462. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

44. McCullough P, Kelly R, Ruocco G, Lerma E, Tumlin J, Wheeland KR, et al. Pathophysiological basis and rationale for early outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection. Amer J Med. 2021;134:16–22. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. McCullough P. Study: Fully vaccinated healthcare workers carry 251 times viral load, pose threat to unvaccinated patients, Co-workers. The Defender 08/23/21. [Google Scholar]

46. McCullough P. “We’re in the middle of a major biological catastrophe”: Covid expert Dr. Peter McCullough. 2021. Oct 6, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/were-in-the-middle-of-a-major-biological-catastrophe-top-covid-doc-mccullough/?_kx=9EtupqemhhFXJ1kgCo9W3xUNfwrkqB5nT7V2H15fUnA%3D.WXNMR7 [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

47. McGovern C. Thousands report developing abnormal tumors following Covid shots. LifeSite News. Nov 1, 2021 https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/thousands-report-developing-abnormal-tumors-following-covid-shots [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

48. Mercola J. Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci: a ‘formidable, nefarious’ partnership. Mercola.com. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/rfk-jr-the-real-anthony-fauci-bill-gates [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

49. Moffatt B, Elliott C. Ghost Marketing: Pharmaceutical companies and ghostwritten journal articles. Persp Biol Med. 2007;50(1):18–31. [Google Scholar]

50. Mulvany C. Covid-19 exacerbates bankruptcy for at-risk hospitals. Health Care Financial Management Association. 2020. Nov 9,

51. Muoio D. How many employees have hospitals lost to vaccine mandates? Here are the numbers so far. Fierce Healthcare. 2022. Jan 13, https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/how-many-employees-have-hospitals-lost-to-vaccine-mandates-numbers-so-far [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

52. Nalivaeva NN, Turner AJ, Zhuravin IA. Role of prenatal hypoxia in brain development, cognitive functions, and neurodegeneration. Front Neurosci. 2018 doi: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00825. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

53. Nicole Sirotek shares what she saw on the front lines in NYC. # Murder. https://rumble.com/vt7tnf-registered-nurse-nicole-sirotek-shares-what-she-saw-on-the-front-lines-in-n.html [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

54. Noether M, Mat S. Hospital merger benefits: Views from hospital leaders and econometric analysis. Amer Hospital Assoc. Charles Rivers Associates. Jan, 2017 https://www.aha.org/guidesreports/2017-01-24-hospital-merger-benefits-views-hospital-leaders-and-econometric-analysis [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

55. Nurse Colette Martin testimony to Louisiana House of Representatives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBwnIRUav5I [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

56. Nurse Dani: It’s the Covid-19 hospital protocols are killing people. https://rumble.com/vqs1v6-nurse-dani-its-the-covid-19-hospital-protocols-are-killing-people.html [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

57. Parpia R. Mayo Clinic fires 700 employees for refusing to get Covid-19 vaccinations. The Vaccine Reaction. https://thevaccinereaction.org/2022/01/mayo-clinic-fires-700-employees-for-refusing-to-get-covid-19-vaccinations [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

58. Pomara C, Li Volti G, Cappello F. Covid-19 deaths: are we sure it is pneumonia? Please, autopsy, autopsy, autopsy! J Clin Med. 2020 doi: 10.3390/jcm9051259. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

59. New York Post. Post Editorial Board Facebook admits the truth: “Fact checks” are just (lefty) opinion. Dec 14,2021. https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/facebook-admits-the-truth-fact-checks-are-really-just-lefty-opinion [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06] [Google Scholar]

60. Rancourt DG. Mask don’t work. A review of science relevant to the covid-19 social policy. https://archive.org/details/covid-censorship-at-research-gate-2 [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

61. Redshaw M. As reports of injuries after Covid vaccines near 1 million mark. CDC, FDA clear Pfizer, Moderna boosters for all adults. The Defender 11/19/21.

62. Roche D. Boston Herald. 2021. Sept 14, Members of Congress and their staff are exempt from Biden’s vaccine mandate, Newsweek 9/10/21 Boston Herald Editorial Staff. Editorial: Political elites exempt from vax mandates. [Google Scholar]

63. Ross E. How drug companies’ PR tactics skew the presentation of medical research. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/may/20/drug-companies-ghost-writing-journalism [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

64. Saul S. Ghostwriters used in Vioxx studies, article says. New York Times. April 15, 2008 https://www.fpparchive.org/media/documents/public_policy/Ghostwriters%20Used%20in%20Vioxx%20studies_Stephanie%20Saul_Apr%2015,%202008_The%20New%20Times.pdf [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

65. Saxena V. Doctors loses medical license. Ordered to have Psych Eval for Ivermectin Scrits, Sharing Covid “misinformation” BRP News. Available from: https://bizpacreview.com/2022/01/16/doctor-loses-license-orderedto-have-psych-eval-for-prescribing-ivermectin-sharining-covid-falsehoods-1189313. [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

66. Schwab K, Malleret T. Cologny/Geneva: The Covid-19 Pandemic and the Great Reset. Forum Publishing 2020 World Economic Forum. [Google Scholar]

67. Sen. Ron Johnson on Covid-19 vaccine injuries to test subjects. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxqC9SiRh8 [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

68. Sperhake J-P. Autopsies of Covid-19 deceased? Absolutely! Legal Med. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2020.101769. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

69. Svab P. Non-Covid death spike in Americans aged 18-49. The Epoch Times. Jan 26-Feb 1 2022.

70. US Medical, Scientific, Patient and Civic Organization Funding Report: Pfizer: Fourth Quarter 2010. https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/responsibility/grants_contributions/pfizer_us_grants_cc_q4_2010.pdf [Last accessed on 2022 Feb 06]

71. Vivek Saxena. Doctors loses license, ordered to have psych eval for Ivermectin scrits, sharing Covid ‘misinformation’ BPR News. https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/01/16/doctor-loses-license-ordered-to-have-psych-eval-for-prescribing-ivermectin-sharing-covid-falsehoods-1189313 .

72. Westendorf AM, et al. Hypoxia enhances immunosuppression by inhibiting CD4+ effector T cell function and promoting Treg activity. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2017;41:1271–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

73. Wood PM. Coherent Publishing; 2018. Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order. [Google Scholar]

74. Wood PM. Coherent Publishing; 2015. Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Surgical Neurology International are provided here courtesy of Scientific Scholar

Highlights

• mRNA vaccines promote sustained synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
• The spike protein is neurotoxic, and it impairs DNA repair mechanisms.
• Suppression of type I interferon responses results in impaired innate immunity.
• The mRNA vaccines potentially cause increased risk to infectious diseases and cancer.
• Codon optimization results in G-rich mRNA that has unpredictable complex effects.

Abstract

The mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were brought to market in response to the public health crises of Covid-19. The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease has no precedent. The many alterations in the vaccine mRNA hide the mRNA from cellular defenses and promote a longer biological half-life and high production of spike protein. However, the immune response to the vaccine is very different from that to a SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health. Immune cells that have taken up the vaccine nanoparticles release into circulation large numbers of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites. We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances potentially have a causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell's palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis. We show evidence from the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis. We believe a comprehensive risk/benefit assessment of the mRNA vaccines questions them as positive contributors to public health.

Graphical abstract

In the early-to-mid 1900s, the rates of stroke & heart attacks were on the rise.

Smoking was a known contributor to this phenomenon. It is a dense source of oxidative stress. When you take your first puff of cigarette smoke, it feels like your chest is on fire. In more ways than one, it is.

Oxidation reactions there needs fuel. So, if smoking is providing oxidative stress...then what is the fuel?

Unfortunately for us, there was a second culprit blamed for the rise of cardiovascular disease - saturated fats. That is the topic of this article.

Fire & Mitochondria

Before we continue with the danger to the circulatory system, we need to take a brief detour to discuss the relationship between fire and metabolism.

. . .

Read the whole article

. . .

The evidence is overwhelming (experimental and clinical) that oxidation of PUFAs play a role in every step of atherosclerosis, including fatty streak formation, atheromatous lesion, plaque instability and rupture. Instability & rupture causes strokes in the brain, heart attacks, and infarctions in every organ that has limited blood supply. The liver and skin are less impacted - they have a lot of redundant blood supply, and usually the other critical organs fail first (e.g brain, heart, kidneys).

The above diagrammed chain reaction is the reason why PUFAs are so dangerous.

Recall the description of combustion:

The combustion of fuel occurs in the absence of enzymes, and relies on a chain reaction to propagate itself until the fuel or oxygen has been consumed.

Lipid peroxidation chain reactions will continue until one radical encounters another radical, neutralizing one another.

Now, imagine that the cells which line your blood vessel (endothelium) have PUFAs in their membranes. The red blood cell membranes also have PUFAs. The balls of cholesterol floating in your blood stream have PUFAs. They are all waiting for an oxidation event.

Oxidation-reduction reactions are the norm throughout the body. But in the presence of PUFAs, this can lead to chain reactions that can propagate uncontrolled. Whether it's the inner wall of the blood vessel, or a ball of cholesterol rushing towards your brain.

The endothelium (blood vessel lining) is a very sensitive single-layer membrane that comes in direct contact with the contents of blood. Even a microsecond of a PUFA oxidation event can damage it, exposing the layers underneath. Once these layers are exposed, one of two things can happen which are potentially devastating:

1. Other reactive fatty acids (more PUFAs, for example) can bind to it. This results in fatty streak formation, and eventual atherosclerosis.
2. Platelets can start binding and aggregating to exposed basement membrane proteins. This can lead to clot formation ⇨ infarcts

This is why ulcerated atherosclerotic plaques are predictive of impending stroke, heart attack, or dissection. In my estimation, this mechanism also plays a role in aneurysm rupture.

Death by a Thousand Cuts

If the damage caused by these PUFAs was a brief episode, you probably wouldn't suffer long-term illness.

But, many people who consume PUFAs do so for years and decades, if not their whole life. You can hardly blame them - seed oils are in almost everything we consume. In fact, people who try to avoid seed oils often have a hard time both in restaurants and the grocery store. It is so widespread, it has likely contributed to the recent trend of extreme elimination diets.

These elimination diets have a point.

Lipid peroxidation and highly inflammatory states contribute to almost everything that's causing illness in the modern world:

• Cardiovascular disease (leading cause of death and disability)
• Cancer
• Dementia
• Kidney Failure
• Autoimmunity
• Even Osteoporosis ⇨ fractures, which is often categorized as traumatic

As a little experiment, go to a search engine and query:

"Lipid peroxidation" and "any chronic illness"

Every tissue needs blood perfusion. By slowly destroying the blood supply, you develop micro-infarcts that accumulate across time. And, by delivering highly reactive PUFAs to an organ, you are actively oxidizing it. It's lose-lose.

Brain MRI demonstrating grade of 'microvascular ischemia' - tiny infarcts that manifest as confluent loss of white matter across time

Connection to COVID

There are two connections to COVID, actually.

The first is reasonably well encapsulated in this tweet:

I believe the abnormally high rates of illness this past 2 years is due to:

1. Lockdowns/restrictions and the downstream health consequences
2. Inflation causing people to shift towards more affordable food (seed oil, cheap carbs)
3. Global-scale clinical trial

No one virus.

— Remnant | MD (@RemnantMd) April 17, 2022

When the lockdown and restrictions started to get really heavy-handed, reasonable people were concerned with the behavioral changes that would be harmful:

• More sedentary life
• Ordering food (for many reasons, including supporting local businesses)
• Increased alcohol and drug use

This is one connection to the "COVID era," and we are now seeing the consequences of these behaviors. I know some people want to blame the differences in rates of illness to the vaccines, but I think that is only one of three contributing factors.

Revisiting Oxidation

The second connection is directly related to oxidative stress.

Our lungs help bring oxygen into the bloodstream, so that it can be circulated to our organs. Oxygen is just one oxidant in the air. There's also ozone, amongst others. Our lungs are constantly exposed to oxidative stress - especially if you are a smoker.

You would think that our lungs have evolved mechanisms to resist oxidants - and they have! For example, surfactant (the fluid that keeps your lungs open) has a protein which binds to and neutralizes oxidants. But, even the lungs have their limit. At some point, they will give in. What happens when the lungs fail?

The lungs provide a boundary that allows your blood to engage with the air without letting free air into your blood stream, or fluid moving into your lungs. So when the lung fails...fluid tends to accumulate in the lungs.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

ARDS is a type of respiratory failure characterized by rapid onset of widespread inflammation in the lungs - leading to fluid build-up.

Obesity is a risk factor for ARDS. It also happens to be a major risk factor for severe COVID-19. One mechanism accounting for this is that people who are obese tend to have a diet high in PUFAs. PUFAs stored in fat can be oxidized as part of a chain reaction, which will lead to a higher severity/amplitude of inflammation.

In the early days of COVID, people were admitted left and right with what looked like ARDS. Our central medical authorities decided this was 'severe COVID.'

But, if you take an unhealthy person, with an unhealthy diet...expose them to an infection...then refuse to treat them for 10 days...a large proportion of them will get ARDS. In this setting any infection is potentially fatal. If you are old, obese, or have high baseline oxidative stress...any infection can get real bad, real fast.

What is the Crime?

In the 1950s Ancel Keys was trying to make a name for himself. He saw an opportunity with heart disease. He had (stole) a hypothesis - and he ran with it.

But, how did he make it so far? Who were his benefactors? One group was Proctor & Gamble.

In the early 1900s, P&G were in the business of making wax and soap - from animal fat. At some point, animal fat got expensive. So, P&G collaborated with a German who had developed the process of hydrogenation. Here they saw an opportunity to mill cottonseed into oil, and hydrogenate it into something that was 'fatty.' This became a substitute for their wax & soap production, which allowed them to scale.

Eventually, electricity made candle-light obsolete. Which meant that P&G were stuck with a cheap way of making "oil," but no product to put it in. That is until unsaturated fatty acids were hailed (by Ancel et al) as a healthy alternative. P&G repurposed the cottonseed oil into Crisco vegetable oil - without telling people what was in it.

For some people in certain positions (e.g. P&G executives), the idea that their product might cause mass harm and suffering does not even cross their mind.

And, why should it?

The WHO & AHA have promoted PUFAs for decades, and to some extent still do.

This article is written for all readers, Year 9 students through elder adults. Methods and reasoning herein are pedestrian. Doctors and scientists may opt to skip to “BEGIN HERE TO VIEW DATA”. If you really want to cheat, skip to the bottom and look for yellow highlighted cells in spreadsheets. Understand what they represent. They represent significant, proven, excess death in the circulatory system matching what the pharmaceutical companies and governments call “rare”, another word seemingly redefined in 2021.

The official Massachusetts database of death certificates contains proof that C19 “vaccines” killed thousands of people in Massachusetts in 2021.

This article details a forensic journey in a one-of-a-kind, brute-force, pedestrian, forensic analysis of the official Massachusetts government data to discover what happened and is happening in a population of ~ 6.9 million people at the fore of C19 “science.” Massachusetts is a leading medical and pharmaceutical technology exporter to the world. Some leaders say it is a model for C19 response planning. The truth is that Massachusetts is a model for fraud on the people.

As demonstrated in particularity below, there was a short pandemic of respiratory deaths in 2020. Then, in the year of injections en masse, deaths switched to mainly circulatory system deaths. Something is attacking the circulatory systems of citizens of Massachusetts.

Three main events are initially depicted: a pandemic, an extremely attenuated second wave of disease no longer a pandemic, and a nearly steady-state excess death anomaly in the second half of 2021 (likely began around February 2021, but was obscured by lower than normal deaths of 85+yo’s due to culling from C19 in spring 2020).

Investigation of the anomaly indicates that excess deaths are circulatory system involved, also known and documented in the C19 vaccine trial data. Though myocarditis gets the most notoriety, the entire circulatory system is under attack.

Hereinafter, the C19 “vaccine” will be called “gene modification” because it is a more accurate descriptor of the biological injectable product. Industry and government chose “vaccine” because it is more psychologically acceptable to consumers. “Vaccine” has product-class recognition and reputation. Ergo, the definition of “vaccine” was changed in 2020 to accommodate the inclusion of C19 gene modification into this product-class. Lawsuits based on this issue of “definition” are pending.

EUA WARNING

It is an undeniable fact that the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the C19 gene modification circumvented the normal course of years-long clinical trials that ensure safety and effectiveness of oral and injectable biological and pharmaceutical products.

Through the EUA, which granted immunity from tort to the manufacturers, the burden of precautions (clinical trials) was shifted from the least cost avoider (the manufacturer) to the most cost avoider (the consumer). Though the burden of precautions is pecuniary to the manufacturer, it entails loss of life to the consumer. Id est, pharmaceutical manufacturers avoid costs and increase profits, while consumers die or are maimed after assuming the burden of precautions as lab rats.

INTRODUCTION

Scientists disagree whether the C19 gene modification's spike protein or its lipid nanoparticle is the root cause of injury or death in a minority of people (a death lottery). Either or both theories are in harmony with this article’s conclusion.

To preemptively assuage decriers of “correlation does not equal causation,” this poignant allegory is offered. If five strong swimmers died in one month in a busy lake, would you: A) close the lake to swimmers pending results of investigation, or B) leave the lake open as a small percentage of swimmers continue to die during investigation? Regarding C19 gene modification, governments chose “B”.

While others start at the lowest level of abstraction (cellular & molecular) and then look upward to localized and systemic injuries in an effort to establish a causal chain, this article starts at the highest level of abstraction (all-cause deaths), then investigates downward into anomalies. 1) Is there an anomaly in all-cause deaths? If so, 2) Whom did the anomaly affect, and when? 3) How did the anomaly manifest in immediate and underlying causes? 4) Are the underlying causes traced to the C19 gene modification as a root cause?

. . .

Read the whole article

. . .

CONCLUSION

Three of the four questions posed have been answered:

1. There is an anomaly in all-cause deaths beyond the obvious 8 to 10-week spring 2020 pandemic. The anomaly lasted nearly all of 2021, but manifests visually only from July 2021 through the end of the year and continues into 2022. The first half of 2021, the anomaly was negated by the lack of 85+yo deaths evident by the vertical light blue stripe on the right of the 2021 heat map

2. The people affected in 2021 may be considered old, but they are younger on average than in the 2020 C19 pandemic as seen in the vertical pink alley in 2021 heat map.

3. In order to achieve an all-cause excess mortality of 10% to 20% during 2021, any single or few multiple cause increase would have to be higher in order to affect the all-cause full population denominator. Indeed circulatory system issues are much higher and account for many excess deaths in the order of thousands, but are likely masked by the numerous bleeds and deposits of clots yielding a smattering of different “I” and “D” and “R” codes.

4. No effort is made in this article to tie the C19 gene modification biological injectable product to a mechanism for the circulatory system deaths. Any doctor, scientist, or pedestrian reader can make that inference from the overwhelming correlative data herein. There are tens of thousands of life years lost in 2021 in excess of what was expected by any mathematical formula. These are not from C19. The math does not work out.

Again, the official Massachusetts database of death certificates contains proof that C19 gene modification biological injectable products killed thousands of people in Massachusetts in 2021.

Pandemics do not switch from respiratory to circulatory causes of death in one year. [add sarcasm now] Perhaps it can be done this way. Take the deadly part of the virus and change the mode of entry from aerosols entering lungs to direct injection into the blood stream [lottery win if it gets into a blood vessel].

NOTES

There is a table of eight (8) deaths mentioning “vaccin” or “immuniz” as string searches. Of the 8, only one has ICD-10 codes referring to the injection as a possible cause. The omission of ICD-10 codes is civilly negligent at the very least, and is likely a criminal act of intentional omission leading to fraud on a public record. This will be addressed in the next article. Massachusetts is rife with fraud throughout the entire medical establishment. They do not see it as fraud or as a crime. They see it as the normal course of business for the biggest industry in their little state of 6.9 million people. To those who are injecting children and pushing these death lottery shots, how can you get through another day knowing you were, are, or will be responsible for taking the lives of young children? Or leaving families without a mother or father?

Oh, let this article finally end. Please notice the two tables at the very end. Notice the change in average age by year for both “I” and “J” codes, but more importantly for all-cause total deaths each year in Massachusetts. The average age was lower in 2021 than any of the prior 6 years. That might be expected after a pandemic year that took the old people. However, the total deaths are 3,000 to 4,000 higher in 2021 than any other year except 2020. The average ages of those excess 3,000 to 4,000 who died in 2021 had to have been much younger to change the average as much as they did.

URGENT PLEA

There is not another dataset out there like that one that definitely proves prolonged excess death in causes specific to the circulatory system and in numbers in the thousands of lives and in younger people than expected. C19 was over in Massachusetts in June 2020. What has happened since then has been a hidden disaster of biological injectable product madness.
God bless you all and thank you for reading.

"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one." "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”.

J. Robert Oppenheimer, Scientific director of the Manhattan Project (quoting from the Bhagavad Gita)

by Robert W. Malone MD, MS

Last January, Stew Peters decided to roll out the thesis that I have personal responsibility for the morbidity and mortality associated with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines consequent to my pioneering work in developing the ideas and reduction to practice of using synthetic mRNA as a transient “gene therapy” method, with the entry level application being for vaccine purposes. This has been echoed by many angry social media detractors seeking to find someone to blame for the lies and adverse events that have been associated with these mRNA vaccines. Mindful of those critics, this Substack essay focuses on some of the differences between what was originally envisioned and the current molecules that are being injected into our bodies. The first section of the essay sets the stage by summarizing (for a general readership) how the whole idea of gene therapy was developed, and then describing how and why this lead to the idea of mRNA as a drug and as a method of generating a vaccine response. The second section gets quite technical, and provides detailed information intended for a scientific audience. The conclusion is written for a general audience.

Gene Therapy, Transhumanism, and the origins of mRNA as a drug or vaccine

The core idea captured in the original nine patents which stem from my work between 1987 and 1989 was that there are multiple key problems with the idea of permanent “gene therapy” as originally envisioned by Richard Roblin, PhD and academic Pediatrician Dr. Theodore Friedman in 1972. The modern embodiment of this concept can be found in the many writings from the WEF and others concerning “Transhumanism” and use of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology. To really understand all of this requires a brief journey through the history and logic of “gene therapy”.

The January 2015 UC San Diego News center piece entitled “Friedman Recognized for Pioneering Gene Therapy Research: School of Medicine professor receives prestigious Japan Prize” nicely summarizes the underlying logic of “Gene Therapy” as envisioned by Friedman and Roblin.

“Though posed as a question, Friedmann and Roblin firmly believed the answer was yes, citing emergent thinking, new studies and growing data that suggested “good DNA” could be used to replace defective DNA in people with inherited conditions.

“In our view,” they wrote, “gene therapy may ameliorate some human genetic diseases in the future. For this reason, we believe that research directed at the development of techniques for gene therapy should continue.”

Though Friedmann said initial response to the paper was “not overwhelming,” it’s now commonly cited as a major milestone in the scientific beginnings of gene therapy research, though Friedmann said it was the Asilomar conference three years later (scientists set safety standards for recombinant DNA technology) where interest really “exploded.”

The idea of gene therapy, which quickly captured the public imagination, was fueled by its appealingly straightforward approach and what Friedmann has described as “obvious correctness”: Disarm a potentially pathogenic virus to make it benign. Stuff these viral particles with normal DNA. Then inject them into patients carrying abnormal genes, where they will deliver their therapeutic cargoes inside the defective target cells. In theory, the good DNA replaces or corrects the abnormal function of the defective genes, rendering previously impaired cells whole, normal and healthy. End of disease.”

Nice theory, what could possibly go wrong? The article continues-

“In 1968, Friedmann, working at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland with the late Jay Seegmiller (a founding faculty member of the School of Medicine) and others, showed that by adding foreign DNA to cultured cells from patients with Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, they could correct genetic defects that caused the rare but devastating neurological disorder. The condition was first described by William Nyhan, MD, a UC San Diego professor of pediatrics, and medical student Michael Lesch in 1964.

The feat was a powerful proof-of-concept, but subsequent efforts to advance the work to human clinical trials stalled. “We began to realize that it would be very complicated to take this idea and make it work in people,” Friedmann said, who joined the School of Medicine faculty in 1969.

In 1990, a 4-year-old girl with a congenital disease called adenoside deaminase (ADA) deficiency, which severely affects immunity and the ability to fight infections, became the first patient treated by gene therapy. White blood cells were taken from her, the normal ADA gene was inserted into them using an engineered and disabled virus and the cells re-injected. Despite initial claims of success, Friedmann said the experiment was eventually deemed a failure. The girl’s condition was not cured, and the research was found wanting.

A report commissioned by National Institutes of Health director Harold Varmus, MD, was highly critical of the entire gene therapy field and the ADA effort in particular, chiding investigators for creating a “mistaken and widespread perception of success.” Friedmann says he took the Varmus report “personally. I felt awful. It almost made me feel like I had been deceiving myself and my colleagues for more than two decades about the promise of gene therapy.” But he also knew there were “many more good people doing gene therapy research than rogues” and continued diligently and conscientiously to pursue his own research.

Nonetheless, media attention and hype about gene therapy continued to be rampant, fueled in part by over-enthusiastic opinions by some scientists. Things crashed in 1999 when an 18-year-old patient named Jesse Gelsinger, who suffered from a genetic disease of the liver, died during a clinical trial at the University of Pennsylvania. Gelsinger’s death was the first directly attributed to gene therapy. Subsequent investigations revealed numerous problems in the experimental design.”

The history of the Varmus report provides an early glimpse of the way things work at NIH and the US HHS. The Scientist appointed to head up the commission to review the science of “Gene Therapy” was none other than my graduate mentor Dr. Inder Verma, who had long been one of the leading proponents of gene therapy, and was subsequently forced to resign from the Salk Institute over a decades long record of what might most gently be called ethical lapses. But this was the scientist appointed by the overall Director of the NIH to “independently” investigate the scientific rigor and merits of the field. One hand washes the other.

What is awry with the original “gene therapy” concept? There are multiple issues, and here are a few-

1) Can you efficiently get genetic material (“polynucleotides”) into the nucleus of the majority of cells in the human body so that any genetic defects (or transhuman genetic improvements) can be made? In short, no. Human cells (and the immune system) have evolved many, many different mechanisms to resist modification by external polynucleotides. Otherwise we would already be overrun by various forms of parasitic DNA and RNA- viral and otherwise. This remains a major technical barrier, one which the “transhumanists” continue to overlook in their enthusiastic but naïve rush to play god with the human species. What are polynucleotides? Basically, the long chain polymers composed of four nucleotide bases (ATGC in the case of DNA, AUGC in the case of RNA) which carry all genetic information (that we know of) across time.

2) What about the immune system? Well, this was one of my breakthroughs way back in the late 1980s. What Ted (Friedman) originally envisioned was the simple idea that if a child had a genetic birth defect causing the body to produce a defective or not produce a critical protein (such as Lesch-Nyhan syndrome or Adenosine Deaminase Deficiency), this could be simply corrected by providing the “good gene” to complement the defect. What was not appreciated was that the immune systems of these children were “educated” during development to either recognize the “bad protein” as normal/self, or to not recognize the absent protein as normal/self. So, introduction of the “go od gene” into a person’s body would cause production of what was essentially a “foreign protein”, resulting in immunologic attack and killing of the cells which now have the ‘good gene”.

3) What happens when things go wrong and the “good gene/protein” is toxic? Well, in the current vaccine situation this is essentially the “Spike protein” problem. I get asked all the time “what can I do to eliminate the RNA vaccines from my body”, to which I have to answer – nothing. There is no technology that I know of which can eliminate these synthetic “mRNA-like” molecules from your body. The same is true for any of the many “gene therapy” methods currently being used. You just have to hope that your immune system will attack the cells that have taken up the polynucleotides and degrade (chew up) the offending large molecule that causes your cells to manufacture the toxic protein. Since virtually all current “gene therapy” methods are inefficient, and essentially deliver the genetic material randomly to a small subset of cells, there is no practical way to surgically remove the scattered, relatively rare transgenic cells. Clearance of genetically modified cells by the cellular immune system (T cells) is the only currently viable method to remove cells that have taken up the foreign genetic information (“transfection” in the case of mRNA or DNA, or “transduction” in the case of a viral vectored gene).

4) What happens if the “good gene” lands in a “bad place” in your genome? It turns out that the structure of our genome is highly evolved, and we are still relative neophytes in our current level of understanding. Despite having sequenced the human genome. The method of “insertional mutagenesis” (sticking genetic information in the form of viral DNA or other ways) has long been one of the leading methods to generate new insights into genetics – from fruit flies to frogs to fish to mice. When new DNA is inserted into chromosomes it can cause many unexpected things to happen. Like development of cancers, for example. This is why there is so much concern about the possibility that the mRNA-like polynucleotides used in the “RNA vaccines” may travel into the nucleus (where the DNA chromosomes reside) and insert or recombine with a cellular genome after reverse transcription (RNA-> DNA). Normally, with DNA-based gene therapy technologies, the FDA requires genotoxicity studies for this reason, but the FDA did not treat the “mRNA vaccine” technology as a gene therapy product.

Based on these risk considerations, the original idea behind using mRNA as a drug (for genetic therapeutic or vaccine purposes) was that mRNA is typically degraded quite rapidly once manufactured or released into a cell. mRNA stability is regulated by a number of genetic elements including the length of the “poly A tail”, but typically ranges from ½ to a couple of hours. Therefore, if natural or synthetic mRNA which is degraded by the usual enzymes is introduced into your body, it should only last for a very short time. And this has been the answer which Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna have provided to physicians when asked “how long does the injected mRNA last after injection”.

But now we know that the “mRNA” from the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines which incorporates the synthetic nucleotide pseudouridine can persist in lymph nodes for at least 60 days after injection. This is not natural, and this is not really mRNA. These molecules have genetic elements similar to those of natural mRNA, but they are clearly far more resistant to the enzymes which normally degrade natural mRNA, seem to be capable of producing high levels of protein for extended periods, and seem to evade normal immunologic mechanisms for eliminating cells which produce foreign proteins which are not normally observed in the body.

Key findings from this seminal work by Katharina Röltgen et al include the following:

Regarding pseudouridine and mRNA

What is pseudouridine (shorthand symbol Ψ)? Pseudouridine is a modified nucleotide mRNA subunit that is prevalent in natural human mRNAs, and the biologic significance and regulation of the modification process is still being determined and understood. This modification occurs naturally in the cells of our body, in a highly regulated manner. This is in sharp contrast to the random incorporation of synthetic pseudouridine which occurs with the manufacturing process used for producing the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech (but not CureVac) COVID-19 “mRNA” vaccines. The “state of the art” of understanding of the biology of natural pseudouridine modifications is summarized circa late 2020 in this excellent review published in the journal Annual Review of Genetics by Erin K Borchardt et al. The open source version (not paywall protected) can be found here. Hang on, because we are about to dive into some serious immunology, molecular and cell biology.

Abstract as follows:

“Recent advances in pseudouridine detection reveal a complex pseudouridine landscape that includes messenger RNA and diverse classes of noncoding RNA in human cells. The known molecular functions of pseudouridine, which include stabilizing RNA conformations and destabilizing interactions with varied RNA-binding proteins, suggest that RNA pseudouridylation could have widespread effects on RNA metabolism and gene expression. Here, we emphasize how much remains to be learned about the RNA targets of human pseudouridine synthases, their basis for recognizing distinct RNA sequences, and the mechanisms responsible for regulated RNA pseudouridylation. We also examine the roles of noncoding RNA pseudouridylation in splicing and translation and point out the potential effects of mRNA pseudouridylation on protein production, including in the context of therapeutic mRNAs.”

A more recent (peer reviewed) publication in the journal Molecular Cell has shed light on some of the mechanisms of action associated with natural pseudouridine modification. It appears that, in the natural context, various highly regulated cellular enzymes (for example PUS1, PUS7, and RPUSD4) act on specific mRNAs and specific locations within those mRNAs while they are being made in the cell to modify the normal uridine nucleotide subunit to form pseudouridine. These modifications occur at locations associated with alternatively spliced RNA regions, are enriched near splice sites, and overlap with hundreds of binding sites for RNA-binding proteins. Latest data indicate that pre-mRNA pseudouridylation is used by human cells to regulate human gene expression via alternative pre-mRNA processing.

Relevant to the “mRNA” vaccines, the Borchardt review makes the following surprising statement, which is consistent with the Cell paper cited above which demonstrates that the synthetic “mRNA” being used for these vaccines persists in patient lymph node tissue for 60 days or longer-

“An exciting possibility is that regulated mRNA pseudouridylation controls mRNA metabolism in response to changing cellular conditions.”

That is a technically precise way of saying that incorporation of pseudouridine is one factor that controls how long an mRNA stays around in your body.

The review proceeds with the following alarming (from the context of the unregulated incorporation of Ψ into the molecules used for vaccine purposes) statement:

“The biological effects of Ψ must originate in chemical differences between U and Ψ, which primarily affect RNA backbone conformation and the stability of base pairs. Because Ψ can form stable pairs with G, C and U in addition to A, it has been proposed as a “universal” base pairing partner. Despite intensive study of the structural effects of Ψ on short, synthetic RNA oligos, it is currently impossible to predict the structural outcome of site-specific RNA pseudouridylation in longer RNAs. The systematic investigation of sequence-context effects on the stability of Ψ-containing duplexes is an important step towards accurate predictions. It will be important to determine the structural consequences of RNA pseudouridylation in cells, which is possible using improved methods to probe RNA structure in vivo.”

Furthermore,

“The effect of Ψ on the yield of functional protein depends strongly on the specific codons used. The mechanisms underlying this sequence dependence are unknown, highlighting how much remains to be understood about the translational consequences of mRNA pseudouridylation in cells.”

Finally, relevant to the immunosuppression being observed after multiple mRNA vaccine boosters (which is increasingly referred to as an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or AIDS disease), Borchardt et al teach the following:

“Innate Immunity

Cells are equipped with innate immune sensors, including various Toll-like receptors (TLRs), retinoic acid inducible protein (RIG-I), and protein kinase R (PKR), which detect foreign nucleic acid. RNA modifications have been thought to provide a mechanism for discerning “self” RNA from non-self RNA, and indeed, incorporating RNA modifications, including pseudouridine, in foreign RNA allows for escape from innate immune detection. This makes RNA modification a powerful tool in the field of RNA therapeutics where RNAs must make it into cells without triggering an immune response, and remain stable long enough to achieve therapeutic goals. In addition, the presence of modified nucleosides in viral genomic RNA could contribute to immune evasion during infection.

TLRs Toll-Like Receptors (TLRs) are membrane-associated proteins which detect various pathogen associated molecular patterns (PAMPS) and subsequently stimulate production of proinflammatory cytokines. The RNA-sensing TLRs, TLR3, TLR7 and TLR8 reside within endosomal membranes. TLR3 recognizes dsRNA, while TLR7 and TLR8 recognize ssRNA. Upon target recognition, TLRs activate a signaling cascade that results in the expression of proinflammatory cytokines and interferon. In vitro transcribed RNA is immunostimulatory when transfected into HEK293 cells engineered to express either TLRs and inclusion of Ψ in the RNA suppressed this response (most pronounced for TLR7 and TLR8).

RIG-I Retinoic Acid Inducible Protein (RIG-I) is a cytosolic innate immune sensor responsible for detecting short stretches of dsRNA or ssRNA with either a 5′-triphosphate or 5′-disphosphate group (a feature common to various RNA viruses). Activation of RIG-I relieves its autoinhibition, releasing its CARD domains to interact with MAVS and set off a signaling cascade that ultimately results in expression of immune factors. Inclusion of Ψ in a 5′-triphosphate capped RNA abolishes activation of RIG-I, providing another mechanism for pseudouridine-mediated suppression of innate immune activation. Further, the polyU/UC region of the HCV genome is also potent activator of RIG-I and complete replacement of U with Ψ in this RNA fully abrogates downstream IFN-beta induction, despite RIG-I still binding to the modified RNA, but with reduced affinity. Durbin et al present biochemical evidence that RIG-I bound to pseudouridylated polyU/UC RNA fails to undergo the conformational changes necessary to activate downstream signaling.

PKR RNA-dependent Protein Kinase (PKR) is a cytosolic resident innate immune sensor. Upon detection of foreign RNA, PKR represses translation through phosphorylation of translation initiation factor eIF-2alpha. Molecules which activate PKR are varied, but include dsRNA formed intra- or inter-molecularly, and 5′ triphosphate groups. Inclusion of Ψ in various PKR substrates reduces PKR activation and downstream translation repression relative to unmodified RNAs. For example, a short 47-nt ssRNA potently activates PKR when synthesized with U but not with Ψ (~30-fold reduction with Ψ). Ψ also modestly reduced PKR activity when this short RNA was annealed to a complementary unmodified RNA 170. Likewise, in vitro transcribed, unmodified tRNA acted as much more potent activator of PKR than tRNAs transcribed with pseudouridine. It should be noted that it is unclear whether a fully pseudouridylated tRNA adopts canonical folding and what impact this may have on PKR recognition of this substrate. Finally, transfection of an unmodified mRNA caused a greater reduction in overall cellular protein synthesis in cell culture compared to the same mRNA fully pseudouridylated. Consistent with this result, fully pseudouridylated mRNA reduced PKR activation and subsequent phosphorylation of eIF-2alpha.”

Regarding the consequences for the use of mRNA as a drug for therapeutic or vaccine purposes, Borchardt et al conclude that

“Pseudouridine likely affects multiple facets of mRNA function, including reduced immune stimulation by several mechanisms, prolonged half-life of pseudouridine-containing RNA, as well as potentially deleterious effects of Ψ on translation fidelity and efficiency.”

Conclusion

Based on this information, it appears to me that the extensive random incorporation of pseudouridine into the synthetic mRNA-like molecules used for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may well account for much or all of the observed immunosuppression, DNA virus reactivation, and remarkable persistence of the synthetic “mRNA” molecules observed in lymph node biopsy tissues by Katharina Röltgen et al. Many of these adverse effects were reported by Kariko, Weissman et al in their 2008 paper “Incorporation of pseudouridine into mRNA yields superior nonimmunogenic vector with increased translational capacity and biological stability” and could have been anticipated by regulatory and toxicology professionals if they had bothered to consider these findings prior to allowing emergency use authorization and widespread (global) deployment of what is truly an immature and previously untested technology. Therefore, neither the FDA, NIH, CDC, nor BioNTech (which employs Dr. Kariko as a Vice President) nor Moderna can claim true ignorance. To my eyes, what we have seen is more appropriately classified as “willful ignorance”.

In conclusion, based on these data it is my opinion that the random and uncontrolled insertion of pseudouridine into the manufactured “mRNA”-like molecules administered to so many of us creates a population of polymers which may resemble natural mRNA, but which have a variety of properties which distinguish them in a variety of aspects which are clinically relevant. These characteristics and activities may account for many of the unusual effects, unusual stability, and striking adverse events associated with this new class of vaccines. These molecules are not natural mRNA, and they do not behave like natural mRNA.

The question that most troubles and perplexes me at this point is why the biological consequences of these modifications and associated clinical adverse effects were not thoroughly investigated before widespread administration of random pseudouridine-incorporating “mRNA”-like molecules to a global population. Biology, and particularly molecular biology, is highly complex and matrix-interrelated. Change one thing over here, and it is really hard to predict what might happen over there. That is why one must do rigorously controlled non-clinical and clinical research. Once again, it appears to me that the hubris of “elite” high status scientists, physicians and governmental “public health” bureaucrats has overcome common sense, well established regulatory norms have been disregarded, and patients have unnecessarily suffered as a consequence.

When will we ever learn.

• The Problem with Gene-Based Injections | Academia Catches Up
  The Autoimmune Reaction Hypothesis gets published in the medical literature.

• How The WHO Captured Your Constitution.
  Ever wonder how several nations across the globe suddenly & simultaneously contravened their citizens' constitutional rights?

• Roche Pharma | The Tamiflu Fraud
  In 1999, the FDA approved Tamiflu for the treatment & prevention of Influenza. In 2020, a Federal Judge denied Roche's motion to dismiss a $1.5 Billion…

• Trojan Horse | The Problem with Gene-based Injections - Part 2
  In Part 1 we discussed the interaction between injected genes and the immune response. Now, we turn to the risks these injections pose on the genome.

• First Principles | The Problem with Gene-based Injections - Part 1
  The cellular environment is incredibly complex and dynamic. To understand the concerns with gene-based injections, we need to go back to basics.

• International Grand Jury | Day 3: The PCR Test
  An international grand jury investigating crimes against humanity has kicked off.

• International Grand Jury | Day 2: Historical Background
  An international grand jury investigating crimes against humanity have kicked off.

• Lessons from History | 3. Pellagra & Misinformation
  Despite ample evidence gathered over centuries in Europe & US in favor of a dietary cause, Pellagra was believed by many to be an infectious disease…

• Why Joe Rogan Is "Dangerous."
  And, why we need him

• Lessons from History | 2. Scurvy & Infection
  In the 16th century, scurvy was observed to be a dietary problem. This was forgotten and as recently as the 1900s, scurvy was thought to be an…

• Big Pharma's Largest Settlements - It's not Pfizer
  According to Violations Tracker, Pfizer does not hold the record - not by a long shot. By far, the largest investigations into Big Pharma resolved in…

• Geert Vanden Bossche was mocked as an anti-vaxxer. But, were his predictions accurate?
  Geert had warned us about the nature of this vaccination strategy. Some of his fears have come true. But if his assumptions were correct, what does that…

• Lessons from History | 1. The 15-Year S.M.O.N. Epidemic of Japan
  An Epidemic swept through Japan from 1959 to 1973, but how come you have never heard of it? And what happened to the virus that caused it? This story is…

• Community-Acquired Pneumonia: What to Know, and Why it Matters
  We review your doctor's reference of choice (UpToDate) to understand what Pneumonia is, how it's managed, and its relationship to SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

• Mass Formation Psychosis - Theory, Implications & Jon Stewart
  Professor Mattias Desmet brought to attention the theory of Mass Formation. What started as a testimony to the Berlin Corona Investigative Committee…

• Pandemic Hydra: Paralyzed by Fear or Confusion?
  One reason why the average person may be so hesitant to turn on the COVID narrative is they are overwhelmed by the complexity, with perpetrators at…

• Where Have All The Experts Gone?
  In an effort to help people make sense of the increasingly confusing world, I have compiled a list of people & resources which have helped me understand…

• WTF Happened to Influenza in 2020-2021?
  Using the surveillance data from Canada Public Health, exploring the interaction between Influenza and SARS-CoV-2, and the science behind PCR testing…

• How We Got Here Part 2: Medical Tower of Babel
  How the Centralization of Medical Authority is in large part responsible for the fallout associated with the pandemic response strategy. We are witness…

• How We Got Here.
  How medical education and practice paradigms have formed the conditions which ushered in a pandemic response strategy that will destroy the credibility…

Introduction

This one is BIG (roughly 7000 words, 50 minute read) and is probably my most important post to date. I have been collecting information for this post for over a year. When you are done reading it, I need your help to share it.

Herein I pull together the totality of scientific evidence to date — as well as other clues of which I am aware — that demonstrate the covid vaccines to be reproductively toxic, and that this effect may well be intentional.

One does not need to prove these hypotheses beyond a shadow of a doubt in order to act on them personally. We are equipped by nature to make observations and act on our intuition. Personally, I’ve always trusted mine as it has generally served me well in life. There are many things we cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt using randomized double-blind clinical trials. Yet we do (or don’t do them) anyway.

This is generally how hypothesis formation starts and sometimes it is impossible to move beyond hypotheses while data are still being gathered. I suspect the adversaries of humanity are hoping we’ll move forward with their plan for us, while they stonewall exactly the sort of data gathering we desire.

To offer you an outline for this essay at the outset:

How the New Normal Set a Precedent for Unparalleled Restrictions Since WWII

• Denial of Early Treatment Drugs
• Vaccine Passports/Digital ID
• Narrative Control and Censorship
• The Extreme Breadth and Length of Covid Vaccination Campaigns Were Pre-Planned

Population Control: a Motive for Vaccination Beyond Digital ID and CBDCs

• Popular Sentiments of Professionals
• Institutional Players
• Medical Literature and History of Anti-Fertility Vaccination
• Vaccination Against Placental Proteins
• Vaccination Against Fertility Hormones

Covid Vaccines: Anti-Fertility Bioweapons?

• Vaccination Against Syncitin Through Vaccination Against Spike Protein
• Toxic LNP Delivery Systems
• Other Toxic Components
• Covertly Added Mutant Aromatase Gene

Evidence for Reproductive Toxicity

• Re-Analysis of 2021 NEJM Analysis of V Safe Data

• DMED data

• Independent Physician Reports

• Funeral Director Reports

• Public Comments on CDC Analysis of V Safe Data

• VAERS Data

• Public Comments on Female Reproductive Problems

Discussion

• Thoughts of Christopher Langan, The World’s Smartest Man
• Insights from 20 Year-Old Science Fiction: The Aschen Agenda

Conclusion

Grab a drink and join me for the first section (a brief tour of the past two years) so I can set the stage for what may be a much more insidious agenda than you ever imagined, and the elites’ potential endgame(s).

Share

How the New Normal Set a Precedent for Unparalleled Restrictions Since WWII

• misuse of PCR tests
• misuse of masks
• exaggerations about the importance of asymptomatic spread
• misconceptions about the importance of lockdowns
• a level of censorship more suited to China than a liberal democracy
• denial of early treatment drugs
• religious dogma that the gene-based covid injections are safe and effective
• lies that vaccine passports increase safety

I want to focus on the latter half of that list.

Denial of Early Treatment Drugs

This was the major tipoff to me in 2020 that something was wrong. It was never actually required to prove that early treatment drugs work: the two primary drugs which shall not be named are among the safest and most common drugs in world history, with decades of safe use and billions of doses.

On that basis alone, there was therefore no reason to deny these drugs to patients during an emergency and a pandemic, even if they were useless. Off-label drug prescriptions are common and legal in the US, a country awash with and addicted to pharmaceuticals!

Those two drugs were relentlessly demonized as not just useless, but dangerous. It was a flat-out lie that demonstrated to me an underhanded motive. In late 2020, I thought this ulterior motive was just about obscene profits, since I’d already witnessed similar underhandedness for decades in the cancer treatment industry. It was not until early 2021 during the vaccine rollout that I began to be much more disturbed.

Vaccine Passports/Digital ID

That governments and mass media around the world have continued with propagandistic techniques about the vaccines for so long is another huge red flag. The denial of early treatment set the stage for vaccine dogma. The population was brainwashed to believe that vaccines were our only way out of the pandemic.

While there has been some letup in the northern hemisphere on this dogma in recent weeks, the grip is much stronger down under, where people must still show a vaccine pass everywhere to have access to a basic life, i.e. to go anywhere except a grocery store and often required to work, rent a place to live, or even get a haircut (such as in New Zealand). Australia and Canada are similarly draconian. These countries are the testing grounds for World Economic Forum (WEF) digital tyranny.

Last year it was thought by “conspiracy theorists” that the vaccine passports (or digital Health ID) would lead to more sweeping Digital ID, which would then lead to the installment of central bank digital currencies (so-called programmable money that operates like a voucher instead of money), the elimination of cash, and so on.

CBDCs and the elimination of cash would give central planners unprecedented levels of control over the amount and type of resources a population is allowed to consume. They would operate like vouchers rather than money. They would expire after a certain time and only be useful on certain categories of items. In this way, political authorities will be able to control every aspect about your life: what you consume, and where you go.

For a glimpse into how these will work, the Ukraine government announced emergency payments to those impacted by war. But only if you are vaccinated… and only through the digital system.

This is how the other shoe of “covid” could drop. You’ll get CBDCs (food stamps, vouchers for other things) but only if you have a vaccine pass.

Note that this process of digital IDs and central bank digital currencies is most accelerated in New Zealand, Canada, and Australia – three countries where uptake of vaccines has been quite high by a trusting and compliant population.

Here’s New Zealand’s Ministry of Health “digital ID” page. Note the interesting color choices since the onset of the Ukraine conflict.

And listen to this nice message with tinkly music from the Canadian Bankers Association referencing the World Economic Forum, regarding the rollout of CBDCs.

[Chicken Gate 🇨🇦 @ChickenGate

A message from the Canadian Bankers Assoc referencing the World Economic Forum. The state wants to own you in the name of convenience.](https://twitter.com/ChickenGate/status/1496272056178159619)

February 22nd 2022
2,177 Retweets2,978 Likes

Prior to the covid era, virtually no one except the most ardent Marxist would go willingly into a food stamp-like system for virtually everything they consume. Nobody.

The government response to Covid-19 conditioned people to have their movement and rights dramatically restricted to levels not seen since WWII.

These wartime-like restrictions — and indeed, the almost seamless transition to actual war propaganda in the Ukraine crisis, which is sucking yet more people into the mass psychosis, some of whom were not taken in by covid hysteria — may be sufficient to usher in a complete transformation of the banking system. If you want a conspiracy theory about how subliminal messaging is being used for this purpose, the Good Citizen has an interesting piece.

Narrative Control and Censorship

Since early 2020, information control has become very important, and, as Glenn Greenwald has just written, we are already seeing that it will get much worse in a traditional land war.

First, there was the relentless lying and use of psychological operations to frighten and subdue the population. The British government even acknowledged their own use of such tactics.

Inquiring journalists are now a nearly extinct species. Mass media reads like blatant propaganda. Jingoism is everywhere and the Ukraine crisis has made that even more apparent than ever, especially for those of us without central lines installed like port-a-caths to infuse a constant drip of BBC, CNN, etc. for hours each day.

Then there is the relentless demonization, canceling, and deactivation of anyone on social medial platforms who is pointing out the absurdities.

Fact-checking labels on social media posts and YouTube in 2020 escalated exponentially in 2021 to the complete digital cancellation of almost anyone who deviates from the “safe and effective” slogan.

The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.

Adolf Hitler

The pattern is eerily consistent with previous totalitarian and authoritarian systems of the 20th century. Independent thought will not be tolerated, and you will be gaslighted by the government, the media, and a majority of your fellow citizens who cannot face their own terror, so they pretend you’re still living in a free society and the censorship you are experiencing is not censorship at all, but merely the actions of a private company acting completely independent of government instruction and protecting the public from you, a dangerous person who, from their perspective, is shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

We have watched as many people we knew have become full-fledged totalitarians. Their brains have been cracked by relentless propaganda and fear-mongering and they have turned their backs on you, doing the dirty work of their own oppressors as they weave themselves into pretzels trying to justify why the greatest restrictions on human liberty since WWII are necessary over an illness that has morphed from a severe influenza in 2020 to a cold in 2022.

We also saw that “ misinformation” became a widely accepted fact when authorities wanted to steer the population in a completely different direction. At first, in 2020, “conspiracy theories” took about 6 months to turn into facts. In 2022, they turn into facts in less than 24 hours.

Because the population has become a super-organism with a hive mind that can be directed at will, be prepared that when the science “changes” again (for instance, in autumn 2022), the public will accept new “covid” or “flu” or “climate” restrictions unquestioningly as part of the “New Normal” especially if they are somehow tied to nationalistic propaganda campaigns in the new Ukraine crisis.

This is why few people questioned obviously alarming things, such as pregnant women receiving the vaccines without having studied them in pregnant women, let alone studying them in a Phase III trial.

Or the vaccine being pushed onto ever younger age groups to protect the elderly, even though the risks to children from covid-19 are vanishingly small.

And this is now why many still don’t question the need for endless booster shots, not just for the elderly, but for every human being on earth.

James Hill, MD, has a comprehensive 43 point list of other contradictions and tip-offs.

The drive on the part of pharmaceutical companies and governments to suppress information about the vaccines was relentless. I particularly liked this short video by Nick Hudson, released in November 2021, chairman of PANDA: What is the FDA Hiding?

And now with the initial release of Pfizer documents as forced by the judicial system, we are beginning to learn just a small part of what the FDA has been hiding.

Big Pharma is a cutthroat industry depending on constant rollouts of blockbuster drugs, but I do not believe that even they would ordinarily take the risk of rolling out a brand new technology on a global population (when it has only completed Phase II trials), unless it were under duress.

It’s hard not to see the potential for a conspiracy here.

I suspect that the powers that be have ordered these CEOs — and governments and regulatory agencies, for that matter — to deliver. Or else.

Others disagree, of course. They think covid-19 is a serious enough disease to warrant rapid rollouts of insufficiently tested novel technology on the entire global population – not just one or twice, but multiple times. Of course, a similar but slightly less hysterical situation has existed for many years with influenza vaccines, especially in the United States, so this fact alone is insufficient to demonstrate ulterior motives beyond profit-seeking that is driven by regulatory incentives surrounding their manufacture.

This is not entirely unprecedented as influenza vaccines don’t work either, but 50% of the US population rolls up their sleeves for one each year.

The difference between covid and influenza vaccines is that the former are associated with unprecedented levels of adverse events that are being systematically suppressed by governments, legacy media, and Big Tech. (If you have been living under a rock for a year and you want to delve into it, check Drs. Robert Malone and Jessica Rose, Mathew Crawford, Steve Kirsch, eugyppius, and bad cattitude.)

And it’s certainly all consistent with hushing those in the insurance industry that would ordinarily be able to hold abusive corporations and negligent policymakers to account in a court of law. A board member of a large German insurance company blew the whistle on covid vaccines, and was suspended from the board.

Authorities continue to insist on their necessity, so messengers like that will continue to be shot on sight.

Those lower down in the hierarchy are likely brainwashed. Don’t underestimate the power of a couple of decades working for WHO to accomplish this: the field of public health already self-selects for personalities with controlling, Good Nazi tendencies.

Many other healthcare workers who are not so bullish on the covid vaccines have been threatened. Loss of employment is generally censure enough in itself, as we’ve often seen with vaccine mandates. Most people don’t have the independent wealth to break free from their employer in the face of such a massive onslaught of propaganda.

So, the presence of a conspiracy does not require large numbers of people to be “in on the plan” any more than hundreds of thousands of NSA workers and private contractors were “in on the plan.” They were doing what they were told, and they were told that it was essential for public health national security. That only a few like Bill Binney or Edward Snowden arise out of such a morass to blow whistles should surprise no one.

The Breadth and Length of Covid Vaccination Campaigns Were Pre-Planned

Let’s turn now to the frequency and amount of covid-19 injections planned. Germany backs covid vaccines for another 7 years and purchases enough vaccine to last until 2029.

The injections are very important to authorities and, as we have just learned with the announcement of potential approval of a fourth dose in the US, continue to occupy a central role in the drama. This is despite the fact that many scientists (including even Fauci and Hotez — plausible deniability perhaps? or just grooming the public for patience?) doubted quite early on that the vaccines would work.

While the most apocalyptic of the predictions regarding Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) did not come true, the vaccines very obviously do not stop spread and there is some reason to believe that they are causing antigenic fixation (see Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche). So in a sane world, no one would continue to use coercion to get people vaccinated. They would leave it as a private choice, as it is with influenza vaccines.

Yet coercion continues in the worst jurisdictions, and mandates have probably only temporarily dropped in many places, and may return in autumn, particularly in exchange for your new vouchers for existence (CBDCs), the 2022 version of wartime food stamps.

I’ve pointed out the apparent uniformity of this vaccination scheme in western countries in a previous post, but it bears repeating here.

Listen to the zeal with which Kerry Chant, Chief Public Health Office of New South Wales, Australia, talks in August 2021 about cycles of vaccination, re-vaccination, and the purchase of “large doses of vaccine” into 2022 (1.3 minutes):

In a similar vein, here’s Justin Trudeau, in July 2021, discussing booster shots. Canada has purchased 30 million doses of Pfizer alone in 2022 and 2023, with 60 million in 2024. At a population of roughly 38 million, this means very broad coverage of the eligible population four more times after 2021. (less than 1 minute)

Here’s Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s PM, admitting there will be no endpoint to the covid vaccination program:

How did they know how well the shots would work back then? They didn’t.

And finally, here’s Sajid Javid, UK Health Minister, discussing the reduced interval between shots as a minimum of 3 months rather than 6 months. A similar policy is now in place in New Zealand.

I highly recommend listening to these short videos for the general body language and tone. If you can listen to them without getting the heebie jeebies, you are made of stronger stuff than I.

Share

Population Control: a Motive for Vaccination Beyond Digital ID and CBDCs

So, what might be some additional motivations for endless injections every three to six months, for at least several billion people in the western world, that may have nothing to do with covid or Digital ID?

Put on your tinfoil hat, or… just use some common sense and think like a control freak or a villain would.

There are massive unfunded liabilities in the welfare and pension systems due to an aging population and the theft of personal wealth from the 2008 financial crisis. For another, a higher use of fossil fuels per capita than in the developing world.

None of this is a secret. It’s just that people do not want to consider that authorities would take draconian steps to limit human population, even though it’s been talked about openly in the past.

Popular Sentiments of Professionals

Consider the following sentiments which have been echoed for 5 decades now by highly educated westerners.

"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions."

Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, 1968

"A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible."

United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable."

Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit, 1992

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

Prince Philip

“There are too many people, that’s why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff.”

Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN, major UN donor (and large CO2 producer)

Institutional Players

In 1995 (a reminder for those of us who feel as if it’s yesterday that this is over 25 years ago!), a peer reviewed paper entitled “Immunization to regulate fertility: biological and cultural frameworks” was published in Social Science and Medicine. An excerpt of the abstract reads (my emphasis added):

"Many scholars and government officials subscribe to the following logic: the global environmental crisis is due to over-population which necessitates population control programs; thus pregnancy can be considered a disease subject to state control. But pregnancy is not a disease nor is over-population the single major cause of environmental degradation. However, as governments grapple with the economic, social, and ecological consequences of population growth, draconian measures to control fertility will be ever more tempting.”

The urge of elites and central planners to control human reproduction pre-dates publication by a half century at least and has multiple drivers. It began in eugenicist institutional and governmental programs in the 1920s. Eugenics was discredited and forced underground for awhile after the Nazi atrocities, but it resurfaced under new auspices with John D. Rockefeller III who “organized the Population Council in 1953, predicting a “Malthusian crisis” in the developing world and financing extensive experiments in population control.”

As for the more recent involvement of wealthy individuals in population control, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra tackles the legacy of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in a dryly humorous and artistic way. For those who want to read more, I also recommend Andreas Oehler’s article Going for the Jugular Take 2 — All Ducks in a Row.

Medical Literature and History of Anti-Fertility Vaccination

Vaccination Against Placental Proteins

As most are aware, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is inextricably linked with World Health Organization (WHO) efforts. What may be less well known is that since the 1970s, the WHO has had a Task Force on Fertility Regulation -- i.e. development of birth control vaccines targeting either gametes or developing embryos:

From the same publication above, another screencap:

Hold the thought of vaccination against placental antigens in your mind for now. We’ll come back to it later.

Vaccination Against Fertility Hormones

While research into anti-fertility vaccines is longstanding, in 2017 there was a new revelation. A peer-reviewed paper was published that detailed the highly unethical vaccination of Kenyan women in the early 1990s on the false pretext of protecting them from tetanus, while actually aiming to sterilize them.

This paper is entitled HCG Found in WHO Tetanus Vaccine in Kenya Raises Concern in the Developing World and the abstract reads, in part, as follows (my emphasis added):

"In 1993, WHO announced a “birth-control vaccine” for “family planning”. Published research shows that by 1976 WHO researchers had conjugated tetanus toxoid (TT) with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) producing a “birth-control” vaccine. Conjugating TT with hCG causes pregnancy hormones to be attacked by the immune system. Expected results are abortions in females already pregnant and/or infertility in recipients not yet impregnated. Repeated inoculations prolong infertility. Currently WHO researchers are working on more potent anti-fertility vaccines using recombinant DNA. WHO publications show a long-range purpose to reduce population growth in unstable “less developed countries”. By November 1993 Catholic publications appeared saying an abortifacient vaccine was being used as a tetanus prophylactic. In November 2014, the Catholic Church asserted that such a program was underway in Kenya. Three independent Nairobi accredited biochemistry laboratories tested samples from vials of the WHO tetanus vaccine being used in March 2014 and found hCG where none should be present. In October 2014, 6 additional vials were obtained by Catholic doctors and were tested in 6 accredited laboratories. Again, hCG was found in half the samples. Subsequently, Nairobi’s AgriQ Quest laboratory, in two sets of analyses, again found hCG in the same vaccine vials that tested positive earlier but found no hCG in 52 samples alleged by the WHO to be vials of the vaccine used in the Kenya campaign 40 with the same identifying batch numbers as the vials that tested positive for hCG. Given that hCG was found in at least half the WHO vaccine samples known by the doctors involved in administering the vaccines to have been used in Kenya, our opinion is that the Kenya “anti-tetanus” campaign was reasonably called into question by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association as a front for population growth reduction."

Such draconian methods are not limited to African countries:

"I recall Sanjay, son of Indian PM Indira Gandhi, awarding villagers transistor radios in exchange for undergoing sterilisation in the mid 1970s. He combined a state of emergency, eugenics, sterilisation passports, and radio news propaganda in the same fell swoop. Sound familiar? India was and remains the elite’s testing ground.”

We have now established completely unethical means of attempted sterilization through vaccination on false pretenses in developing countries, sponsored and developed by WHO. And this is not a very recent development.

Many in the “developed” western world, in all its naiveté, probably assumed that such techniques would never be deployed inward.

Covid Vaccines: Anti-Fertility Bioweapons?

Vaccination Against Syncytin Through Vaccination Against Spike Protein

Let’s return to the concept of vaccination against placental proteins. Note that vaccination against the placental protein of syncitin was the mechanism that was proposed by Drs. Mike Yeadon and Wolfgang Wodarg when, on December 1, 2020, they wrote to the European Medicines Agency, firmly demanding that they delay their emergency approval of covid vaccines. You can find a copy of that petition at this link.

Their concerns included inadequate safety testing of new technology agents and the pretense that there was an emergency warranting ‘emergency use authorisation’. They pointed out the risk of acute allergic reactions which might be life-threatening (which were, in fact, observed on the first day of public dosing) and potential impacts on fertility, because of the weak, but very clear similarity of coronavirus spike protein & syncytin-1, the latter of which is an essential protein to human fertility.

Other letters warning against blood clots were subsequently written and may be found at this link.

In a study of 15 females that were vaccinated with the Pfizer / BioNTech vaccine, antibodies to syncytin-1 were detected very early in every single female. The authors said it was below a threshold of concern, but there is no way to know what that threshold is, because it’s not been studied.

Dr. Mike Yeadon discussed this problem at some length here.

And this is an interesting and similar summary of concerns, written by a PhD in immunology in December 2020.

American scientists also voiced these concerns in early 2021. Here is a public comment from Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay at an ACIP (CDC) meeting on April 23, 2021.

"Hi, my name is Dr Janci Chunn Lindsay. I hold a doctorate in biochemistry and molecular biology from the University of Texas and have over 30 years of scientific experience primarily in toxicology and mechanistic biology.

"In the mid 1990s, I aided in the development of a temporary human contraceptive vaccine, which ended up causing unintended autoimmune ovarian destruction and sterility in animal test models despite efforts against this and sequence analyses that did not predict this.

"I strongly feel that all the gene therapy vaccines must be halted immediately due to safety concerns on several fronts.

"First there is credible reason to believe that the GTs will cross react with ... and reproductive proteins in sperm, ova and placenta and lead to impaired fertility and reproductive outcomes.

"Respected virologist Bill Gallaher made excellent arguments as to why you would expect cross reaction due to beta sheet confirmation similarities between spike protein and SIN-1 and -2.

"I have yet to see a single immunological study which disproves this despite the fact that it would literally take the manufacturers a single day to do these ... studies to ascertain this. It's been over a year since the assertions were first made that this could occur.

"We have seen 100 pregnancy losses reported in VAERS as of April 9th and there have been reports of impaired spermatogenesis and placental findings from both a natural infection, vaccinated, and ... knock out animal models that have similar placental pathology implicating a ... mediated role in these outcomes.

"Additionally, we have heard multiple reports of menses irregularities in those vaccinated. These must be investigated. We simply cannot put these GTs in our children who are at .002 risk for COVID mortality if infected or any more of the child-bearing age population without thoroughly investigating this matter, as we could potentially sterilize an entire generation.

"Speculation that this will not occur and a few anecdotal reports of pregnancies in the new trials are not sufficient proof that this is not impacting on a population-wide scale.

"Secondly, all of the gene therapies are causing coagulopathy. This is not isolated to one manufacturer, and this is not isolated to one age group, as we are seeing coagulopathy deaths in healthy young adults with no secondary comorbidities.

"There have been 795 reports related to blood clotting disorder as of April 9th in the VAERS reporting system, 338 of these being due to thrombocytopenia. There are forward and backward mechanistic proofs for why this is happening. The natural infection is known to cause coagulopathies due to the spike proteins. All GTs direct the body to make the spike protein.

"... in September of 2020 showed that if you infuse spike protein into mice that have humanizing tumor ... and blood platelets that you also get disseminated thrombosis. Spike protein incubated with human blood in vitro also caused blood clot development which was resistant to fibrolysis. The spike protein that's causing thrombocytic events, which cannot be resolved through natural means, and all vaccines must be halted until they can be reformulated to guard against this diverse effect."

These comments of Dr. Lindsay’s are completely consistent with those of Drs. Yeadon and Wodarg. I’d also note that her comment at the end about immune escape has also been vindicated at this point, but this is beyond the scope of this essay.

Toxic LNP Delivery Systems

But there may be other mechanisms by which covid-19 vaccines contribute to infertility in both women and men, including reproductively toxic lipid nanoparticle delivery systems or the possibility for the intentional direction of LNPs to the gonads in order to deliver the mRNA payload there.

The Japanese biodistribution study amplifies this concern. Dr. Byram Bridle was the force bringing this to light last year by requesting the study from the Japanese, and the data showed that the lipid nanoparticles of the Pfizer vaccine concentrated in the ovaries. The precautionary principle requires that we assume this is happening in women administered the vaccine.

From the Japanese biodistribution study, here is the table of tissue concentrations of vaccine lipid nanoparticles after administration to mice.

This concern was also voiced in July 2021 by Doctors For Covid Ethics:

"Of particularly grave concern is the very slow elimination of the toxic cationic lipids. In persons repeatedly injected with mRNA vaccines containing these lipids— be they directed against COVID, or any other pathogen or disease—this would result in cumulative toxicity. There is a real possibility that cationic lipids will accumulate in the ovaries. The implied grave risk to female fertility demands the most urgent attention of the public and of the health authorities."

The document also states:

It is noteworthy that the level of radioactivity in the liver rises very fast within the first eight hours but then stagnates, whereas in the ovaries and the adrenal glands the rise continues even two full days after the injection. This suggests that the radioactivity may be redistributed from the liver to these glands.

As well as:

Pfizer tested its vaccine for reproductive toxicity on only one species (rats) and on only small numbers of animals (21 litters). A greater than twofold increase in pre-implantation loss of embryos was noted, with a rate of 9.77% in the vaccine group, compared to 4.09% in the control group. The EMA report merely states that the higher value was “within historical control data range” [5, p. 50]. EMA should of course have obligated Pfizer to state unambiguously whether or not the observed 14 difference was statistically significant; and if it was not, to increase sample sizes so as to ensure the required statistical power. The same criticism applies to the reported observations of “very low incidence of gastroschisis, mouth/jaw malformations, right sided aortic arch, and cervical vertebrae abnormalities.” Overall, Pfizer’s studies are inadequately described and apparently were also inadequately carried out. The observed pre-implantation loss indicates toxicity at a very early stage of development, either to the embryo or the nascent placenta. It might be caused by a high level of spike protein expression, but also by toxic lipids; and it might occur already within the ovaries, but also affect the fertilized egg or subsequent developmental stages within the Fallopian tubes or the uterus. This also applies to malformations, although these would more likely be caused by damage later on in embryonic development, suggesting transfer of toxicity across the placenta.

Both the information about syncitin as well as the LNP accumulation in animal models should clearly have caused medicines regulators to halt vaccination in women of childbearing potential early last year. But it didn’t.

Other Toxic Components

As a brief note, a toxic substance (SM-102) is also listed as a component of Moderna’s covid vaccine. A report in the EU Times details that an official OSHA safety data sheet for this substance clearly states: “For research use only, not for human or veterinary use” and indicates that it may be carcinogenic and teratogenic, and with prolonged and repeated use it attacks the respiratory functions, the central nervous system, kidneys and liver.

As discovered by a study commissioned by Tess Lawrie’s ebmcsquared, there is also the potential for graphene in the vaccines, which is known to be cytotoxic. (The potential for reproductive toxicity of graphene is beyond the scope of this article.)

Covertly Added Mutant Aromatase Gene

The information above that emerged in early 2021 becomes much more chilling in the context of a highly predictive statement by two anonymous whistleblowers from Moderna on 4chan, dated 9 Dec 2020.

According to this statement, which I transcribed and wrote about in a preliminary post here, there are alleged to be at least two extra mRNA sequences in the covid vaccines coding for mutant proteins.

First is a mutant version of aromatase, CYP19A1. The purpose of this is allegedly to diminish estrogen and therefore fertility in children of recipients of the covid vaccine by causing premature ovarian failure.

The second gene is alleged to be a mutant cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor, CDKN1B, designed to sabotage the cell cycle, thus giving rise to more cancer in the population.

Eerily, they also mention the addition of “up-regulating LINE-1” to integrate the mRNA into the genome. This is of course the opposite of what we have been told by authorities.

If this is true, the full effect of these alterations may not be fully realized yet for decades.

Although I think the integration of these sequences into the genome is likely more complex than pure recessive/dominant characteristics, depending on whether the original genes are knocked out or where the sequences integrate, these predictions by the Moderna whistleblowers are fairly precise and were made prior to covid vaccine rollouts. So, over a year later, we can make preliminary evaluations of their allegations.

How did these predictions age? Eerily well. In Lasting Legacy of Trojan Horses, Andreas Oehler writes:

• The pharmacokinetics information of the LNPs in mRNA vaccines has been spilled by the Japanese only in May 2021. As it turned out, the LNPs with the mRNA in them do not stay at the injection site, as CDC and other agencies postulated. Instead, they accumulate in the liver and the gonads of the vaccinees in high concentrations. Surprise! So, the tipsters have been confirmed correct in this regard.

• The studies regarding LINE-1 enzymes being able to reverse transcribe the vaccine mRNA back into human DNA appeared much later as well:

  (1) “Reverse-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA can integrate into the genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in patient-derived tissues” ( Jaenisch et al., 2021.05.21)

  (2) “Coronavirus gene findings are no cause for alarm, says leading scientist“ (ABS-CBN, 2021.01.30):”The discovery by Professor Rudolf Jaenisch and researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stirs up a hornet’s nest because mRNA vaccines, including those made by Pfizer/ BioNTech and Moderna, operate in similar ways to the virus to trigger an immune response.”

  (3) “Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line” (Aldén et al., 2022.02.25).

  (4) “Moderna finally cracks into gene editing with Metagenomi pact thanks to 'irresistible' data“ (Fierce Biotech, 2021.11.02):”We finally know who Moderna has been courting behind the scenes to make the big jump into gene editing. The famed biotech has signed a research partnership with CRISPR gene editing company Metagenomi. Metagenomi will offer up access to its gene editing tools. The company recent unveiled data on its CRISPR-associated transposases system that can be used to precisely integrate large DNA fragments into genomes, allowing for new editing techniques beyond the currently available technology. ”

  (5) “Metagenomi Presents New Findings on CRISPR-associated Transposases (CAST) that Allow for Targetable Genomic Integration of Large DNA Fragments“ (Metagenomi.co, 2021.05.14): “Our research presented at ASGCT describes how our first-in-class programmable CAST gene editing system can be used to precisely integrate large fragments of DNA into target genomes and the potential of these systems in the development of both ex vivo and in vivo gene therapies. CRISPR-associated transposases can be reprogrammed to integrate at specific genomic sites using guide RNAs.” Target genomes, eh? Transhumans, anyone? A.k.a. mutants?

  Another solid confirmation that the tipsters knew what they were talking about way before this information went public.

• As the reader Jeff C pointed out (and I quote verbatim from here on), the tipsters not only said that LINE-1 could facilitate reverse transcription but that the vaxx has a hidden additive that specifically upregulates LINE-1 (point #4). The Aldén et al. paper using the BioNTech vaxx clearly showed a high presence of LINE-1 when the vaxx was added that was not there in the control. So something about the vaxx significantly increases LINE-1 just like the tipster said. The fact that the tipster knew this before any of this was publicly known is pretty impressive. If you look back at the Covid virus reverse transcription study (Jaenisch et al - looked at Covid itself, not the vaxx) they artificially increased LINE-1 in the cells via transfection [“To increase the likelihood of detecting rare integration events, we transfected HEK293T cells with LINE1 expression plasmids prior to infection with SARS-CoV-2“]. That was a key criticism of the study in that it wasn't a real world case. This is in stark contrast to the vaxx study where LINE-1 increased solely due to the vaxx itself. Wasn’t that the role of one of the “highly sensitive trade secret adjuvants being added“, as hinted by the tipster?

• In Oct. 2021, a former Pfizer quality control manager and a whistleblower, Melissa Strickler, spilled beans on the unusual manufacturing prossess at the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine plant in a series of interviews. Pfizer’s processes for its “vaccine” are strangely deviating from usual norms. The compounding room has no idea what are the components they are mixing into the “product”. This secrecy about what goes into the vials is unprecedented. Furthermore, the vaccine manufacturers are not controlled by any independent bodies as to the quality control, the vials being shipped directly to the vaccine administration locations. This lends credence to the assertion that the mRNA vaccines may contain undisclosed constituents.

• The leak of EMA-Pfizer correspondence in Nov.-Dec. 2020, when EMA was working on Pfizer’s vaccine authorization, revealed that EMA was concerned that the mRNA in the vaccine vials contains only 55% of the intended S spike code, the rest being “truncated species” blamed on the faults in the manufacturing process. Pfizer placated these concerns by pushing the S spike code proportion up to 75%, at least for the time being. After that, EMA stopped looking and declared the jabs kosher. More on this in my post “Zeroing in on Gifts from “Science” to Humanity“ from Nov. 2021. So, another score for the tipsters - the jabs do contain some exogenous mRNA code that no one analyses or scrutinizes.

How about cancer rates? Dr. Ryan Cole has been recording highly elevated rates of cancer in his practice and the preliminary raw data released by three whistleblower physicians from the Defense Medical Epidemiological Database on the incidence of various diseases, before and after the onset of COVID-19 vaccination of military forces, show the following [according to Robert Malone](http://* https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/regarding-the-defense-medical-epidemiological?s=r):

• Total Number of Malignant Neuroendocrine Tumor Reports By Year up 276%
• Total Number of Neoplasms for All Cancers By Year up 218%
• Total Number of Malignant Neoplasms for Digestive Organs By Year up 477%
• Total Number of Neoplasms for Breast Cancer By Year up 469%
• Total Number of Neoplasms for Testicular Cancer By Year up 298%

There are many anecdotal reports of rapid cancer onset or aggressive resurgence of previous cancers after covid vaccination, as well as reports in VAERS. These are beyond the scope of this piece, but are also cause for concern and point toward the potential veracity of the Moderna whistleblowers’ statements.

IMPORTANT NOTE TO RESEARCHERS: All brands of covid vaccines should be independently analyzed for the presence of the mutant aromatase and cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor mRNAs mentioned.

Evidence for Reproductive Toxicity

Review of Shimabukuro et al.’s 2021 NEJM Analysis of V Safe Data

Focusing on the reproductive aspects, there are several lines of evidence we can follow to determine what the preliminary effect on reproduction may be.

First, in a peer-reviewed paper entitled Spontaneous Abortions and Policies on COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Use During Pregnancy, authors Aleisha Brock and Simon Thornley from New Zealand point out errors in the New England Journal of Medicine Shimabukuro et al. (2021) analysis of V Safe Registry data. By breaking out the data for pregnancies under 20 weeks, they show an alarmingly high rate of pregnancy loss in this group, 7-8 times higher than the original results and the background average, at 82%-91%.

Of the misleading conclusions in the NEJM piece by Shimabukuro et al. (20210, they note:

“The study indicates that at least 81.9% (≥ 104/127) experienced spontaneous abortion following mRNA exposure before 20 weeks, and 92.3% (96/104) of spontaneous abortions occurred before 13 weeks’ gestation (Table 4, footnotes).[4] This is a very high proportion of pregnancy loss observed in those exposed to the mRNA vaccination before 20 weeks’ gestation, ranging from 81.9–91.2% (n = 114–127), which is significantly different to baseline estimates from other studies (11.3%, n = 79,978 [6]; p < 0.001), being 7- to 8-fold higher than expected (p < 0.001). The authors’ interpretation of no difference in the observed incidence of pregnancy loss in those who received their first mRNA vaccine before 20 weeks’ gestation compared to baseline must be questioned.

At face value, the study presented indicates that exposure to mRNA vaccination in the third trimester is safe and supported by another study exploring exposure from 29 weeks.[9] However, as highlighted by McCullough and colleagues,[5] 12.6% of this group reported ‘Grade 3’ adverse events (i.e. severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening)[10] and 8% reported a temperature above 38°C after the second mRNA dose (which can induce miscarriage or premature labor). The study follow-up concluded 28 days after birth, with long-term effects of prenatal exposure to infants unknown.

Note: the morning-after abortion pill, RU-486, has an efficacy rate of 80% to 90%.

It would appear at first glance that the “morning after pill”, and mRNA vaccines deployed prior to 20 weeks gestation, have comparable abortion potential.

Note the unusual Editor’s notes at the end of the Brock/Thornley article. Was this paper targeted for potential retraction, similar to the Rose/McCullough myocarditis paper?

DMED data

What other evidence is there for reproductive toxicity?

Second is the DMED military data, which [according to Robert Malone, shows](http://* https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/regarding-the-defense-medical-epidemiological?s=r)

• Total Number of Congenital Malformations Reports By Year up 87%
• Total Number of Female Infertility Reports By Year up 419%
• Total Number of Dysmenorrhea Reports By Year up 221.5%
• Total Number of Ovarian Dysfunction Reports By Year up 299%
• Total Number of Spontaneous Abortion Reports By Year DOWN by 10%
• Total Number of Male Infertility Reports By Year up 320%

The spontaneous abortion rate is in contrast to Brock and Thornley’s re-analysis of the NEJM paper. However, using the DMED data, Dr. Jessica Rose estimates that there could be as many as over 700,000 spontaneous abortions as a result of the covid vaccines in the general population.

[Unacceptable Jessica

Spontaneous abortion URF in DoD database adjustment based on 'updated' data.

First off, please go to this article written by Daniel Horowitz. It presents a serious dilemma to the thinking individual. I have personally refrained from writing anything up on this data set since it ‘arrived’ to me pre-analyzed and I don’t jibe with that. I need raw data to be satisfied. And even more strange are the differences between the original …
](https://jessicar.substack.com/p/spontaneous-abortion-urf-in-department?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web)

Israeli Hospital Data

Another scientist who is an associate of Dr. Rose produced an analysis of aborted pregnancies in two Israeli hospitals and found cause for concern.

[Jackanapes Junction

Stillbirths, Miscarriages and Abortions in Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Women

Data from Rambam hospital in Haifa reveal a stillbirth, miscarriage and abortion (SBMA) rate of 6% among women who never received a COVID-19 vaccine, compared to 8% among women who were vaccinated with at least one dose (and never had a SARS-Cov-2 infection…](https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/still-births-miscarriages-and-abortions?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web)

Independent Physician Reports

Are there any other suspicious reports? Yes. Two doctors in Canada, Drs. Mel Bruchet and Nagase, have reported an alarmingly high rate of stillbirths. I also learned about this news from Dr. Rose’s Substack, but wanted to link directly to the two primary sources.

Dr. Rose discusses the harassment of these doctors on her newsletter.

Funeral Director Reports

A funeral director in the UK speaks about his experience, and what he's been seeing in the morgues in recent times. In his work, he sees that infant morgues are so full that dead babies are being stored in the adult morgues instead. “I just see the dead babies in the fridges” (Under 9 minutes)

Public Comments on CDC Analysis of V Safe Data

Finally, another analysis of V Safe registry data, this time from the CDC, was also published in August 2021, with similar conclusions to the Shimabakuro NEJM study.

Receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines preconception and during pregnancy and risk of self-reported spontaneous abortions, CDC v-safe COVID-19 Vaccine Pregnancy Registry 2020-21

The conclusion of this paper is that rate of spontaneous abortion is the same as the background rate.

What I found interesting was the overwhelming dissent in the comment section (57 comments) and the large number of suppressed comments (22) awaiting moderation. See for yourself the nature of some of the comments. Were these women included in this analysis?

VAERS Data

The above lines of evidence deal largely directly with pregnancy loss rather than the possibilities for future conception, but Dr. Jessica Rose also produced a general summary of female reproductive problems in the VAERS data:

[Unacceptable Jessica

The female reproductive issues in VAERS - why is this even a thing?

As promised. The Female Reproductive Issues reported to VAERS. This is so important for our bloody species. I still cannot believe that this is what I am doing with my time - trying to convince humans why it’s a good idea to consider what is contained in a syringe that has been connected to an unprecedented number of adverse events in every adverse even…](https://jessicar.substack.com/p/the-female-reproductive-issues-in?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web)

Public Comments on Female Reproductive Problems

These mirror a flood of anecdotal reports from women around the world in 2021, particularly at the peak of the vaccination campaign. Dr. Naomi Wolf had her Twitter account terminated around the time that she was writing heavily about this issue, probably because her posts were attracting even more comments from the general public corroborating these concerns. Reports about irregular menstruation were strongly denied and labeled as conspiracy theories by authorities, with women around the world feeling as if they were thrown into a Victorian era, gaslighted and labeled with “female hysteria.”

As with many other aspects of the pandemic, these “conspiracy theories” were later acknowledged in the media as actual phenomena. Here are two examples:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-Covid-vaccines-may-affect-periods.-Are-we-allowed-to-talk-about-this/amp

https://thegrayzone.com/2021/08/13/cdc-fda-women-covid-19-vaccines-menstrual-disruption/

As for male fertility, Canadian Pathologist Dr. Roger Hodgkinson warned that mRNA vaccines may damage men's reproductive organs.

Discussion

Thoughts of Christopher Langan, The World’s Smartest Man

It is here that I’d like to turn to Christopher Langan, a guy with a rather interesting life story who is alleged to be the world’s smartest man as judged by IQ tests (up to 210). I do not agree with everything in the following statements he has made. Nevertheless, it is interesting to follow his train of thought. Here is what he had to say about what he believes is the true purpose of the covid vaccines. These statements were screen capped from Facebook in June 2021.

Insights from 20 Year-Old Science Fiction: The Aschen Agenda

Last year, as I saw much of this information rolling in, I was strongly reminded of two episodes in a favorite Sci Fi TV series, Stargate SG1. I posted YouTube videos of these episodes to Facebook.

“Predictive programming is a subtle form of psychological conditioning provided by the media to acquaint the public with planned societal changes to be implemented by our leaders. If and when these changes are put through, the public will already be familiarized with them and will accept them as natural progressions, thus lessening possible public resistance and commotion.”

- Alan Watt

Stargate SG1 is a small Air Force unit that roams the galaxy through an ancient alien device called a stargate. They visit other worlds to discover and neutralize potential threats to Earth.

On their adventures, they encounter an alien race called the Aschen that are the epitome of a Trojan horse: this race allies itself with other worlds, offering them advanced technologies and medicines, which are used to subtly wipe out their populations. The depopulated planets are then terraformed into farmland. “Orphaned” children are raised and re-educated by Aschen families to serve as subsistence agricultural workers. Dwarf stars are changed on these planets to lengthen the growing season, and the surplus food is sent through the Stargate to feed the Aschen.

Their conquest is not a crime of passion. It is well-planned. Systematic. And takes hundreds of years. These are cold and calculating villains.

Here’s a partial transcript to tempt you to watch the videos below. Read carefully if you don’t watch the videos.

INT—IN A CAVERN UNDERNEATH THE RUINS OF A ANCIENT CITY ON THE VOLIAN HOME WORLD

DANIEL
Here's something. The headline says something about pandemic, some sort of—I can't translate that—maybe fever. Now, assuming the Aschen are the newcomers in this article, they provided a—can't translate that word either—but it appears to have been some sort of vaccine. And the Volian people were immensely grateful.

The Aschen vaccine had a side effect. I don't know what. It might be an Aschen word, but I know it was big news around here.

TEAL'C
How would you know this Daniel Jackson?

DANIEL
Well, it's in big, black letters "Aschen vaccine causes—something". I don't know what it is, but I don't think it's a good thing.

TEAL'C
These pictures appear to be much like those we saw of people celebrating.

DANIEL
Ah, I don't think they're celebrating. I think they're rioting.

INT—SGC BRIEFING ROOM

DANIEL
Okay, here's what we know. Around two hundred years ago, the Volians were a thriving urban civilisation approximating turn of the century north America in terms of technology.

CARTER
That wasn't very long ago.

DANIEL
No, it wasn't.

HAMMOND
What happened to them?

DANIEL
Well, all we know is that there was a 'flu pandemic similar to the one on Earth in 1918, that killed over twenty million people. Now, that is when the Aschen came.

O'NEILL
Through the Stargate?

DANIEL
Actually in ships. You see the Volian Gate wasn't discovered until years later. They befriended the Volians, offered them a vaccine for their epidemic, and saved their world. Now, by all accounts, the Aschen were heroes to the Volians, and their friendship lasted for years. But, then, something happened.

O'NEILL
What?

DANIEL
I don't know.

TEAL'C
We found no evidence of a battle.

DANIEL
I found one clue—here.

[Daniel indicates a newspaper cutting shown on the projector.]

DANIEL
Um—this word loosely translates as medicine, vaccine, drug, followed by "from the newcomers" followed by "causes", followed by—some word I can't translate. Now, this was the latest issue of the paper we could find, which most likely indicates the paper shut down or was shut down the very next day.

CARTER
Vaccine causes—what?

DANIEL
I don't know. But it caused something. Because in the span of two hundred years, the Volians went from an urban civilisation of millions to an agrarian civilisation of thousands after they were “saved” by the Aschen.

Here’s the ending of the episode showing how the Aschen respond when their true plan is discovered:

Stargate SG1 was full of alternate timelines. In an alternate timeline the Aschen were actually able to establish a treaty with Earth and deploy their anti-aging vaccine. Ten years after that deployment, SG1 discovers the true nature of the Aschen program, by which time the Aschen had managed to sterilize 90% of Earth’s population.

Jack, an original member of the SG1 team, smelled something “off” about the Aschen. But nobody listened to him.

O'NEILL
Let me tell you something, Carter. You want to erase your mistakes? That's your business. My conscience is clear. I warned everybody, I threw up the red flag and everybody—including you—shut me down.

CARTER
I'm asking you to put that behind us.

O'NEILL
You're not happy with the way things turned out…I'm sorry to hear that. Personally, I like things the way they are. No more saving the world, just a nice pond with no pesky fish in it, and the single most pressing issue in my life is whether or not to get a dog…There're a lot of pros and cons to consider.

CARTER
Jack. I'm talking about the future of the human race.

O'NEILL
So was I.

Eventually, he gets over his bitterness, and he joins up with the team again to save the world. The only answer in this alternative timeline is time travel to prevent it from happening in the first place. In 2010, the team agree to send a note through the Stargate to stop the contact with the Aschen from ever happening:

There’s an interesting personal story juxtaposed in this alternate timeline. The human heroine scientist in the drama, Samantha Carter, discovers she, too, is a victim of the Aschen’s sterilization program, which has been disguised as an anti-aging vaccine.

She tells her husband Joe, a diplomat to the Aschen, about her discovery:

JOE
The Aschen doctors said you were fine.

CARTER
This isn't just about me. I read this right from an Aschen terminal. Mollem gave me access to work on something else. The birth rate has been cut over ninety percent.

JOE
Oh my God. It was supposed to be a third of that.

CARTER
You KNEW!?

JOE
The Aschen insisted on it.

CARTER
Oh, my God…

JOE
Honey, they see farther ahead than we do. They knew that if we didn't limit growth…

CARTER
Is that what you call this?

JOE
This obviously isn't what we agreed to!

CARTER
I can't believe this…

JOE
We didn't have a choice, Sam.

CARTER
You sold us out!

JOE
You think this was my decision?

CARTER
You could have told me!

JOE
Oh, come on, you know how it works! Before the Alliance you spent most of your adult life in secrecy.

CARTER
Please, that was different!

JOE
Sam, it's the same.

CARTER
No!

JOE
It's exactly the same. Our population was unsustainable. Without drastic measures, the Aschen didn't think we were worth investing in. Obviously they went too far, but I can't believe they did this deliberately. There must be some sort of reverse medical procedure they have…

CARTER
You still don't get it.

JOE
Sooner or later the Goa'uld would have wiped us out. Would you prefer that?

CARTER
The Aschen way is slower. That's all.

Conclusion

Such is the nature of the complicity theorist.

The unexamined acceptance of advanced technology as an obvious boon to humanity was the naive belief that the Aschen ultimately used against the worlds they conquered.

Have we just fallen into the same trap?

I can’t prove this what they’re up to. But it sure is fishy.

If so, it’s a good thing uptake isn’t as high in the younger age groups as they wanted. And also if so, hopefully the billionaires in charge of planet Earth aren’t as technically competent as the Aschen. (After all, they want us all to take many more of these injections.) Because this time we don’t have a time machine.

Vaccine spike antigen and mRNA persist for two months in lymph node germinal centers... protein production of spike is higher than those of severely ill COVID-19 patients!

Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination Cell. Published:January 24, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.018

Highlights (per the journal)

• Vaccination confers broader IgG binding of variant RBDs than SARS-CoV-2 infection
• Imprinting from initial antigen exposures alters IgG responses to viral variants
• Histology of mRNA vaccinee lymph nodes shows abundant germinal centers
• Vaccine spike antigen and mRNA persist for weeks in lymph node germinal centers

The hidden highlight (lede) buried in this peer reviewed paper is that protein production of spike in people vaccinated with the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine is higher than those of severely ill COVID-19 patients! A person might ask, “How could that be?” In order to understand this, we must carefully analyze what the study shows.

This study asserts that the mRNA and the spike protein produced persists for weeks in lymph node germinal centers in human patients. Having worked with mRNA for decades, I can attest that this is highly unusual.

One very real hypothesis is that the substitution of pseudouridine for uridine to avoid the immune response is working so well that the mRNA is completely evading the normal clearance/degradation pathways. Hence, mRNA that is not being incorporated into cells at the injection site, is migrating to the lymph nodes (and throughout the body as the non-clinical Pfizer data suggest?) and continuing to express protein there. In this case, the cytotoxic protein antigen is spike. Spike protein can be detected for at least 60 days after administration of dose. Note that the duration of the protein expression was only tested for 60 days.

The spike protein, let’s review what it is and how it is being used (from the Daily Skeptic):

These new gene-based ‘vaccines’ are working in a completely novel way – nothing remotely resembling that of traditional vaccines. Given that pharmaceutical companies work competitively it was also somewhat of a surprise they took the same approach of targeting what has been termed the ‘spike protein’ of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

This (spike) protein is nasty – sometimes being referred to as a ‘pathogenic protein’ – and is recognised as causing many of the awful pathologies associated with the disease of COVID-19. Logically you would inactivate or at least attenuate this nasty spike protein and develop a vaccine around the attenuated virus. But that’s not what was done. These ‘vaccines’ do not contain any of the offending virus at all but rather the gene sequence that causes the nasty spike protein to be made in the body. We have little idea how much of this nasty protein is produced or for how long it lasts after an injection of the gene sequence. Furthermore, stimulating the body’s own complex biological systems to produce the spike protein will mean that the amount of protein produced will vary from person to person. The idea is that the spike protein produced by the gene encoding it elicits a response by our immune system to produce antibodies directed against the spike. When the wild virus comes along and infects us the antibodies recognise the spike protein and attack it thus preventing its nasty effects. And it does, though as we have since learnt this approach isn’t very good at preventing infection or stopping its transmission. Are we perhaps clutching at straws too in claiming that these ‘vaccines’ are preventing serious disease and death? Have we not learnt anything over the past two years in treating Covid symptoms with conventional therapeutic drugs?

Knowing what we know about the spike protein in these vaccines, the study quantitatively measured spike protein levels in plasma after vaccination. Which, it turns out, are higher than the levels observed in a person with a severe COVID-19 infection. Just to write it, the fact that this only now being discovered or it it was known, released to the public is criminal in my opinion. This should have been characterized long ago, including prior to beginning human clinical trials.

That this has not been published or investigated more demonstrates the gross regulatory dereliction of duty by Pfizer, Biointech, Moderna, NIAID VRC and that whole crew. Using these vaccines, which include pseudouridine without fully understanding the implications and without the FDA requiring a complete pre-clinical toxicology regulatory package, including long-term follow-up, as is done with any other unique chemical or adjuvant additive is shocking. Then there is the novel use of the unique nano particles being used in these vaccines, which also were only marginally assessed, as shown by the Japanese Pfizer data.

Protein expression is not being turned off, because the immune response against the mRNA/pseudouridine complex is either not happening or is ineffective. It may also be that the mRNA/pseudouridine complex has a longer half-life than normal mRNA. The In either case, this is regulatory nightmare.

I do not know how to write this more strongly. This technology is immature. The WHO has approved six, more traditional vaccines, all of which the US government could license. These genetic vaccines are not the only option.

To note: The use of pseudouridine in these mRNA vaccines is not the only option. It has often been hypothesized that the reason Dr. Kariko added pseudouridine to the mRNA vaccine was to make an improvement to the original mRNA patents that I was an inventor on. An improvement to an existing patent allows commercialization of that patent. It is an old trick. Remember, that Curevac does not use pseudouridine in its formulation and it is not required or necessary for a significant immune response. In the next generation of mRNA vaccine experiments (hopefully done in an animal model), it is clear that the issues of adding pseudouridine need to be addressed prior to any more of these vaccines going into humans.

I know the following from the paper is long, but it is very important.

Prolonged detection of vaccine mRNA in LN GCs, and spike antigen in LN GCs and blood following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination

The biodistribution, quantity and persistence of vaccine mRNA and spike antigen after vaccination (with the Pfizer vaccine), and viral antigens after SARS-CoV-2 infection, are incompletely understood but are likely to be major determinants of immune responses. We performed in situ hybridization with control and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine mRNA-specific RNAScope probes in the core needle biopsies of the ipsilateral axillary LNs that were collected 7-60 days after 2nd dose of mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 vaccination, and detected vaccine mRNA collected in the GCs of LNs on day 7, 16, and 37 post vaccination, with lower but still appreciable specific signal at day 60 (Figures 7A -7E). Only rare foci of vaccine mRNA were seen outside of GCs. Axillary LN core needle biopsie of non-vaccinees (n = 3) and COVID-19 patient specimens were negative for vaccine probe hybridization. Immunohistochemical staining for spike antigen in mRNA vaccinated patient LNs varied between individuals, but showed abundant spike protein in GCs 16 days post-2nd dose, with spike antigen still present as late as 60 days post-2nd dose. Spike antigen localized in a reticular pattern around the GC cells, similar to staining for follicular dendritic cell processes (Figure 7B). COVID-19 patient LNs showed lower quantities of spike antigen, but a rare GC had positive staining (Figure 7F). Immunohistochemical staining for N antigen in peribronchial LN secondary and primary follicles of COVID-19 patients (Figures 7F - 7I) was positive in 5 of the 7 patients, with a mean percentage of nucleocapsid-positive follicles of more than 25%.

Discussion One of the positive developments amid the global calamity of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been the rapid design, production and deployment of a variety of vaccines, including remarkably effective mRNA vaccines encoding the viral spike (Baden et al., 2021; Polack et al., 2020). We find that BNT162b2 vaccination produces IgG responses to spike and RBD at concentrations as high as those of severely ill COVID-19 patients and follows a similar time course. Unlike infection, which stimulates robust but short-lived IgM and IgA responses, vaccination shows a pronounced bias for IgG production even at early time point

Read that again: Protein production of spike is higher than those of severely ill COVID-19 patients!

The paper also notes that the antibody response is IgG, not IgA or IgM. IgA and IgM antibodies produce a strong mucosal immune response needed for respiratory diseases, unlike IgG.

This Substack article has only skimmed the surface of the implications of this paper in terms of both the science and the malfeasance on the part of our government and pharmaceutical corporations. There is more to come on this issue.

To get to the full paper to download, click here.

Why Weren’t These Vaccines Put Through the Proper Safety Trials For Gene Technology, Asks a Former Pharmaceutical Research Scientist The Daily Skeptic 7 February 2022 by Dr. John D. Flack

This article by the daily skeptic does a great job at documenting that appropriate studies have not been done and even attempts to answer the question why:

Are we perhaps clutching at straws too in claiming that these ‘vaccines’ are preventing serious disease and death? Have we not learnt anything over the past two years in treating Covid symptoms with conventional therapeutic drugs?

Perhaps this has driven Big Pharma to pursue a new more profitable model based on protecting the healthy rather than treating the sick? Enter the era of the gene-based ‘vaccines’. The new technologies have had a long and difficult gestation period with several stillbirths. But perhaps their time had come with the ‘unprecedented’ virus from the East. A declared worldwide health emergency demanded a technological response, and it was there in waiting. But have we been blinded and duped by technology and lost sight of the end game of providing safe and effective medicines? Was it a judicious use of the PCR, rapid antigen test technology and information APP technology to drive the test and trace fiasco?

Was the gene technology ready to be used in a mass world-wide vaccination programme without a thorough examination of the potential problems of short- and long-term safety of this previously untested technology?

In my view, technocracy has trumped the sound principles, established over decades and centuries, of basic medical practice, immunology, virology, pharmaceutical sciences and public health generally. In the process, political democracy, personal freedoms, free speech and choice have been dangerously sidelined and even censored.

Strictly regular use of ivermectin as prophylaxis for COVID-19 leads to a 90% reduction in COVID-19 mortality rate, in a dose-response manner: definitive results of a prospective observational study of a strictly controlled 223,128 population from a city-wide program in Southern Brazil.

1. Lucy Kerr, MD, ARDMS,
2. Fernando Baldi, PhD
3. Raysildo Barbosa Lôbo, PhD
4. Washington Luiz Olivato Assagra
5. Fernando Carlos Proença
6. Jennifer A. Hibberd, DDS, DPD, MRCDC
7. Juan J Chamie-Quintero
8. Pierre Kory, MD, MPA
9. Flavio A. Cadegiani, MD, MSc, PhD

Key-words: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, ivermectin, prophylaxis, prevention, coronavirus

Abstract

Background: Previously, we demonstrated that ivermectin use as prophylaxis for COVID-19 was associated with reductions in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates, and in the risk of dying from COVID-19, irrespective of regularity and accumulated use of ivermectin, in an observational, prospectively obtained data from a strictly controlled city-wide program in a city in Southern Brazil (Itajaí, SC, Brazil) of of medically-based, optional use of ivermectin as prophylaxis for COVID-19.

In this study, our objective was to explore the data obtained from the program to evaluate whether the level of regularity of ivermectin use impacted in the reductions in these outcomes, aiming to determine if ivermectin showed a progressive dose-, regularity-response in terms of protection from COVID-19 and COVID-19 related outcomes.

Materials and methods:

This is a prospective observational study of the program mention above, that used ivermectin at a dose of 0.2mg/kg/day for two consecutive days, every 15 days. We obtained and analyzed the data regarding the accumulated dose of ivermectin use, in addition to age and comorbidities, to analyze the patterns of reduction of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates, and risk of dying from COVID-19, according to the regularity and amount of ivermectin used in a 5-month period.

Following definitions of regularity, we considered as strictly regular subjects that used at least 180mg of ivermectin (180mg = 30 tablets), and as sporadic users subjects that used 60mg (= 10 tablets) or less during the 5-month period. Comparisons between subjects that did not use ivermectin and these two levels of regularity of ivermectin use were performed. Analysis of the intermediate levels of ivermectin use are present in the supplement appendix of this study.

To analyze hospitalization and mortality rates, we utilized the database of COVID-19 infections of all participants, from Itajaí and outside. To analyze COVID-19 infection rate and risk of dying from COVID-19 we utilized the Itajaí city database.

Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed, followed by multivariate adjusted analysis for residual differences (doubly adjusted analysis).

Results:

Of the 7,345 cases of COVID-19, 3,034 occurred in non-users, 1,627 in sporadic users, and 289 in strict users, while the remaining cases occurred in the intermediate levels of ivermectin use. Strict users were older (p < 0.0001) and non-significant higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes and hypertension.

COVID-19 infection rate was 39% lower among strict users [4.03% infection rate; risk ratio (RR), 0.61; 95% confidence interval (n = 289 in each group for both comparisons; 95%CI), 0.53 – 0.70; p < 0.0001] than in non-users (6.64% infection rate), and non-significant 11% reduction compared to sporadic users (4.54% infection rate) (n = 1,627 in each group; RR, 0.89; 95%CI 0.76 – 1.03; p = 0.11).

Hospitalization rate was reduced by 100% in strict users, compared to non-users and to sporadic users, both before and after PSM (RR, 0.00; 95%CI, not applicable; p < 0.0001).

After PSM, hospitalization rate was 35% lower among sporadic users than non-users (RR, 0.65; 95%CI, 0.44 – 0.70; p = 0.03).

In propensity score matched groups, multivariate-adjusted mortality rate was 90% lower in strict users compared to non-users (RR, 0.10, 95%CI, 0.02 – 0.45; p = 0.003) and 79% lower than in sporadic users (RR, 0.21; RR, 0.04 – 1.00; p = 0.05), while sporadic users had a 37% reduction in mortality rate compared to non-users (RR, 0.63; 95%CI, 0.41 – 0.99; p = 0.043).

Risk of dying from COVID-19 was 86% lower among strict users than non-users (RR, 0.14; 95%CI, 0.03 – 0.57; p = 0.006) and marginally significant, 72% lower than sporadic users (RR, 0.28; 95%CI, 0.07 – 1.18; p = 0.083), while sporadic users had a 51% reduction compared to non-users (RR, 0.49; 95%CI, 0.32 – 0.76; p = 0.001).

Conclusion:

Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 10-times increase in mortality risk and 7-times increased risk of dying from COVID-19, compared to strictly regular use of ivermectin in a prospectively collected, strictly controlled population.

A progressive dose-response pattern was observed between level of ivermectin use and level of protection from COVID-19 related outcomes and consistent across different levels of ivermectin use.

1. Peter Doshi, senior editor,

2. Fiona Godlee, former editor in chief,

3. Kamran Abbasi, editor in chief

4. The BMJ, London, UK

5. Correspondence to: P Doshi Pdoshi{at}bmj.com

Data should be fully and immediately available for public scrutiny

In the pages of The BMJ a decade ago, in the middle of a different pandemic, it came to light that governments around the world had spent billions stockpiling antivirals for influenza that had not been shown to reduce the risk of complications, hospital admissions, or death. The majority of trials that underpinned regulatory approval and government stockpiling of oseltamivir (Tamiflu) were sponsored by the manufacturer; most were unpublished, those that were published were ghostwritten by writers paid by the manufacturer, the people listed as principal authors lacked access to the raw data, and academics who requested access to the data for independent analysis were denied.1234

The Tamiflu saga heralded a decade of unprecedented attention to the importance of sharing clinical trial data.56 Public battles for drug company data,78 transparency campaigns with thousands of signatures,910 strengthened journal data sharing requirements,1112 explicit commitments from companies to share data,13 new data access website portals,8 and landmark transparency policies from medicines regulators1415 all promised a new era in data transparency.

Progress was made, but clearly not enough. The errors of the last pandemic are being repeated. Memories are short. Today, despite the global rollout of covid-19 vaccines and treatments, the anonymised participant level data underlying the trials for these new products remain inaccessible to doctors, researchers, and the public—and are likely to remain that way for years to come.16 This is morally indefensible for all trials, but especially for those involving major public health interventions.

Unacceptable delay

Pfizer’s pivotal covid vaccine trial was funded by the company and designed, run, analysed, and authored by Pfizer employees. The company and the contract research organisations that carried out the trial hold all the data.17 And Pfizer has indicated that it will not begin entertaining requests for trial data until May 2025, 24 months after the primary study completion date, which is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as 15 May 2023 (NCT04368728).

The lack of access to data is consistent across vaccine manufacturers.16 Moderna says data “may be available … with publication of the final study results in 2022.”18 Datasets will be available “upon request and subject to review once the trial is complete,” which has an estimated primary completion date of 27 October 2022 (NCT04470427).

As of 31 December 2021, AstraZeneca may be ready to entertain requests for data from several of its large phase III trials.19 But actually obtaining data could be slow going. As its website explains, “timelines vary per request and can take up to a year upon full submission of the request.”20

Underlying data for covid-19 therapeutics are similarly hard to find. Published reports of Regeneron’s phase III trial of its monoclonal antibody therapy REGEN-COV flatly state that participant level data will not be made available to others.21 Should the drug be approved (and not just emergency authorised), sharing “will be considered.” For remdesivir, the US National Institutes of Health, which funded the trial, created a new portal to share data (https://accessclinicaldata.niaid.nih.gov/), but the dataset on offer is limited. An accompanying document explains: “The longitudinal data set only contains a small subset of the protocol and statistical analysis plan objectives.”

We are left with publications but no access to the underlying data on reasonable request. This is worrying for trial participants, researchers, clinicians, journal editors, policy makers, and the public. The journals that have published these primary studies may argue that they faced an awkward dilemma, caught between making the summary findings available quickly and upholding the best ethical values that support timely access to underlying data. In our view, there is no dilemma; the anonymised individual participant data from clinical trials must be made available for independent scrutiny.

Journal editors, systematic reviewers, and the writers of clinical practice guideline generally obtain little beyond a journal publication, but regulatory agencies receive far more granular data as part of the regulatory review process. In the words of the European Medicine Agency’s former executive director and senior medical officer, “relying solely on the publications of clinical trials in scientific journals as the basis of healthcare decisions is not a good idea ... Drug regulators have been aware of this limitation for a long time and routinely obtain and assess the full documentation (rather than just publications).”22

Among regulators, the US Food and Drug Administration is believed to receive the most raw data but does not proactively release them. After a freedom of information request to the agency for Pfizer’s vaccine data, the FDA offered to release 500 pages a month, a process that would take decades to complete, arguing in court that publicly releasing data was slow owing to the need to first redact sensitive information.23 This month, however, a judge rejected the FDA’s offer and ordered the data be released at a rate of 55 000 pages a month. The data are to be made available on the requesting organisation’s website (phmpt.org).

In releasing thousands of pages of clinical trial documents, Health Canada and the EMA have also provided a degree of transparency that deserves acknowledgment.2425 Until recently, however, the data remained of limited utility, with copious redactions aimed at protecting trial blinding. But study reports with fewer redactions have been available since September 2021,2425 and missing appendices may be accessible through freedom of information requests.

Even so, anyone looking for participant level datasets may be disappointed because Health Canada and the EMA do not receive or analyse these data, and it remains to be seen how the FDA responds to the court order. Moreover, the FDA is producing data only for Pfizer’s vaccine; other manufacturers’ data cannot be requested until the vaccines are approved, which the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are not. Industry, which holds the raw data, is not legally required to honour requests for access from independent researchers.

Like the FDA, and unlike its Canadian and European counterparts, the UK’s regulator—the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency—does not proactively release clinical trial documents, and it has also stopped posting information released in response to freedom of information requests on its website.26

Transparency and trust

As well as access to the underlying data, transparent decision making is essential. Regulators and public health bodies could release details27 such as why vaccine trials were not designed to test efficacy against infection and spread of SARS-CoV-2.28 Had regulators insisted on this outcome, countries would have learnt sooner about the effect of vaccines on transmission and been able to plan accordingly.29

Big pharma is the least trusted industry.30 At least three of the many companies making covid-19 vaccines have past criminal and civil settlements costing them billions of dollars.31 One pleaded guilty to fraud.31 Other companies have no pre-covid track record. Now the covid pandemic has minted many new pharma billionaires, and vaccine manufacturers have reported tens of billions in revenue.32

The BMJ supports vaccination policies based on sound evidence. As the global vaccine rollout continues, it cannot be justifiable or in the best interests of patients and the public that we are left to just trust “in the system,” with the distant hope that the underlying data may become available for independent scrutiny at some point in the future. The same applies to treatments for covid-19. Transparency is the key to building trust and an important route to answering people’s legitimate questions about the efficacy and safety of vaccines and treatments and the clinical and public health policies established for their use.

Twelve years ago we called for the immediate release of raw data from clinical trials.1 We reiterate that call now. Data must be available when trial results are announced, published, or used to justify regulatory decisions. There is no place for wholesale exemptions from good practice during a pandemic. The public has paid for covid-19 vaccines through vast public funding of research, and it is the public that takes on the balance of benefits and harms that accompany vaccination. The public, therefore, has a right and entitlement to those data, as well as to the interrogation of those data by experts.

Pharmaceutical companies are reaping vast profits without adequate independent scrutiny of their scientific claims.33 The purpose of regulators is not to dance to the tune of rich global corporations and enrich them further; it is to protect the health of their populations. We need complete data transparency for all studies, we need it in the public interest, and we need it now.

Footnotes

• Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare that The BMJ is a co-founder of the AllTrials campaign. PD was one of the Cochrane reviewers studying influenza antivirals beginning in 2009, who campaigned for access to data. He also helped organise the Coalition Advocating for Adequately Licensed Medicines (CAALM), which formally petitioned the FDA to refrain from fully approving any covid-19 vaccine this year (docket FDA-2021-P-0786). PD is also a member of Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, which has sued the FDA to obtain the Pfizer covid-19 vaccine data. The views and opinions do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the University of Maryland.

• Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

On May 7, 2021, during the peak of India's Delta Surge, The World Health Organization reported, "Uttar Pradesh (is) going the last mile to stop COVID-19."

https://www.who.int/india/news/feature-stories/detail/uttar-pradesh-going-the-last-mile-to-stop-covid-19

The WHO noted, "Government teams are moving across 97,941 villages in 75 districts over five days in this activity which began May 5 in India's most populous state with a population of 230 million."

The activity involved an aggressive house-to-house test and treat program with medicine kits.

The WHO explained, "Each monitoring team has two members who visit homes in villages and remote hamlets to test everyone with symptoms of COVID-19 using Rapid Antigen Test kits. Those who test positive are quickly isolated and given a medicine kit with advice on disease management."

The medicines comprising the kit were not identified as part of the Western media blackout at the time. As a result, the contents were as secret as the sauce at McDonald's.

The WHO continued, "On the inaugural day, WHO field officers monitored over 2,000 government teams and visited at least 10,000 households."

This news story was published on the WHO Official Website in India. The website details the WHO’s work against COVID-19 in India, including a discussion about their “Online course for Rapid Response Teams.”

https://www.who.int/india

Such teams are the very government teams discussed above assigned to conduct the house-to-house test and treat program in Uttar Pradesh. In discussing the role of the Rapid Response Team (RRT), the WHO site reports,

“RRTs are a key component of a larger emergency response strategy that is essential for an efficient and effective response…WHO has produced and published this course for RRTs working at the national, sub-national, district, and sub-district levels to strengthen the pandemic response with support from the National Center for Disease Control, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

The Rapid Response Teams derive support from the United States CDC under the umbrella of the WHO. This fact further validates the Uttar Pradesh test and treat program and solidifies this as a joint effort by the WHO and CDC.

https://www.who.int/india/news/detail/16-09-2021-online-course-for-rapid-response-teams

Perhaps the most telling portion of the WHO article was the last sentence, “WHO will also support the Uttar Pradesh government on the compilation of the final reports.”

https://www.who.int/india/news/feature-stories/detail/uttar-pradesh-going-the-last-mile-to-stop-covid-19

None have yet been published.

Just five short weeks later, on June 14, 2021, new cases had dropped a staggering 97.1 percent, and the Uttar Pradesh program was hailed as a resounding success. According to ZeeNews of India, "The strategy of trace, test & treat yields results."

"The Yogi-led state has also been registering a steep decline in the number of Active COVID Cases as the figure has dropped from a high of 310,783 in April to 8,986 now, a remarkable reduction by 97.10 percent."

https://zeenews.india.com/uttar-pradesh/cm-yogi-adityanath-s-strategy-of-trace-test-treat-yields-results-contains-second-wave-of-covid-19-2368977.html

By July 2, 2021, three weeks later, cases were down a full 99 percent.

https://www.news18.com/news/india/up-sees-declining-covid-cases-positivity-rate-state-govt-eases-lockdown-curbs-all-you-need-to-know-3918440.html

On August 6, 2021, India’s Ivermectin media blackout ended with MSN reporting. Western media, including MSN, finally acknowledged what was contained in those Uttar Pradesh medicine kits. Among the medicines were Doxycycline and Ivermectin.

https://trialsitenews.com/msn-showcases-the-amazing-uttar-pradesh-turnaround-the-ivermectin-based-home-medicine-kits/

On August 25, 2021, the Indian media noticed the discrepancy between Uttar Pradesh's massive success and other states, like Kerala's, comparative failure. Although Uttar Pradesh was only 5% vaccinated to Kerala's 20%, Uttar Pradesh had (only) 22 new COVID cases, while Kerala was overwhelmed with 31,445 in one day. So it became apparent that whatever was contained in those treatment kits must have been pretty effective.

News18 reported, "Let’s look at the contrasting picture. Kerala, with its 3.5 crore population - or 35 million, on August 25 reported 31,445 new cases, a bulk of the total cases reported in the country. Uttar Pradesh, the biggest state with a population of nearly 24 crore - or 240 million - meanwhile reported just 22 cases in the same period.

Two days ago, just seven fresh positive cases were reported from Uttar Pradesh. Kerala reported 215 deaths on August 25, while Uttar Pradesh only reported two deaths. In fact, no deaths have been reported from Uttar Pradesh in recent days. There are only 345 active cases in Uttar Pradesh now while Kerala’s figure is at 1.7 lakh - or 170,000."

https://www.news18.com/news/india/tale-of-two-states-kerala-uttar-pradesh-paint-a-contrasting-picture-of-covid-19-4127714.html

"Kerala has done a much better job in vaccination coverage with 56% of its population being vaccinated with one dose and 20% of the population being fully vaccinated with a total of 2.66 crore - or 26.6 million - doses being administered.

Uttar Pradesh had given over 6.5 crore - or 65 million - doses, the maximum in the country, but only 25% of people have got their first dose while less than 5% of people are fully vaccinated. Given the present COVID numbers, Uttar Pradesh seems to be trumping Kerala for the tag of the most successful model against COVID."

This author reviewed the reasons behind Kerala’s failed treatment model in two articles, “The Lesson of Kerala” and “Kerala’s Vaccinated Surge.”

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout---part-iii-the-lesson-of-kerala/article_ccecb97e-044e-11ec-9112-2b31ae87887a.html

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout---part-iv-keralas-vaccinated-surge/article_8a8c481c-09d3-11ec-a51c-fb063e1a3e3b.html

By September 12, 2021, Livemint reported that 34 districts were declared COVID-free or had no active cases. Only 14 new cases were recorded in the entire state of Uttar Pradesh.

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/uttar-pradesh-34-districts-declared-coronavirus-free-claims-govt-11631413344586.html

On September 22, 2021, YouTube hosted a video by popular science blogger Dr. John Campbell detailing the Uttar Pradesh success story. He gave a breakdown of the ingredients and dosages of the magical medicine home treatment kit responsible for eradicating COVID in Uttar Pradesh. The same kit was also used in the state of Goa.

Dr. John Campbell broke India's Ivermectin Blackout wide open on YouTube by revealing the formula of the secret sauce, much to the dismay of Big Pharma, the WHO, and the CDC. Readers will want to watch this before it is taken down. See mark 2:22.

https://youtu.be/eO9cjy3Rydc

Each home kit contained the following: Paracetamol tablets [tylenol], Vitamin C, Multivitamin, Zinc, Vitamin D3, Ivermectin 12 mg [quantity #10 tablets], Doxycycline 100 mg [quantity #10 tablets]. Other non-medication components included face masks, sanitizer, gloves and alcohol wipes, a digital thermometer, and a pulse oximeter. See mark 2:33.

Campbell reports that the exciting things in the kit that grabbed his attention were: Zinc, Vitamin D3, Ivermectin, and secondary antibiotic treatment. "Interesting, that’s what the government decided to give." See mark 3:40

John Campbell has reviewed repurposed drugs for COVID before. He has interviewed both Dr. Tess Lawrie and Dr. Pierre Kory. Repurposed drugs hold the potential for benefitting many conditions, not the least of which include viruses and cancers.

https://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Cancer-COVID-19-Disease-Repurposed/dp/0998055425

Dr. Campbell noted that there had been no recent cases in 59 Uttar Pradesh districts. In addition, out of 191,446 tests completed in the previous 24 hours, only 33 samples were positive for a test positivity rate of only 0.01%. Dr. Campbell called this low number "staggering." See mark 5:05.

https://youtu.be/eO9cjy3Rydc

By September, cases had fallen dramatically. Out of the entire state of 200 million plus inhabitants, only 187 active cases were left compared to the peak in April of 310,783 cases. See mark 5:41.

Dr. Campbell attributes their success to many factors, including early detection and early treatment with kits costing a mere $ 2.65 per person. See mark 6:20.

Notice that Dr. Campbell does not mention a single person who had any toxicity from those ten 12 mg pills of Ivermectin - in the entire state of over 200 million. Not one poisoning was reported. No Indian poison control articles or telephone calls were reported. Out of millions of distributed medicine kits, each containing 120 mg of Ivermectin, not one person in Uttar Pradesh was reported to have had a problem with the drug.

Notice that Dr. Campbell at no time criticizes the medicine kit as "fringe" or ineffective. After all, it would be improper to accuse a WHO-sponsored program such as the Uttar Pradesh test and treat – coordinated by WHO – of being “fringe.”

https://www.who.int/india/news/feature-stories/detail/uttar-pradesh-going-the-last-mile-to-stop-covid-19

Contrary to what little we receive - at great expense - from the government in the United States, these kits are efficient and contain gloves, a thermometer, and an oximeter. The last time I purchased an oximeter some ten years ago, it cost some $200.00. This entire kit – including the oximeter – costs only $2.65.

And notice that a government can purchase over one thousand home treatment Ivermectin containing kits for the price of one course of Remdesivir. Remdesivir runs $3,100, and it is an impractical drug as it must be given late in the disease during hospitalization. Moreover, it is a drug that does not save lives.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2007764

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/health/coronavirus-remdesivir-who.html

On the other hand, the Ivermectin kits are highly correlated with eliminating COVID-19 in Uttar Pradesh. Indeed with less than 11% of their population fully vaccinated, the Uttar Pradesh model of test and treat is superior not only to Kerala, with a much higher percent vaccinated. Uttar Pradesh beats the UK, the US, and nearly everywhere else in the world in terms of the lowest active COVID cases.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/1-1-of-up-is-now-fully-vaccinated/articleshow/86354448.cms

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout---part-iv-keralas-vaccinated-surge/article_8a8c481c-09d3-11ec-a51c-fb063e1a3e3b.html

Rather than turning a blind eye to Uttar Pradesh, perhaps it is time to analyze its success. It is time for all to realize that far from being dangerous, Ivermectin is safer than hand sanitizer or plain Tylenol, judging from the number of United States poison control calls.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/the-ivermectin-deworming-hoax---part-iii-poison-control-exposed/article_a553b7f2-1a31-11ec-881a-a7df53e98d65.html

Now is precisely the moment to point out that Dr. George Fareed, Dr. Peter McCullough, and Dr. Harvey Risch were correct in their U.S. Senate Testimony on November 19, 2020. They advised that early outpatient treatment was essential and would save hundreds of thousands of American lives if adopted. It wasn’t.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/letter-to-the-editor-in-support-of-early-outpatient-treatment-of-covid-19/article_b342aea6-38b2-11eb-bdf7-8bcbd1e8ade4.html

Now is the right moment to notice the onslaught of United States poison control articles attempting to smear Ivermectin, a drug proven safe and effective in the Uttar Pradesh test-and-treat program administered under the auspices of both the WHO and CDC.

It is appropriate to remind the reader that the WHO and CDC possess direct and recent knowledge of Ivermectin use for COVID-19 in India. Moreover, they know better than anyone the colossal effectiveness and overwhelming safety of Ivermectin used in those millions of Uttar Pradesh test and treat kits.

Perhaps it is also time to ask why exactly Dr. Tess Lawrie’s peer-reviewed meta-analysis was given an Altimetric score of 26,697, making it number eight out of some 18 million publications.

https://hopepressworks.org/f/ivermectin-meta-analysis-by-dr-tess-lawrie-nears-most-cited-ever

This rank is far better than the top 1%, which would only need a ranking of 180,000 for it to rank in the top 1%. It would only need 18,000 for it to rank in the top .1%. Ranking in the top .001% would mean #180. Therefore, at number eight, it is 8/180 of the top .001% or roughly the top 4.4% of the top .001%. This article ranks in the top 5% of the top .001%!

In other words, only seven articles in the world out of those 18 million are ranked higher.

This peer-reviewed paper is one of the most cited of medical references of all time – period. That should alert any reader – immediately - to its historical significance. Dr. Tess Lawrie is a 30-year veteran WHO evidence synthesis expert. Her conclusion is every bit as meaningful as the article's rank. Here are those words,

“Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using Ivermectin. Using Ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that Ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/

Maybe it is time to ask why Dr. Pierre Kory’s peer-reviewed narrative review of Ivermectin ranks #38 out of the same 18 million publications.

He concludes, “Finally, the many examples of Ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality reduction indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

If Dr. Lawrie’s paper is ranked in the top 5% of the top .001% of all such published medical articles of all time, then Dr. Kory’s is not far behind. His is 38/180 of the top .001% or the top 21% of the top .001%

Thus, both articles would rank in the rarified atmosphere of nearly one in a million.

Therefore, the reader must now ask why two magnificent independent reviews from two different continents, coming to the same conclusion, are both ignored by our world’s medical leaders?

Uttar Pradesh is one such population that experienced a considerable drop in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality months AFTER Dr. Kory’s article was published on April 22, 2021. Therefore, one must ask that if Ivermectin so predictably and safely eradicates COVID-19, then why is it not being systematically deployed over all the world, as Dr. Kory and Dr. Lawrie suggest?

Perhaps every reader needs to ask themselves this question - Why is it that BOTH Dr. Lawrie’s and Dr. Kory’s supremely-rated expert review articles, published in the medical literature on PubMed, the National Library of Medicine, are BANNED from Wikipedia?

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/wikipedia-and-a-pint-of-gin/article_22ffa0d8-dde9-11eb-be75-d7b0b1f2ff67.html

Although India’s Ivermectin victory over COVID may have been lost on bent-on-vaccinating-everyone Big Pharma and Big Regulators, the message seems to have gotten through to the man on the street. If Google Trends is any indicator, interest in Ivermectin is exploding, and for good reason. We are all being systematically deceived by influential organizations in the name of profits.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/gaslighting-ivermectin-vaccines-and-the-pandemic-for-profit/article_19f42a96-05c5-11ec-8172-d776656bad51.html

https://trialsitenews.com/is-the-ivermectin-situation-rigged-in-favor-of-industry-is-the-big-tobacco-analogy-appropriate/

A daily onslaught of media propaganda bombards us with messages attempting to steer us away from the safest and most effective treatments.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/the-ivermectin-deworming-hoax---part-ii-eric-clapton-s-human-rights-warning/article_284902bc-14be-11ec-8d43-43e98275cff8.html

Interest in Ivermectin and India is only increasing and has now reached an all-time high. India’s conquest of COVID-19 is concealed no longer. The secret is out. And perhaps, at long last, that much-anticipated WHO Final Report detailing the most successful Pandemic campaign of any place on earth will be published.

I’ve been getting frequent requests for at least the last six months to write about the Novavax covid vaccine. I’ve been resisting, mainly because it’s seemed uncertain whether it would ever actually be approved in the western world. Now that it’s been approved for use in the EU, however, that has changed, and I figure that I can put it off no longer.

I guess the reason so many people are excited about the Novavax vaccine is that it uses a traditional technology that’s been used many times previously, rather than the new-fangled technologies used in the mRNA and adenovector vaccines that have up to now been all that’s available in the US and EU. To many people, that apparently makes it feel inherently safer.

The Novavax vaccine consists of two parts: the Sars-Cov-2 spike protein and an adjuvant (a substance that causes the immune system to realize that a dangerous foreign entity is present, and which thus activates an immune response to the spike protein). So, rather than injecting genetic blueprints in to the body that get cells to make the viral spike protein themselves (as is the case with the four previously approved vaccines), the spike protein is injected directly.

The first country to approve the Novavax vaccine was Indonesia, which approved it for use in November. That means that there is no even slightly long term real world follow-up data available yet. All we have is the preliminary results from the randomized trials. That means we still have no idea about rare side-effects, and won’t for months. Several million people had already received the AstraZeneca vaccine before authorities realized it could cause serious blood clotting disorders, and millions had also received the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines before it became clear that they can cause myocarditis. With that cautionary point having been made, let’s take a look at what the preliminary results from the randomized trials show.

The first trial results concerning the Novavax vaccine appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in May. 4,387 people in South Africa were randomized to receive either the vaccine or a saline placebo. The trial was conducted during the final months of 2020, when the beta variant was dominant in South Africa. Like the earlier covid vaccine trials, the objective of the study was to understand the ability of the vaccine to prevent symptomatic disease, which was defined as symptoms suggestive of covid-19 plus a positive covid test.

The average age of the participants was 32 years and chronic conditions were rare, so this was a group at low risk of severe disease. When this fact is combined with the relatively small total number of participants (for a vaccine trial), there was no possibility that the study was going to say anything useful about the ability of the vaccine to prevent severe disease. So this was really a trial looking at the ability of the Novavax vaccine to prevent the common cold in healthy young people.

Let’s look at the results.

As with the earlier published vaccine trials, data on efficacy was only provided two months out from receipt of the vaccine. At the two month mark, 15 people in the vaccine group had developed symptomatic covid-19, as compared with 29 people in the placebo group. This gives a relative risk reduction of 49% against the beta variant at two months post vaccination, which is disappointing. It’s below the 50% risk reduction that regulators have set as the minimum level required for them to approve a vaccine.

It’s even more disappointing when you consider that efficacy against symptomatic infection likely peaks at two months out from vaccination, and then drops rapidly – that is the pattern that’s been seen with all the other approved covid vaccines, and it’s very likely that the same is true for this vaccine.

Furthermore, the beta variant is long gone. The other approved vaccines appear to have little to no ability to prevent infection from the currently dominant omicron variant (although they do still seem to reduce the risk of severe disease to a large extent). Here in Sweden you are currently just as likely to get covid regardless of whether you’ve been vaccinated or not, but you’re still far less likely to end up in an ICU due to severe covid if you’ve been vaccinated. There’s no reason to assume that this vaccine is any different.

Let’s move on and look at safety. Safety data was only provided for a sub-set of patients, and for the first 35 days out from receipt of the first vaccine dose. What little there was though, was somewhat discouraging, with twice as many adverse events requiring medical attention in the group receiving the vaccine as in the group receiving the placebo (13 vs 6), and twice as many serious adverse events in the group receiving the vaccine (2 vs 1). To be fair though, the small absolute numbers make it impossible to draw any conclusions about safety based on this limited data. So we’ll wait to pass judgement.

Let’s move on to the second trial, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in September. This was a much larger trial than the first, with 15,187 people in the UK who were randomized to either the Novavax vaccine or a saline placebo. Like the earlier study, it was looking at the ability of the vaccine to prevent symptomatic disease. The study ran from late 2020 to early 2021, during a time when the alpha variant was dominant, so the results of the study apply primarily to that variant. 45% of the participants had at least one risk factor that would predispose them to severe disease, and the average age was 56 years.

Ok, so what were the results?

Among participants who received two doses of the vaccine, there were 96 covid infections in the placebo group, but only 10 in the vaccine group during the three month period after receipt of the second dose. This gives an efficacy during the first few months of 90%, similar to what was found in the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine trials. One person ended up being hospitalized for covid-19 in the placebo group, while no-one was hospitalized in the vaccine group – so unfortunately there again weren’t enough hospitalizations to be able to say anything about the ability of the vaccine to prevent severe disease (although it’s pretty clear from this study that even for a relatively high risk group, the overall risk of hospitalization due to covid is low – of 96 people in the placebo group who got covid, only one required hospitalization).

Let’s turn to safety. Safety data is only provided for the period from receipt of the first dose to 28 days out from receipt of the second dose, so we don’t learn anything about the longer term, but at least for that shorter period, there was no signal of serious harm. There were 44 serious adverse events in the vaccine group, and 44 serious adverse events in the placebo group. One person in the vaccine group developed myocarditis three days after receipt of the second dose, which suggests that the Novavax vaccine might cause myocarditis, just like the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines do.

Let’s turn to the final trial, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in December. It was carried out in the United States and Mexico during the first half of 2021. Just as with the previous trial, the results apply primarily to the alpha variant. 29,949 participants were randomized to either the Novavax vaccine or a saline placebo. Like the other two trials, the purpose was to see if the vaccine prevented symptomatic disease, again defined as symptoms suggestive of covid-19 plus a positive PCR test. The median age of the participants was 47 years, and 52% had an underlying condition that would predispose them to more severe disease if infected with covid-19.

So, what were the results?

At 70 days out from receipt of the second dose, 0.8% of participants in the placebo group had developed covid-19, compared with only 0.1% in the vaccine group. This gives a relative risk reduction of 90%, a result that is identical to that seen in the previous trial. Unfortunately, no information is provided on hospitalizations, which I assume means that not one of the 29,949 people included in the study was hospitalized for covid-19, so, just as with the earlier trials, it’s impossible to tell if the vaccine results in any meaningful reduction in hospitalizations.

At 28 days post receipt of the seond dose, 0.9% of participants in the vaccine group had suffered a serious adverse event, compared with 1.0% of participants in the placebo group. That is encouraging.

Ok, let’s wrap up. what can we conclude about the Novavax vaccine after looking at the results of these three trials?

First, we can conclude that it effectively protected people from symptomatic covid due to the alpha variant at two-three months post vaccination (which of course tells us nothing about how effective the vaccine is after six months or a year). That information is now mostly of historical interest, since alpha is long gone and we’re living in the era of omicron. If the Novavax vaccine is similar to the four previously approved vaccines, then it’s likely useless at preventing infection due to omicron.

Second, it’s impossible to conclude from these trials whether the Novavax vaccine results in any reduction in risk of hospitalization due to covid, for the simple reason that not enough people ended up being hospitalized. Having said that, my guess would be that it probably does protect against hospitalization and need for ICU treatment, just as the other approved vaccines do. At its heart, it’s doing the same thing as they are – generating an immune response to the spike protein found on the original Wuhan covid variant, and the overall trial results are very similar to the trial results for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.

The overall safety data suggests that the vaccine is pretty safe, with serious adverse events being balanced between the vaccine group and the placebo group. Rare side-effects are however not detectable in randomized trials with a few tens of thousands of participants. For that longer term follow-up with much larger numbers of people is necessary. So it’s currently impossible to know whether the Novavax vaccine can cause myocarditis, like the mRNA vaccines, or blood clotting disorders, like the adenovector virus vaccines, or some other type of rare adverse event entirely. It’s therefore impossible to say at the present point in time whether it will turn out to be more safe, or less safe, or equivalent to the already approved vaccines.

1. Cerebral venous thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination in the UK: a multicentre cohort study: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01608-1/

2. Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia with disseminated intravascular coagulation and death after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1052305721003414

3. Fatal cerebral hemorrhage after COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33928772/

4. Myocarditis after mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, a case series: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666602221000409

5. Three cases of acute venous thromboembolism in women after vaccination against COVID-19: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213333X21003929

6. Acute thrombosis of the coronary tree after vaccination against COVID-19: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1936879821003988

7. US case reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S (against covid-19), March 2 to April 21, 2020: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33929487/

8. Portal vein thrombosis associated with ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1253(21)00197-7/

9. Management of cerebral and splanchnic vein thrombosis associated with thrombocytopenia in subjects previously vaccinated with Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca): position statement of the Italian Society for the Study of Hemostasis and Thrombosis (SISET): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33871350/

10. Vaccine-induced immune immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after vaccination with COVID-19; a systematic review: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022510X21003014

11. Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome associated with COVID-19 vaccines: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0735675721004381

12. Covid-19 vaccine-induced thrombosis and thrombocytopenia: a commentary on an important and practical clinical dilemma: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033062021000505

13. Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome associated with COVID-19 viral vector vaccines: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0953620521001904

14. COVID-19 vaccine-induced immune-immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: an emerging cause of splanchnic vein thrombosis: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1665268121000557

15. The roles of platelets in COVID-19-associated coagulopathy and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (covid): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1050173821000967

16. Roots of autoimmunity of thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1568997221002160

17. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after vaccination: the United Kingdom experience: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01788-8/fulltext

18. Thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia induced by SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejme2106315

19. Myocarditis after immunization with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in members of the US military. This article reports that in “23 male patients, including 22 previously healthy military members, myocarditis was identified within 4 days after receipt of the vaccine”: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781601

20. Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104882?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article

21. Association of myocarditis with the BNT162b2 messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine in a case series of children: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34374740/

22. Thrombotic thrombocytopenia after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104840?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article

23. Post-mortem findings in vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (covid-19): https://haematologica.org/article/view/haematol.2021.279075

24. Thrombocytopenia, including immune thrombocytopenia after receiving COVID-19 mRNA vaccines reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X21005247

25. Acute symptomatic myocarditis in seven adolescents after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2021/06/04/peds.2021-052478

26. Aphasia seven days after the second dose of an mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Brain MRI revealed an intracerebral hemorrhage (ICBH) in the left temporal lobe in a 52-year-old man. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589238X21000292#f0005

27. Comparison of vaccine-induced thrombotic episodes between ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Ad26.COV.2.S vaccines: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0896841121000895

28. Hypothesis behind the very rare cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049384821003315

29. Blood clots and bleeding episodes after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: analysis of European data: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896841121000937

30. Cerebral venous thrombosis after BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1052305721003098

31. Primary adrenal insufficiency associated with thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia induced by the Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (VITT): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0953620521002363

32. Myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA: practical considerations for care providers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0828282X21006243

33. “Portal vein thrombosis occurring after the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine in a patient with antiphospholipid syndrome”: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666572721000389

34. Early results of bivalirudin treatment for thrombotic thrombocytopenia and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196064421003425

35. Myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiomyopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1443950621011562

36. Mechanisms of immunothrombosis in vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) compared to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0896841121000706

37. Prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006497121009411

38. Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: the dark chapter of a success story: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589936821000256

39. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis negative for anti-PF4 antibody without thrombocytopenia after immunization with COVID-19 vaccine in a non-comorbid elderly Indian male treated with conventional heparin-warfarin based anticoagulation: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871402121002046

40. Thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination: possible link to ACE pathways: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049384821004369

41. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis in the U.S. population after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with adenovirus and after COVID-19: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109721051949

42. A rare case of a middle-aged Asian male with cerebral venous thrombosis after AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675721005714

43. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination: report of two cases in the United Kingdom: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S088915912100163X

44. Immune thrombocytopenic purpura after vaccination with COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCov-19): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006497121013963.

45. Antiphospholipid antibodies and risk of thrombophilia after COVID-19 vaccination: the straw that breaks the camel’s back?: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XzajasO8VMMnC3CdxSBKks1o7kiOLXFQ

46. Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, a rare but severe case of friendly fire in the battle against the COVID-19 pandemic: What pathogenesis?: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0953620521002314

47. Diagnostic-therapeutic recommendations of the ad-hoc FACME expert working group on the management of cerebral venous thrombosis related to COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0213485321000839

48. Thrombocytopenia and intracranial venous sinus thrombosis after exposure to the “AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine”: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33918932/

49. Thrombocytopenia following Pfizer and Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33606296/

50. Severe and refractory immune thrombocytopenia occurring after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33854395/

51. Purpuric rash and thrombocytopenia after mRNA-1273 (Modern) COVID-19 vaccine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996471/

52. COVID-19 vaccination: information on the occurrence of arterial and venous thrombosis using data from VigiBase: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33863748/

53. Cerebral venous thrombosis associated with the covid-19 vaccine in Germany: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.26172

54. Cerebral venous thrombosis following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination of BNT162b2 against SARS-CoV-2: a black swan event: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34133027/

55. The importance of recognizing cerebral venous thrombosis following anti-COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34001390/

56. Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after messenger RNA vaccine -1273: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181446/

57. Blood clots and bleeding after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: an analysis of European data: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34174723/

58. First dose of ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines and thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic, and hemorrhagic events in Scotland: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01408-4

59. Exacerbation of immune thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34075578/

60. First report of a de novo iTTP episode associated with a COVID-19 mRNA-based anti-COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34105244/

61. PF4 immunoassays in vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2106383

62. Antibody epitopes in vaccine-induced immune immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03744-4

63. Myocarditis with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056135

64. Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782900

65. Myocarditis temporally associated with COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.055891.

66. COVID-19 Vaccination Associated with Myocarditis in Adolescents: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2021/08/12/peds.2021-053427.full.pdf

67. Acute myocarditis after administration of BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33994339/

68. Temporal association between COVID-19 vaccine Ad26.COV2.S and acute myocarditis: case report and review of the literature: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1553838921005789

69. COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis: a case report with review of the literature: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871402121002253

70. Potential association between COVID-19 vaccine and myocarditis: clinical and CMR findings: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1936878X2100485X

71. Recurrence of acute myocarditis temporally associated with receipt of coronavirus mRNA disease vaccine 2019 (COVID-19) in a male adolescent: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002234762100617X

72. Fulminant myocarditis and systemic hyper inflammation temporally associated with BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in two patients: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167527321012286.

73. Acute myocarditis after administration of BNT162b2 vaccine: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214250921001530

74. Lymphohistocytic myocarditis after vaccination with COVID-19 Ad26.COV2.S viral vector: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352906721001573

75. Myocarditis following vaccination with BNT162b2 in a healthy male: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675721005362

76. Acute myocarditis after Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccination in a healthy male with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1930043321005549

77. Myopericarditis after Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002234762100665X

78. Pericarditis after administration of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1885585721002218

79. Acute myocarditis after vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 mRNA: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589790X21001931

80. Temporal relationship between the second dose of BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine and cardiac involvement in a patient with previous SARS-COV-2 infection: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352906721000622

81. Myopericarditis after vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA in adolescents 12 to 18 years of age: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347621007368

82. Acute myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in a 24-year-old man: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0870255121003243

83. Important information on myopericarditis after vaccination with Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA in adolescents: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347621007496

84. A series of patients with myocarditis after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 with mRNA-1279 and BNT162b2: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1936878X21004861

85. Takotsubo cardiomyopathy after vaccination with mRNA COVID-19: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1443950621011331

86. COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and myocarditis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34268277/

87. COVID-19 vaccine and myocarditis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34399967/

88. Epidemiology and clinical features of myocarditis/pericarditis before the introduction of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in Korean children: a multicenter study https://search.bvsalud.org/global-literature-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/resourc e/en/covidwho-1360706.

89. COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34246566/

90. Myocarditis and other cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines https://www.cureus.com/articles/61030-myocarditis-and-other-cardiovascular-comp lications-of-the-mrna-based-covid-19-vaccines https://www.cureus.com/articles/61030-myocarditis-and-other-cardiovascular-complications-of-the-mrna-based-covid-19-vaccines

91. Myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiomyopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34340927/

92. Myocarditis with covid-19 mRNA vaccines: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056135

93. Association of myocarditis with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in children: https://media.jamanetwork.com/news-item/association-of-myocarditis-with-mrna-co vid-19-vaccine-in-children/

94. Association of myocarditis with COVID-19 messenger RNA vaccine BNT162b2 in a case series of children: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2783052

95. Myocarditis after immunization with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in members of the U.S. military: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781601%5C

96. Myocarditis occurring after immunization with COVID-19 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781600

97. Myocarditis following immunization with Covid-19 mRNA: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2109975

98. Patients with acute myocarditis after vaccination withCOVID-19 mRNA: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781602

99. Myocarditis associated with vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA: https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2021211430

100. Symptomatic Acute Myocarditis in 7 Adolescents after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccination: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/148/3/e2021052478

101. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging findings in young adult patients with acute myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination: a case series: https://jcmr-online.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12968-021-00795-4

102. Clinical Guidance for Young People with Myocarditis and Pericarditis after Vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA: https://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/clinical-guidance-for-youth-with-myocarditis-and-pericarditis

103. Cardiac imaging of acute myocarditis after vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34402228/

104. Case report: acute myocarditis after second dose of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine: https://academic.oup.com/ehjcr/article/5/8/ytab319/6339567

105. Myocarditis / pericarditis associated with COVID-19 vaccine: https://science.gc.ca/eic/site/063.nsf/eng/h_98291.html

106. Transient cardiac injury in adolescents receiving the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: https://journals.lww.com/pidj/Abstract/9000/Transient_Cardiac_Injury_in_Adolesce nts_Receiving.95800.aspx

107. Perimyocarditis in adolescents after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: https://academic.oup.com/jpids/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jpids/piab060/6329543

108. The new COVID-19 mRNA vaccine platform and myocarditis: clues to the possible underlying mechanism: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34312010/

109. Acute myocardial injury after COVID-19 vaccination: a case report and review of current evidence from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34219532/

110. Be alert to the risk of adverse cardiovascular events after COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.xiahepublishing.com/m/2472-0712/ERHM-2021-00033

111. Myocarditis associated with COVID-19 vaccination: echocardiographic, cardiac tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging findings: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.121.013236

112. In-depth evaluation of a case of presumed myocarditis after the second dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056038

113. Occurrence of acute infarct-like myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: just an accidental coincidence or rather a vaccination-associated autoimmune myocarditis?: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34333695/

114. Recurrence of acute myocarditis temporally associated with receipt of coronavirus mRNA disease vaccine 2019 (COVID-19) in a male adolescent: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8216855/

115. Myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: a vaccine-induced reaction?: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34118375/

116. Self-limited myocarditis presenting with chest pain and ST-segment elevation in adolescents after vaccination with the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34180390/

117. Myopericarditis in a previously healthy adolescent male after COVID-19 vaccination: Case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34133825/

118. Biopsy-proven lymphocytic myocarditis after first COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in a 40-year-old man: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34487236/

119. Insights from a murine model of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-induced myopericarditis: could accidental intravenous injection of a vaccine induce myopericarditis https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab741/6359059

120. Unusual presentation of acute perimyocarditis after modern SARS-COV-2 mRNA-1237 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34447639/

121. Perimyocarditis after the first dose of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 (Modern) mRNA-1273 vaccine in a young healthy male: case report: https://bmccardiovascdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12872-021-02183

122. Acute myocarditis after the second dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: serendipity or causal relationship: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34236331/

123. Rhabdomyolysis and fasciitis induced by the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34435250/

124. COVID-19 vaccine-induced rhabdomyolysis: case report with literature review: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34186348/.

125. GM1 ganglioside antibody and COVID-19-related Guillain Barre syndrome: case report, systemic review, and implications for vaccine development: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666354621000065

126. Guillain-Barré syndrome after AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination: causal or casual association: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303846721004169

127. Sensory Guillain-Barré syndrome after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine: report of two cases and review of the literature: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165572821002186

128. Guillain-Barré syndrome after the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: a temporary occurrence, not a causal association: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214250921000998.

129. Guillain-Barré syndrome presenting as facial diplegia after vaccination with COVID-19: a case report: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467921006442

130. Guillain-Barré syndrome after the first injection of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: first report: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0035378721005853.

131. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are not safe for those with Guillain-Barre syndrome following vaccination: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2049080121005343

132. Acute hyperactive encephalopathy following COVID-19 vaccination with dramatic response to methylprednisolone: a case report: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2049080121007536

133. Facial nerve palsy following administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: analysis of self-report database: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221007049

134. Neurological symptoms and neuroimaging alterations related to COVID-19 vaccine: cause or coincidence: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899707121003557.

135. New-onset refractory status epilepticus after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165572821001569

136. Acute myelitis and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: coincidental or causal association: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165572821002137

137. Bell’s palsy and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: an unfolding story: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309921002735

138. Bell’s palsy after the second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in a patient with a history of recurrent Bell’s palsy: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266635462100020X

139. Acute-onset central serous retinopathy after immunization with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine:. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451993621001456.

140. Bell’s palsy after COVID-19 vaccination: case report: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S217358082100122X.

141. An academic hospital experience assessing the risk of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine using patient’s allergy history: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213219821007972

142. COVID-19 vaccine-induced axillary and pectoral lymphadenopathy in PET: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1930043321002612

143. ANCA-associated vasculitis after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272638621007423

144. Late cutaneous reactions after administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213219821007996

145. COVID-19 vaccine-induced rhabdomyolysis: case report with review of the literature: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871402121001880

146. Clinical and pathologic correlates of skin reactions to COVID-19 vaccine, including V-REPP: a registry-based study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190962221024427

147. Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome associated with COVID-19 vaccines:. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0735675721004381.

148. COVID-19 vaccine-associated anaphylaxis: a statement from the Anaphylaxis Committee of the World Allergy Organization:. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1939455121000119.

149. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis negative for anti-PF4 antibody without thrombocytopenia after immunization with COVID-19 vaccine in an elderly, non-comorbid Indian male treated with conventional heparin-warfarin-based anticoagulation:. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871402121002046.

150. Acute myocarditis after administration of BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19:. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S188558572100133X

151. Blood clots and bleeding after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: an analysis of European data:. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896841121000937.

152. immune thrombocytopenia associated with Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine:. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214250921002018.

153. Bullous drug eruption after the second dose of COVID-19 mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine: Case report: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876034121001878.

154. COVID-19 RNA-based vaccines and the risk of prion disease: https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/covid19rna-based-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-prion-dis ease-1503.pdf

155. This study notes that 115 pregnant women lost their babies, out of 827 who participated in a study on the safety of covid-19 vaccines: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983.

156. Process-related impurities in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-477964/v1

157. COVID-19 mRNA vaccine causing CNS inflammation: a case series: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00415-021-10780-7

158. Allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33475702/

159. Allergic reactions to the first COVID-19 vaccine: a potential role of polyethylene glycol: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33320974/

160. Pfizer Vaccine Raises Allergy Concerns: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33384356/

161. Allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, after receiving the first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine – United States, December 14-23, 2020: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33444297/

162. Allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, after receiving first dose of Modern COVID-19 vaccine – United States, December 21, 2020-January 10, 2021: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33507892/

163. Reports of anaphylaxis after coronavirus disease vaccination 2019, South Korea, February 26-April 30, 2021: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34414880/

164. Reports of anaphylaxis after receiving COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in the U.S.-Dec 14, 2020-Jan 18, 2021: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33576785/

165. Immunization practices and risk of anaphylaxis: a current, comprehensive update of COVID-19 vaccination data: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34269740/

166. Relationship between pre-existing allergies and anaphylactic reactions following administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34215453/

167. Anaphylaxis Associated with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Approach to Allergy Research: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33932618/

168. Severe Allergic Reactions after COVID-19 Vaccination with the Pfizer / BioNTech Vaccine in Great Britain and the USA: Position Statement of the German Allergy Societies: German Medical Association of Allergologists (AeDA), German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) and Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33643776/

169. Allergic reactions and anaphylaxis to LNP-based COVID-19 vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33571463/

170. Reported orofacial adverse effects from COVID-19 vaccines: the known and the unknown: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33527524/

171. Cutaneous adverse effects of available COVID-19 vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34518015/

172. Cumulative adverse event report of anaphylaxis following injections of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) in Japan: the first month report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34347278/

173. COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of anaphylaxis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33685103/

174. Biphasic anaphylaxis after exposure to the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34050949/

175. Allergenic components of the mRNA-1273 vaccine for COVID-19: possible involvement of polyethylene glycol and IgG-mediated complement activation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33657648/

176. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a cause of anaphylaxis to Pfizer / BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33825239/

177. Acute allergic reactions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33683290/

178. Polyethylene glycole allergy of the SARS CoV2 vaccine recipient: case report of a young adult recipient and management of future exposure to SARS-CoV2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33919151/

179. Elevated rates of anaphylaxis after vaccination with Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 in Japanese healthcare workers; a secondary analysis of initial post-approval safety data: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34128049/

180. Allergic reactions and adverse events associated with administration of mRNA-based vaccines. A health system experience: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34474708/

181. Allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines: statement of the Belgian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BelSACI): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17843286.2021.1909447

182. .IgE-mediated allergy to polyethylene glycol (PEG) as a cause of anaphylaxis to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318537/

183. Allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccination: putting the risk in perspective: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34463751/

184. Anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: a call for further studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33846043/ 188.

185. Risk of severe allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines among patients with allergic skin disease: practical recommendations. An ETFAD position statement with external experts: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33752263/

186. COVID-19 vaccine and death: causality algorithm according to the WHO eligibility diagnosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34073536/

187. Fatal brain hemorrhage after COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33928772/

188. A case series of skin reactions to COVID-19 vaccine in the Department of Dermatology at Loma Linda University: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34423106/

189. Skin reactions reported after Moderna and Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccination: a study based on a registry of 414 cases: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33838206/

190. Clinical and pathologic correlates of skin reactions to COVID-19 vaccine, including V-REPP: a registry-based study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34517079/

191. Skin reactions after vaccination against SARS-COV-2: a nationwide Spanish cross-sectional study of 405 cases: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34254291/

192. Varicella zoster virus and herpes simplex virus reactivation after vaccination with COVID-19: review of 40 cases in an international dermatologic registry: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34487581/

193. Immune thrombosis and thrombocytopenia (VITT) associated with the COVID-19 vaccine: diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations for a new syndrome: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33987882/

194. Laboratory testing for suspicion of COVID-19 vaccine-induced thrombotic (immune) thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34138513/

195. Intracerebral hemorrhage due to thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination: the first fatal case in Korea: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34402235/

196. Risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolism after covid-19 vaccination and positive SARS-CoV-2 tests: self-controlled case series study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34446426/

197. Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after covid-19 vaccination; a systematic review: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34365148/.

198. Nerve and muscle adverse events after vaccination with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34452064/.

199. A rare case of cerebral venous thrombosis and disseminated intravascular coagulation temporally associated with administration of COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33917902/

200. Primary adrenal insufficiency associated with thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia induced by Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (VITT): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34256983/

201. Acute cerebral venous thrombosis and pulmonary artery embolism associated with the COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34247246/.

202. Thromboaspiration infusion and fibrinolysis for portomesenteric thrombosis after administration of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34132839/

203. 59-year-old woman with extensive deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary thromboembolism 7 days after a first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34117206/

204. Cerebral venous thrombosis and vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia.a. Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19: a missed opportunity for a rapid return on experience: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34033927/

205. Myocarditis and other cardiovascular complications of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34277198/

206. Pericarditis after administration of COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34364831/

207. Unusual presentation of acute pericarditis after vaccination against SARS-COV-2 mRNA-1237 Modern: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34447639/

208. Case report: acute myocarditis after second dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 vaccine mRNA-1273: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34514306/

209. Immune-mediated disease outbreaks or recent-onset disease in 27 subjects after mRNA/DNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33946748/

210. Insights from a murine model of myopericarditis induced by COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: could accidental intravenous injection of a vaccine induce myopericarditis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34453510/

211. Immune thrombocytopenia in a 22-year-old post Covid-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33476455/

212. propylthiouracil-induced neutrophil anti-cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34451967/

213. Secondary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) associated with ChAdOx1 Covid-19 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34377889/

214. Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) following AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) COVID-19 vaccination: risk-benefit analysis for persons <60 years in Australia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34272095/

215. COVID-19 vaccination association and facial nerve palsy: A case-control study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34165512/

216. The association between COVID-19 vaccination and Bell’s palsy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34411533/

217. Bell’s palsy after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33611630/

218. Acute transverse myelitis (ATM): clinical review of 43 patients with COVID-19-associated ATM and 3 serious adverse events of post-vaccination ATM with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33981305/

219. Bell’s palsy after 24 hours of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34336436/

220. Sequential contralateral facial nerve palsy after first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34281950/.

221. Transverse myelitis induced by SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34458035/

222. Peripheral facial nerve palsy after vaccination with BNT162b2 (COVID-19): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33734623/

223. Acute abducens nerve palsy after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34044114/.

224. Facial nerve palsy after administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: analysis of self-report database: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34492394/

225. Transient oculomotor paralysis after administration of RNA-1273 messenger vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 diplopia after COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34369471/

226. Bell’s palsy after Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34014316/

227. Bell’s palsy after COVID-19 vaccination: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34330676/

228. A case of acute demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy with bilateral facial palsy following ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34272622/

229. Guillian Barré syndrome after vaccination with mRNA-1273 against COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34477091/

230. Acute facial paralysis as a possible complication of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33975372/.

231. Bell’s palsy after COVID-19 vaccination with high antibody response in CSF: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34322761/.

232. Parsonage-Turner syndrome associated with SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Comment on: “Neuralgic amyotrophy and COVID-19 infection: 2 cases of accessory spinal nerve palsy” by Coll et al. Articular Spine 2021; 88: 10519: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34139321/.

233. Bell’s palsy after a single dose of vaccine mRNA. SARS-CoV-2: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34032902/.

234. Autoimmune hepatitis developing after coronavirus disease vaccine 2019 (COVID-19): causality or victim?: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33862041/

235. Autoimmune hepatitis triggered by vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34332438/

236. Acute autoimmune-like hepatitis with atypical antimitochondrial antibody after vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA: a new clinical entity: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34293683/.

237. Autoimmune hepatitis after COVID vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34225251/

238. A novel case of bifacial diplegia variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome after vaccination with Janssen COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34449715/

239. Comparison of vaccine-induced thrombotic events between ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Ad26.COV.2.S vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34139631/.

240. Bilateral superior ophthalmic vein thrombosis, ischemic stroke and immune thrombocytopenia after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33864750/

241. Diagnosis and treatment of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis with vaccine-induced immune-immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33914590/

242. Venous sinus thrombosis after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34420802/

243. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: an analysis of cases reported to the European Medicines Agency: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34293217/

244. Risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolism after covid-19 vaccination and positive SARS-CoV-2 tests: self-controlled case series study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34446426/

245. Blood clots and bleeding after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: an analysis of European data: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34174723/

246. Arterial events, venous thromboembolism, thrombocytopenia and bleeding after vaccination with Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S in Denmark and Norway: population-based cohort study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33952445/

247. First dose of ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines and thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events in Scotland: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34108714/

248. Cerebral venous thrombosis associated with COVID-19 vaccine in Germany: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34288044/

249. Malignant cerebral infarction after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19: a catastrophic variant of vaccine-induced immune-mediated thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34341358/

250. celiac artery and splenic artery thrombosis complicated by splenic infarction 7 days after the first dose of Oxford vaccine, causal relationship or coincidence: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34261633/.

251. Primary adrenal insufficiency associated with Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (VITT) vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34256983/

252. Thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34332437/.

253. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis associated with thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33845870/.

254. Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after COVID-19 immunization: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34236343/

255. Acute myocardial infarction within 24 hours after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34364657/.

256. Bilateral acute macular neuroretinopathy after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34287612/

257. central venous sinus thrombosis with subarachnoid hemorrhage after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination: are these reports merely coincidental: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34478433/

258. Intracerebral hemorrhage due to thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination: the first fatal case in Korea: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34402235/

259. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis negative for anti-PF4 antibody without thrombocytopenia after immunization with COVID-19 vaccine in a non-comorbid elderly Indian male treated with conventional heparin-warfarin-based anticoagulation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34186376/

260. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis 2 weeks after first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34101024/

261. A case of multiple thrombocytopenia and thrombosis following vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against SARS-CoV-2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34137813/

262. Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: the elusive link between thrombosis and adenovirus-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34191218/

263. Acute ischemic stroke revealing immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia induced by ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine: impact on recanalization strategy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34175640/

264. New-onset refractory status epilepticus after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34153802/

265. Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome associated with COVID-19 viral vector vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34092488/

266. Pulmonary embolism, transient ischemic attack, and thrombocytopenia after Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34261635/

267. Thromboaspiration infusion and fibrinolysis for portomesenteric thrombosis after administration of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34132839/.

268. Spontaneous HIT syndrome: knee replacement, infection, and parallels with vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34144250/

269. Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) occurring shortly after second dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33687691/

270. Procoagulant antibody-mediated procoagulant platelets in immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34011137/.

271. Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia causing a severe form of cerebral venous thrombosis with high mortality rate: a case series: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34393988/.

272. Procoagulant microparticles: a possible link between vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia (VITT) and cerebral sinus venous thrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34129181/.

273. Atypical thrombosis associated with the vaccine VaxZevria® (AstraZeneca): data from the French network of regional pharmacovigilance centers: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34083026/.

274. Acute cerebral venous thrombosis and pulmonary artery embolism associated with the COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34247246/.

275. Vaccine-induced thrombosis and thrombocytopenia with bilateral adrenal haemorrhage: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34235757/.

276. Palmar digital vein thrombosis after Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34473841/.

277. Cutaneous thrombosis associated with cutaneous necrosis following Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34189756/

278. Cerebral venous thrombosis following COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34045111/.

279. Lipschütz ulcers after AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34366434/.

280. Amyotrophic Neuralgia secondary to Vaxzevri vaccine (AstraZeneca) COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34330677/

281. Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after Messenger vaccine RNA-1273: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181446/

282. Intracerebral hemorrhage twelve days after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34477089/

283. Thrombotic thrombocytopenia after vaccination with COVID-19: in search of the underlying mechanism: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34071883/

284. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34033367/

285. Comparison of adverse drug reactions among four COVID-19 vaccines in Europe using the EudraVigilance database: Thrombosis in unusual sites: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34375510/

286. Immunoglobulin adjuvant for vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34107198/

287. Severe vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia following vaccination with COVID-19: an autopsy case report and review of the literature: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34355379/.

288. A case of acute pulmonary embolism after immunization with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34452028/

289. Neurosurgical considerations regarding decompressive craniectomy for intracerebral hemorrhage after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia-VITT: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34202817/

290. Thrombosis and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34237213/.

291. Acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic thrombocytopenic purpura: a rare disease associated with the BNT162b2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34105247/.

292. Immune complexes, innate immunity and NETosis in ChAdOx1 vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34405870/.

293. Sensory Guillain-Barré syndrome following ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine: report of two cases and review of the literature: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34416410/.

294. Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada syndrome after COVID-19 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34462013/.

295. Reactivation of Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease under control for more than 6 years, after anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34224024/.

296. Post-vaccinal encephalitis after ChAdOx1 nCov-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34324214/

297. Neurological symptoms and neuroimaging alterations related to COVID-19 vaccine: cause or coincidence?: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34507266/

298. Fatal systemic capillary leak syndrome after SARS-COV-2 vaccination in a patient with multiple myeloma: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34459725/

299. Polyarthralgia and myalgia syndrome after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCOV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34463066/

300. Three cases of subacute thyroiditis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: post-vaccination ASIA syndrome: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34043800/.

301. Facial diplegia: a rare and atypical variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome and the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34447646/

302. Association between ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination and bleeding episodes: large population-based cohort study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34479760/.

303. fulminant myocarditis and systemic hyperinflammation temporally associated with BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in two patients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34416319/.

304. Adverse effects reported after COVID-19 vaccination in a tertiary care hospital, centered on cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34092166/

305. Induction and exacerbation of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus erythematosus after mRNA- or adenoviral vector-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34291477/

306. Petechiae and peeling of fingers after immunization with BTN162b2 messenger RNA (mRNA)-based COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34513435/

307. Hepatitis C virus reactivation after COVID-19 vaccination: a case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34512037/

308. Bilateral immune-mediated keratolysis after immunization with SARS-CoV-2 recombinant viral vector vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34483273/.

309. Immune-mediated thrombocytopenic purpura after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in an elderly woman: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34513446/

310. Platelet activation and modulation in thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome associated with the ChAdO × 1 nCov-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34474550/

311. Reactive arthritis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34033732/.

312. Two cases of Graves’ disease after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: an autoimmune / inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33858208/

313. Acute relapse and impaired immunization after COVID-19 vaccination in a patient with multiple sclerosis treated with rituximab: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34015240/

314. Widespread fixed bullous drug eruption after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34482558/

315. COVID-19 mRNA vaccine causing CNS inflammation: a case series: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34480607/

316. Thymic hyperplasia after Covid-19 mRNA-based vaccination with Covid-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34462647/

317. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34325334/

318. Tolosa-Hunt syndrome occurring after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34513398/

319. Systemic capillary extravasation syndrome following vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34362727/

320. Immune-mediated thrombocytopenia associated with Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen; Johnson & Johnson): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34469919/.

321. Transient thrombocytopenia with glycoprotein-specific platelet autoantibodies after vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34516272/.

322. Acute hyperactive encephalopathy following COVID-19 vaccination with dramatic response to methylprednisolone: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34512961/

323. Transient cardiac injury in adolescents receiving the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34077949/

324. Autoimmune hepatitis developing after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (Oxford-AstraZeneca): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34171435/

325. Severe relapse of multiple sclerosis after COVID-19 vaccination: a case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34447349/

326. Lymphohistocytic myocarditis after vaccination with the COVID-19 viral vector Ad26.COV2.S: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34514078/

327. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34406660/.

328. IgA vasculitis in adult patient after vaccination with ChadOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34509658/

329. A case of leukocytoclastic vasculitis after vaccination with a SARS-CoV2 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34196469/.

330. Onset / outbreak of psoriasis after Corona virus ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (Oxford-AstraZeneca / Covishield): report of two cases: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34350668/

331. Hailey-Hailey disease exacerbation after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34436620/

332. Supraclavicular lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination in Korea: serial follow-up by ultrasonography: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34116295/.

333. COVID-19 vaccine, immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, jaundice, hyperviscosity: concern in cases with underlying hepatic problems: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34509271/.

334. Report of the International Cerebral Venous Thrombosis Consortium on cerebral venous thrombosis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34462996/

335. Immune thrombocytopenia after vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34435486/

336. COVID-19: lessons from the Norwegian tragedy should be taken into account in planning for vaccine launch in less developed/developing countries: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34435142/

337. Rituximab-induced acute lympholysis and pancytopenia following vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34429981/

338. Exacerbation of plaque psoriasis after COVID-19 inactivated mRNA and BNT162b2 vaccines: report of two cases: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34427024/

339. Vaccine-induced interstitial lung disease: a rare reaction to COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34510014/.

340. Vesiculobullous cutaneous reactions induced by COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: report of four cases and review of the literature: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34236711/

341. Vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia with severe headache: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34525282/

342. Acute perimyocarditis after the first dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34515024/

343. Rhabdomyolysis and fasciitis induced by COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34435250/.

344. Rare cutaneous adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines: a case series and review of the literature: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34363637/

345. Immune thrombocytopenia associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214250921002018

346. Secondary immune thrombocytopenia putatively attributable to COVID-19 vaccination: https://casereports.bmj.com/content/14/5/e242220.abstract.

347. Immune thrombocytopenia following Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34155844/

348. Newly diagnosed idiopathic thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccine administration: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8176657/.

349. Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and the Modern Covid-19 vaccine: https://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(21)00122-0/fulltext.

350. Thrombocytopenia after Pfizer and Moderna SARS vaccination – CoV -2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8014568/.

351. Immune thrombocytopenic purpura and acute liver injury after COVID-19 vaccination: https://casereports.bmj.com/content/14/7/e242678.

352. Collection of complement-mediated and autoimmune-mediated hematologic conditions after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://ashpublications.org/bloodadvances/article/5/13/2794/476324/Autoimmune-and-complement-mediated-hematologic

353. Petechial rash associated with CoronaVac vaccination: first report of cutaneous side effects before phase 3 results: https://ejhp.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/23/ejhpharm-2021-002794

354. COVID-19 vaccines induce severe hemolysis in paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria: https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/137/26/3670/475905/COVID-19-vaccines-induce-severe-hemolysis-in

355. Cerebral venous thrombosis associated with COVID-19 vaccine in Germany: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34288044/.

356. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination : Neurological and radiological management: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34327553/.

357. Cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33878469/.

358. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination: report of two cases in the United Kingdom: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33857630/.

359. Cerebral venous thrombosis induced by SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34090750/.

360. Carotid artery immune thrombosis induced by adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34312301/.

361. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis associated with vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34333995/

362. The roles of platelets in COVID-19-associated coagulopathy and vaccine-induced immune-immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455073/

363. Cerebral venous thrombosis after the BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34111775/.

364. Cerebral venous thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34045111/

365. Lethal cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33983464/

366. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis in the U.S. population, After SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with adenovirus and after COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34116145/

367. Cerebral venous thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination: is the risk of thrombosis increased by intravascular administration of the vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34286453/.

368. Central venous sinus thrombosis with subarachnoid hemorrhage after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination: are these reports merely coincidental: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34478433/

369. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccination with a misleading first brain MRI: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34244448/

370. Early results of bivalirudin treatment for thrombotic thrombocytopenia and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34226070/

371. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis associated with post-vaccination thrombocytopenia by COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33845870/.

372. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis 2 weeks after the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34101024/.

373. Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia causing a severe form of cerebral venous thrombosis with a high mortality rate: a case series: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34393988/.

374. Adenovirus interactions with platelets and coagulation and vaccine-associated autoimmune thrombocytopenia thrombosis syndrome: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34407607/.

375. Headache attributed to COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus) vaccination with the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a multicenter observational cohort study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34313952/

376. Adverse effects reported after COVID-19 vaccination in a tertiary care hospital, focus on cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34092166/

377. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: an analysis of cases reported to the European Medicines Agency: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34293217/

378. A rare case of a middle-age Asian male with cerebral venous thrombosis after COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34274191/

379. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis negative for anti-PF4 antibody without thrombocytopenia after immunization with COVID-19 vaccine in a non-comorbid elderly Indian male treated with conventional heparin-warfarin-based anticoagulation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34186376/

380. Arterial events, venous thromboembolism, thrombocytopenia and bleeding after vaccination with Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S in Denmark and Norway: population-based cohort study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33952445/

381. Procoagulant microparticles: a possible link between vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia (VITT) and cerebral sinus venous thrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34129181/

382. S. case reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S, March 2-April 21, 2021: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33929487/.

383. Malignant cerebral infarction after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19: a catastrophic variant of vaccine-induced immune-mediated thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34341358/

384. Acute ischemic stroke revealing immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia induced by ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine: impact on recanalization strategy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34175640/

385. Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VITT): a new clinicopathologic entity with heterogeneous clinical presentations: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34159588/.

386. Imaging and hematologic findings in thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34402666/

387. Autoimmunity roots of thrombotic events after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34508917/

388. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after vaccination: the UK experience: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34370974/

389. Massive cerebral venous thrombosis and venous basin infarction as late complications of COVID-19: a case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34373991/

390. Australian and New Zealand approach to the diagnosis and treatment of vaccine-induced immune thrombosis and immune thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34490632/

391. An observational study to identify the prevalence of thrombocytopenia and anti-PF4 / polyanion antibodies in Norwegian health care workers after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909350/

392. Acute transverse myelitis (ATM): clinical review of 43 patients with COVID-19-associated ATM and 3 serious adverse events of post-vaccination ATM with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33981305/.

393. A case of acute demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy with bilateral facial palsy after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine:. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34272622/

394. Thrombocytopenia with acute ischemic stroke and hemorrhage in a patient recently vaccinated with an adenoviral vector-based COVID-19 vaccine:. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33877737/

395. Predicted and observed incidence of thromboembolic events among Koreans vaccinated with the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34254476/

396. First dose of ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines and thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic, and hemorrhagic events in Scotland: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34108714/

397. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine-associated thrombocytopenia: three cases of immune thrombocytopenia after 107,720 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccination in Thailand: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34483267/.

398. Pulmonary embolism, transient ischemic attack, and thrombocytopenia after Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34261635/

399. Neurosurgical considerations with respect to decompressive craniectomy for intracerebral hemorrhage after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia-VITT: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34202817/

400. Large hemorrhagic stroke after vaccination against ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: a case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34273119/

401. Polyarthralgia and myalgia syndrome after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCOV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34463066/

402. A rare case of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia of the superior ophthalmic vein after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34276917/

403. Thrombosis and severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 vaccines: vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34237213/.

404. Renal vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism secondary to vaccine-induced thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VITT): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34268278/.

405. Limb ischemia and pulmonary artery thrombosis after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (Oxford-AstraZeneca): a case of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33990339/.

406. Association between ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination and bleeding episodes: large population-based cohort study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34479760/.

407. Secondary thrombocytopenia after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: case report of haemorrhage and hematoma after minor oral surgery: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34314875/.

408. Venous thromboembolism and mild thrombocytopenia after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34384129/

409. Fatal exacerbation of ChadOx1-nCoV-19-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia syndrome after successful initial therapy with intravenous immunoglobulins: a rationale for monitoring immunoglobulin G levels: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34382387/

410. A case of ANCA-associated vasculitis after AZD1222 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: victim or causality?: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34416184/.

411. Intracerebral hemorrhage associated with vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCOVID-19 vaccination in a pregnant woman: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34261297/

412. Massive cerebral venous thrombosis due to vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34261296/

413. Nephrotic syndrome after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARScoV-2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34250318/.

414. A case of vaccine-induced immune-immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia with massive arteriovenous thrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34059191/

415. Cutaneous thrombosis associated with cutaneous necrosis following Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34189756/

416. Thrombocytopenia in an adolescent with sickle cell anemia after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34331506/

417. Vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia with severe headache: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34525282/

418. Myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in children aged 12 to 17 years: stratified analysis of a national database: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1

419. COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and development of CMR-confirmed myopericarditis: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.13.21262182v1.full?s=09.

420. Severe autoimmune hemolytic anemia after receipt of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/trf.16672

421. Intravenous injection of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccine can induce acute myopericarditis in a mouse model: https://t.co/j0IEM8cMXI

422. A report of myocarditis adverse events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. (VAERS) in association with COVID-19 injectable biologics: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34601006/

423. This study concludes that: “The vaccine was associated with an excess risk of myocarditis (1 to 5 events per 100,000 persons). The risk of this potentially serious adverse event and of many other serious adverse events increased substantially after SARS-CoV-2 infection”: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475

424. Bilateral uveitis after inoculation with COVID-19 vaccine: a case report: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221007797

425. Myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in children aged 12 to 17 years: stratified analysis of a national database: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v1.

426. Immune-mediated hepatitis with the Moderna vaccine is no longer a coincidence but confirmed: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827821020936

427. Extensive investigations revealed consistent pathophysiologic alterations after vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-021-00329-3

428. Lobar hemorrhage with ventricular rupture shortly after the first dose of an mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8553377/

429. Mrna COVID vaccines dramatically increase endothelial inflammatory markers and risk of Acute Coronary Syndrome as measured by PULS cardiac testing: a caution: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

430. ChAdOx1 interacts with CAR and PF4 with implications for thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abl8213

431. Lethal vaccine-induced immune thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VITT) following announcement 26.COV2.S: first documented case outside the U.S.: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34626338/

432. A prothrombotic thrombocytopenic disorder resembling heparin-induced thrombocytopenia after coronavirus-19 vaccination: https://europepmc.org/article/PPR/PPR304469 435.

433. VITT (vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia) after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34731555/

434. Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT): a new clinicopathologic entity with heterogeneous clinical presentations: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34159588/

435. Treatment of acute ischemic stroke associated with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34461442/

436. Spectrum of neurological complications after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34719776/.

437. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after vaccination: the UK experience: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34370974/

438. Cerebral venous vein/venous sinus thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34373413/

439. Portal vein thrombosis due to vaccine-induced immune thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VITT) after Covid vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34598301/

440. Hematuria, a generalized petechial rash and headaches after Oxford AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34620638/

441. Myocardial infarction and azygos vein thrombosis after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in a hemodialysis patient: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34650896/

442. Takotsubo (stress) cardiomyopathy after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34625447/

443. Humoral response induced by Prime-Boost vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines in a patient with multiple sclerosis treated with teriflunomide: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696248/

444. Guillain-Barré syndrome after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 COVID-19 vaccination: a case series: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34548920/

445. Refractory vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) treated with delayed therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34672380/.

446. Rare case of COVID-19 vaccine-associated intracranial hemorrhage with venous sinus thrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34556531/.

447. Delayed headache after COVID-19 vaccination: a warning sign for vaccine-induced cerebral venous thrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34535076/.

448. Clinical features of vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia and immune thrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34379914/.

449. Predictors of mortality in thrombotic thrombocytopenia after adenoviral COVID-19 vaccination: the FAPIC score: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34545400/

450. Ischemic stroke as a presenting feature of immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia induced by ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34035134/

451. In-hospital observational study of neurological disorders in patients recently vaccinated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34688190/

452. Endovascular treatment for vaccine-induced cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: report of three cases: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34782400/

453. Cardiovascular, neurological, and pulmonary events after vaccination with BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines: an analysis of European data: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34710832/

454. Cerebral venous thrombosis developing after vaccination. COVID-19: VITT, VATT, TTS and more: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34695859/

455. Cerebral venous thrombosis and myeloproliferative neoplasms: a three-center study of 74 consecutive cases: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34453762/.

456. Possible triggers of thrombocytopenia and/or hemorrhage by BNT162b2 vaccine, Pfizer-BioNTech: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34660652/.

457. Multiple sites of arterial thrombosis in a 35-year-old patient after vaccination with ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca), which required emergency femoral and carotid surgical thrombectomy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34644642/

458. Case series of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia in a London teaching hospital: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34694650/

459. Neuro-ophthalmic complications with thrombocytopenia and thrombosis induced by ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34726934/

460. Thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination in over 50 years of age: results of a population-based study in Italy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34835237/

461. Intracerebral hemorrhage associated with vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCOVID-19 vaccination in a pregnant woman: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34261297/

462. Age- and sex-specific incidence of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis associated with Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34724036/.

463. Genital necrosis with cutaneous thrombosis following vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34839563/

464. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34783932/.

465. COVID-19 vaccine-induced immune thrombosis with thrombocytopenia thrombosis (VITT) and shades of gray in thrombus formation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34624910/

466. Inflammatory myositis after vaccination with ChAdOx1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34585145/

467. Acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction secondary to vaccine-induced immune thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (VITT): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34580132/.

468. A rare case of COVID-19 vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) affecting the venosplanchnic and pulmonary arterial circulation from a UK district general hospital: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34535492/

469. COVID-19 vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: a case series: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34527501/

470. Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after vaccination with AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) COVID-19: a risk-benefit analysis for persons <60% risk-benefit analysis for people <60 years in Australia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34272095/

471. Immune thrombocytopenia after immunization with Vaxzevria ChadOx1-S vaccine (AstraZeneca), Victoria, Australia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34756770/

472. Characteristics and outcomes of patients with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis in thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia induced by SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/2784622

473. Case study of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia syndrome after administration of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34781321/

474. Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome Associated with COVID-19 Vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34062319/

475. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis following vaccination with ChAdOx1: the first case of definite thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome in India: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34706921/

476. COVID-19 vaccine-associated thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS): systematic review and post hoc analysis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34698582/.

477. Case report of immune thrombocytopenia after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34751013/.

478. Acute transverse myelitis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34684047/.

479. Concerns for adverse effects of thrombocytopenia and thrombosis after adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34541935/

480. Major hemorrhagic stroke after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: a case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34273119/

481. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination: neurologic and radiologic management: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34327553/.

482. Thrombocytopenia with acute ischemic stroke and hemorrhage in a patient recently vaccinated with an adenoviral vector-based COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33877737/

483. Intracerebral hemorrhage and thrombocytopenia after AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: clinical and diagnostic challenges of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34646685/

484. Minimal change disease with severe acute kidney injury after Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34242687/.

485. Case report: cerebral sinus vein thrombosis in two patients with AstraZeneca SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34609603/

486. Case report: Pityriasis rosea-like rash after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34557507/

487. Extensive longitudinal transverse myelitis after ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34641797/.

488. Acute eosinophilic pneumonia associated with anti-COVID-19 vaccine AZD1222: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34812326/.

489. Thrombocytopenia, including immune thrombocytopenia after receiving COVID-19 mRNA vaccines reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34006408/

490. A case of ANCA-associated vasculitis after AZD1222 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: victim or causality?: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34416184/

491. Vaccine-induced immune thrombosis and thrombocytopenia syndrome after adenovirus-vectored severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination: a new hypothesis on mechanisms and implications for future vaccine development: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34664303/.

492. Thrombosis in peripheral artery disease and thrombotic thrombocytopenia following adenoviral COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34649281/.

493. Newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia in a pregnant patient after coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34420249/

494. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and thrombotic events after vector-based COVID-19 vaccines: systematic review and meta-analysis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34610990/.

495. Sweet’s syndrome after Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (AZD1222) in an elderly woman: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34590397/

496. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34670143/.

497. Prevalence of serious adverse events among health care professionals after receiving the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 coronavirus vaccine (Covishield) in Togo, March 2021: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34819146/.

498. Acute hemichorea-hemibalismus after COVID-19 (AZD1222) vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34581453/

499. Recurrence of alopecia areata after covid-19 vaccination: a report of three cases in Italy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34741583/

500. Shingles-like skin lesion after vaccination with AstraZeneca for COVID-19: a case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34631069/

501. Thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination: possible link to ACE pathways: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34479129/

502. Thrombocytopenia in an adolescent with sickle cell anemia after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34331506/

503. Leukocytoclastic vasculitis as a cutaneous manifestation of ChAdOx1 corona virus vaccine nCoV-19 (recombinant): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34546608/

504. Abdominal pain and bilateral adrenal hemorrhage from immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia induced by COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34546343/

505. Longitudinally extensive cervical myelitis after vaccination with inactivated virus based COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34849183/

506. Induction of cutaneous leukocytoclastic vasculitis after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34853744/.

507. A case of toxic epidermal necrolysis after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34751429/.

508. Ocular adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34559576/

509. Depression after ChAdOx1-S / nCoV-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34608345/.

510. Venous thromboembolism and mild thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34384129/.

511. Recurrent ANCA-associated vasculitis after Oxford AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S COVID-19 vaccination: a case series of two patients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34755433/

512. Major artery thrombosis and vaccination against ChAdOx1 nCov-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34839830/

513. Rare case of contralateral supraclavicular lymphadenopathy after vaccination with COVID-19: computed tomography and ultrasound findings: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34667486/

514. Cutaneous lymphocytic vasculitis after administration of the second dose of AZD1222 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) Severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 vaccine: chance or causality: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34726187/.

515. Pancreas allograft rejection after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34781027/

516. Understanding the risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome following Ad26.COV2.S vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34595694/

517. Cutaneous adverse reactions of 35,229 doses of COVID-19 Sinovac and AstraZeneca vaccine COVID-19: a prospective cohort study in health care workers: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34661934/

518. Comments on thrombosis after vaccination: spike protein leader sequence could be responsible for thrombosis and antibody-mediated thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34788138

519. Eosinophilic dermatosis after AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34753210/.

520. Severe immune thrombocytopenia following COVID-19 vaccination: report of four cases and review of the literature: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34653943/.

521. Relapse of immune thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34591991/

522. Thrombosis in pre- and post-vaccination phase of COVID-19; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34650382/

523. A look at the role of postmortem immunohistochemistry in understanding the inflammatory pathophysiology of COVID-19 disease and vaccine-related thrombotic adverse events: a narrative review: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34769454/

524. COVID-19 vaccine in patients with hypercoagulability disorders: a clinical perspective: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34786893/

525. Vaccine-associated thrombocytopenia and thrombosis: venous endotheliopathy leading to combined venous micro-macrothrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34833382/

526. Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia syndrome causing isolated symptomatic carotid occlusion after COVID-19 Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34670287/

527. An unusual presentation of acute deep vein thrombosis after Modern COVID-19 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34790811/

528. Immediate high-dose intravenous immunoglobulins followed by direct treatment with thrombin inhibitors is crucial for survival in vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia Sars-Covid-19-vector adenoviral VITT with venous thrombosis of the cerebral sinus and portal vein: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34023956/.

529. Thrombosis formation after COVID-19 vaccination immunologic aspects: review article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34629931/

530. Imaging and hematologic findings in thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34402666/

531. Spectrum of neuroimaging findings in post-CoVID-19 vaccination: a case series and review of the literature: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34842783/

532. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination in a Taiwanese man: a case report and review of the literature: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34630307/

533. Fatal cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33983464/

534. Autoimmune roots of thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34508917/.

535. New portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis: is thrombophilia exacerbated by vaccine or COVID-19: https://www.jcehepatology.com/article/S0973-6883(21)00545-4/fulltext.

536. Images of immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia induced by Oxford / AstraZeneca® COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33962903/.

537. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA of BNT162b2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34796065/.

538. Increased risk of urticaria/angioedema after BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in health care workers taking ACE inhibitors: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34579248/

539. A case of unusual mild clinical presentation of COVID-19 vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia with splanchnic vein thrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34843991/

540. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis following vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 (BNT162b2): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34595867/

541. A case of idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura after a booster dose of COVID-19 BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-Biontech): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34820240/

542. Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VITT): targeting pathologic mechanisms with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33851389/

543. Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura after vaccination with Ad26.COV2-S: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33980419/

544. Thromboembolic events in younger females exposed to Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34264151/

545. Potential risk of thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination with Oxford-AstraZeneca in women receiving estrogen: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34734086/

546. Thrombosis after adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccination: a concern for underlying disease: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34755555/

547. Adenovirus interactions with platelets and coagulation and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia syndrome: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34407607/

548. Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura: a new threat after COVID bnt162b2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34264514/.

549. Unusual site of deep vein thrombosis after vaccination against coronavirus mRNA-2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34840204/

550. Neurological side effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34750810/

551. Coagulopathies after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may derive from a combined effect of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and adenovirus vector-activated signaling pathways: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34639132/

552. Isolated pulmonary embolism after COVID vaccination: 2 case reports and a review of acute pulmonary embolism complications and follow-up: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34804412/

553. Central retinal vein occlusion after vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34571653/.

554. Complicated case report of long-term vaccine-induced thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia A: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34835275/.

555. Deep venous thrombosis after vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S in adult males: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34659839/.

556. Neurological autoimmune diseases after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: a case series: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34668274/.

557. Severe autoimmune hemolytic autoimmune anemia after receiving SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34549821/

558. Occurrence of COVID-19 variants among recipients of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (recombinant): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34528522/

559. Prevalence of thrombocytopenia, anti-platelet factor 4 antibodies, and elevated D-dimer in Thais after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34568726/

560. Epidemiology of acute myocarditis/pericarditis in Hong Kong adolescents after co-vaccination: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab989/644 5179.

561. Myocarditis after 2019 coronavirus disease mRNA vaccine: a case series and determination of incidence rate: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab926/6420408

562. Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: inequalities in age and vaccine types: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/11/11/1106

563. Epidemiology and clinical features of myocarditis/pericarditis before the introduction of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in Korean children: a multicenter study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34402230/

564. Shedding light on post-vaccination myocarditis and pericarditis in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 vaccine recipients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696294/

565. Myocarditis Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine: https://journals.lww.com/pec-online/Abstract/2021/11000/Myocarditis_Following_ mRNA_COVID_19_Vaccine.9.aspx.

566. Myocarditis following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 mRNA vaccine in Israel: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614328/.

567. Myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiomyopathy following COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.heartlungcirc.org/article/S1443-9506(21)01156-2/fulltext

568. Myocarditis and other cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34277198/

569. Possible Association Between COVID-19 Vaccine and Myocarditis: Clinical and CMR Findings: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34246586/

570. Hypersensitivity Myocarditis and COVID-19 Vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34856634/.

571. Severe myocarditis associated with COVID-19 vaccine: zebra or unicorn?: https://www.internationaljournalofcardiology.com/article/S0167-5273(21)01477-7/fulltext.

572. Acute myocardial infarction and myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8522388/

573. Myocarditis after Covid-19 vaccination in a large healthcare organization: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737

574. Association of myocarditis with COVID-19 messenger RNA BNT162b2 vaccine in a case series of children: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2783052

575. Clinical suspicion of myocarditis temporally related to COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents and young adults: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056583?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed

576. STEMI mimicry: focal myocarditis in an adolescent patient after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination:. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34756746/

577. Myocarditis and pericarditis in association with COVID-19 mRNA vaccination: cases from a regional pharmacovigilance center: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8587334/

578. Myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34546329/.

579. Patients with acute myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination:. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781602.

580. Myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: a case series: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X21011725?via%3Dihub.

581. Myocarditis associated with COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/148/5/e2021053427/181357

582. Myocarditis findings on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging after vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA in adolescents:. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34704459/

583. Myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: magnetic resonance imaging study: https://academic.oup.com/ehjcimaging/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ehjci/jeab230/6 421640.

584. Acute myocarditis after administration of the second dose of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8599115/

585. Myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352906721001603

586. Case report: probable myocarditis after Covid-19 mRNA vaccine in a patient with arrhythmogenic left ventricular cardiomyopathy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34712717/.

587. Acute myocarditis after administration of BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19: https://www.revespcardiol.org/en-linkresolver-acute-myocarditis-after-administration-bnt162b2-S188558572100133X.

588. Myocarditis associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccination: https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2021211430

589. Acute myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: a case report: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0248866321007098

590. Acute myopericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents:. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34589238/.

591. Perimyocarditis in adolescents after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination: https://academic.oup.com/jpids/article/10/10/962/6329543.

592. Acute myocarditis associated with anti-COVID-19 vaccination: https://ecevr.org/DOIx.php?id=10.7774/cevr.2021.10.2.196.

593. Myocarditis associated with COVID-19 vaccination: echocardiographic, cardiac CT, and MRI findings:. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34428917/.

594. Acute symptomatic myocarditis in 7 adolescents after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination:. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34088762/.

595. Myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents after first and second doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines:. https://academic.oup.com/ehjqcco/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcab090/64 42104.

596. COVID 19 vaccine for adolescents. Concern for myocarditis and pericarditis: https://www.mdpi.com/2036-7503/13/3/61.

597. Cardiac imaging of acute myocarditis after vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34402228/

598. Myocarditis temporally associated with COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34133885/

599. Acute myocardial injury after COVID-19 vaccination: a case report and review of current evidence from the vaccine adverse event reporting system database: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34219532/

600. Acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 vaccination: report of a case: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8639400/

601. Myocarditis following vaccination with COVID-19 messenger RNA: a Japanese case series: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34840235/.

602. Myocarditis in the setting of a recent COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34712497/.

603. Acute myocarditis after a second dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: report of two cases: https://www.clinicalimaging.org/article/S0899-7071(21)00265-5/fulltext.

604. Prevalence of thrombocytopenia, antiplatelet factor 4 antibodies, and elevated D-dimer in Thais after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34568726/

605. Epidemiology of acute myocarditis/pericarditis in Hong Kong adolescents after co-vaccination: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab989/6445179

606. Myocarditis after 2019 coronavirus disease mRNA vaccine: a case series and incidence rate determination: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab926/6420408.

607. Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: inequalities in age and vaccine types: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/11/11/1106

608. Epidemiology and clinical features of myocarditis/pericarditis before the introduction of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in Korean children: a multicenter study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34402230/

609. Shedding light on post-vaccination myocarditis and pericarditis in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 vaccine recipients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696294/

610. Diffuse prothrombotic syndrome after administration of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34615534/

611. Three cases of acute venous thromboembolism in women after coronavirus 2019 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34352418/

612. Clinical and biological features of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19; https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/early/2021/09/29/jnnp-2021-327340.

613. COV2-S vaccination may reveal hereditary thrombophilia: massive cerebral venous sinus thrombosis in a young man with normal platelet count: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34632750/

614. Post-mortem findings in vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://haematologica.org/article/view/haematol.2021.279075

615. COVID-19 vaccine-induced thrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34802488/.

616. Inflammation and platelet activation after COVID-19 vaccines: possible mechanisms behind vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34887867/.

617. Anaphylactoid reaction and coronary thrombosis related to COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34863404/.

618. Vaccine-induced cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia. Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19: a missed opportunity for rapid return on experience: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235255682100093X

619. Occurrence of splenic infarction due to arterial thrombosis after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34876440/

620. Deep venous thrombosis more than two weeks after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33928773/

621. Case report: Take a second look: Cerebral venous thrombosis related to Covid-19 vaccination and thrombotic thrombocytopenia syndrome: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34880826/

622. Information on ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine-induced immune-mediated thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34587242/

623. Change in blood viscosity after COVID-19 vaccination: estimation for persons with underlying metabolic syndrome: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34868465/

624. Management of a patient with a rare congenital limb malformation syndrome after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced thrombosis and thrombocytopenia (VITT): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34097311/

625. Bilateral thalamic stroke: a case of COVID-19 (VITT) vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia or a coincidence due to underlying risk factors: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34820232/.

626. Thrombocytopenia and splanchnic thrombosis after vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S successfully treated with transjugular intrahepatic intrahepatic portosystemic shunt and thrombectomy: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajh.26258

627. Incidence of acute ischemic stroke after coronavirus vaccination in Indonesia: case series: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34579636/

628. Successful treatment of vaccine-induced immune immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia in a 26-year-old female patient: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614491/

629. Case report: vaccine-induced immune immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia in a patient with pancreatic cancer after vaccination with messenger RNA-1273: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34790684/

630. Idiopathic idiopathic external jugular vein thrombophlebitis after coronavirus disease vaccination (COVID-19): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33624509/.

631. Squamous cell carcinoma of the lung with hemoptysis following vaccination with tozinameran (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34612003/

632. Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination in a man presenting as acute venous thromboembolism: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34096082/

633. Myocarditis associated with COVID-19 vaccination in three adolescent boys: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34851078/.

634. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance findings in young adult patients with acute myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination: a case series: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34496880/

635. Perimyocarditis after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34866957/

636. Epidemiology of acute myocarditis/pericarditis in Hong Kong adolescents after co-vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34849657/.

637. Myocarditis-induced sudden death after BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in Korea: case report focusing on histopathological findings: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34664804/

638. Acute myocarditis after vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA in adults aged 18 years or older: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34605853/

639. Recurrence of acute myocarditis temporally associated with receipt of the 2019 coronavirus mRNA disease vaccine (COVID-19) in an adolescent male: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34166671/

640. Young male with myocarditis after mRNA-1273 coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34744118/

641. Acute myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in a 24-year-old male: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34334935/.

642. Ga-DOTATOC digital PET images of inflammatory cell infiltrates in myocarditis after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34746968/

643. Occurrence of acute infarct-like myocarditis after vaccination with COVID-19: just an accidental coincidence or rather a vaccination-associated autoimmune myocarditis?”: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34333695/.

644. Self-limited myocarditis presenting with chest pain and ST-segment elevation in adolescents after vaccination with BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34180390/

645. Myocarditis Following Immunization with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in Members of the U.S. Military: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34185045/

646. Myocarditis after BNT162b2 vaccination in a healthy male: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34229940/

647. Myopericarditis in a previously healthy adolescent male after COVID-19 vaccination: Case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34133825/

648. Acute myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 mRNA vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34308326/.

649. Chest pain with abnormal electrocardiogram redevelopment after injection of COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by Moderna: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34866106/

650. Biopsy-proven lymphocytic myocarditis after first vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA in a 40-year-old man: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34487236/

651. Multimodality imaging and histopathology in a young man presenting with fulminant lymphocytic myocarditis and cardiogenic shock after vaccination with mRNA-1273: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34848416/

652. Report of a case of myopericarditis after vaccination with BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA in a young Korean male: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34636504/

653. Acute myocarditis after Comirnaty vaccination in a healthy male with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34367386/

654. Acute myocarditis in a young adult two days after vaccination with Pfizer: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34709227/

655. Case report: acute fulminant myocarditis and cardiogenic shock after messenger RNA coronavirus vaccination in 2019 requiring extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34778411/

656. Acute myocarditis after 2019 coronavirus disease vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34734821/

657. A series of patients with myocarditis after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 with mRNA-1279 and BNT162b2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34246585/

658. Myopericarditis after Pfizer messenger ribonucleic acid coronavirus coronavirus disease vaccine in adolescents: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34228985/

659. Post-vaccination multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34852213/

660. Acute myocarditis defined after vaccination with 2019 mRNA of coronavirus disease: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34866122/

661. Biventricular systolic dysfunction in acute myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34601566/

662. Myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination: MRI study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34739045/.

663. Acute myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: case report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hc4bh_qNbZ7UVm5BLxkRdMPnnI9zcCsl/e

664. Association of myocarditis with COVID-19 messenger RNA BNT162b2 vaccine COVID-19 in a case series of children: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34374740/

665. Clinical suspicion of myocarditis temporally related to COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents and young adults: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34865500/

666. Myocarditis following vaccination with Covid-19 in a large healthcare organization: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614329/

667. AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and Guillain-Barré syndrome in Tasmania: a causal link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34560365/

668. COVID-19, Guillain-Barré and vaccineA dangerous mix: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34108736/.

669. Guillain-Barré syndrome after the first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: case report and review of reported cases: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34796417/.

670. Guillain-Barre syndrome after BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10072-021-05523-5.

671. COVID-19 adenovirus vaccines and Guillain-Barré syndrome with facial palsy: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.26258.

672. Association of receipt association of Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine with presumed Guillain-Barre syndrome, February-July 2021: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2785009

673. A case of Guillain-Barré syndrome after Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34567447/

674. Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34648420/.

675. Rate of recurrent Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/2783708

676. Guillain-Barre syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in an adolescent: https://www.pedneur.com/article/S0887-8994(21)00221-6/fulltext.

677. Guillain-Barre syndrome after ChAdOx1-S / nCoV-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34114256/.

678. Guillain-Barre syndrome after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34767184/.

679. Guillain-Barre syndrome following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in 19 patients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34644738/.

680. Guillain-Barre syndrome presenting with facial diplegia following vaccination with COVID-19 in two patients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34649856/

681. A rare case of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34671572/

682. Neurological complications of COVID-19: Guillain-Barre syndrome after Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33758714/

683. COVID-19 vaccine causing Guillain-Barre syndrome, an uncommon potential side effect: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34484780/

684. Guillain-Barre syndrome after the first dose of COVID-19 vaccination: case report; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34779385/.

685. Miller Fisher syndrome after Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34817727/.

686. Miller Fisher syndrome after 2019 BNT162b2 mRNA coronavirus vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34789193/.

687. Bilateral facial weakness with a variant of paresthesia of Guillain-Barre syndrome after Vaxzevria COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34261746/

688. Guillain-Barre syndrome after the first injection of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: first report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34217513/.

689. A case of sensory ataxic Guillain-Barre syndrome with immunoglobulin G anti-GM1 antibodies after first dose of COVID-19 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34871447/

690. Reporting of acute inflammatory neuropathies with COVID-19 vaccines: subgroup disproportionality analysis in VigiBase: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34579259/

691. A variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: AMSAN: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34370408/.

692. A rare variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome after vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34703690/.

693. Guillain-Barré syndrome after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in a patient with previous vaccine-associated Guillain-Barré syndrome: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34810163/

694. Guillain-Barré syndrome in an Australian state using mRNA and adenovirus-vector SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.26218.

695. Acute transverse myelitis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: case report and review of the literature: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34482455/.

696. Variant Guillain-Barré syndrome occurring after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34114269/.

697. Guillian-Barre syndrome with axonal variant temporally associated with Modern SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-based vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34722067/

698. Guillain-Barre syndrome after the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: a temporary occurrence, not a causal association: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33968610/

699. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines can be complicated not only by Guillain-Barré syndrome but also by distal small fiber neuropathy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34525410/

700. Clinical variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome with prominent facial diplegia after AstraZeneca 2019 coronavirus disease vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34808658/

701. Adverse event reporting and risk of Bell’s palsy after COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00646-0/fulltext.

702. Bilateral facial nerve palsy and COVID-19 vaccination: causality or coincidence: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34522557/

703. Left Bell’s palsy after the first dose of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34763263/.

704. Bell’s palsy after inactivated vaccination with COVID-19 in a patient with a history of recurrent Bell’s palsy: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34621891/

705. Neurological complications after the first dose of COVID-19 vaccines and SARS-CoV-2 infection: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34697502/

706. Type I interferons as a potential mechanism linking COVID-19 mRNA vaccines with Bell’s palsy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33858693/

707. Acute transverse myelitis following inactivated COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34370410/

708. Acute transverse myelitis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34579245/.

709. A case of longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis following Covid-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34182207/

710. Post COVID-19 transverse myelitis; a case report with review of the literature: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34457267/.

711. Beware of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder after vaccination with inactivated virus for COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34189662/

712. Neuromyelitis optica in a healthy woman after vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 mRNA-1273: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34660149/

713. Acute bilateral bilateral optic neuritis/chiasm with longitudinal extensive transverse myelitis in long-standing stable multiple sclerosis after vector-based vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34131771/

714. A case series of acute pericarditis after vaccination with COVID-19 in the context of recent reports from Europe and the United States: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34635376/

715. Acute pericarditis and cardiac tamponade after vaccination with Covid-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34749492/

716. Myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents after the first and second doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34849667/

717. Perimyocarditis in adolescents after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34319393/

718. Acute myopericarditis after COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34589238/

719. Pericarditis after administration of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34149145/

720. Case report: symptomatic pericarditis post COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34693198/.

721. An outbreak of Still’s disease after COVID-19 vaccination in a 34-year-old patient: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34797392/

722. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis following COVID-19 vaccination (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34862234/

723. Myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, a case series: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34396358/.

724. Miller-Fisher syndrome and Guillain-Barré syndrome overlap syndrome in a patient after Oxford-AstraZeneca SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34848426/.

725. Immune-mediated disease outbreaks or new-onset disease in 27 subjects after mRNA/DNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33946748/

726. Post-mortem investigation of deaths after vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34591186/

727. Acute kidney injury with macroscopic hematuria and IgA nephropathy after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34352309/

728. Relapse of immune thrombocytopenia after covid-19 vaccination in young male patient: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34804803/.

729. Immune thrombocytopenic purpura associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine Pfizer-BioNTech BNT16B2b2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34077572/

730. Retinal hemorrhage after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34884407/.

731. Case report: anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis with acute renal failure and pulmonary hemorrhage can occur after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34859017/

732. Intracerebral hemorrhage due to vasculitis following COVID-19 vaccination: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34783899/

733. Peduncular, symptomatic cavernous bleeding after immune thrombocytopenia-induced SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34549178/.

734. Brain death in a vaccinated patient with COVID-19 infection: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34656887/

735. Generalized purpura annularis telangiectodes after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34236717/.

736. Lobar hemorrhage with ventricular rupture shortly after the first dose of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34729467/.

737. A case of outbreak of macroscopic hematuria and IgA nephropathy after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33932458/

738. Acral hemorrhage after administration of the second dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. A post-vaccination reaction: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34092400/742.

739. Severe immune thrombocytopenic purpura after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34754937/

740. Gross hematuria after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination in 2 patients with IgA nephropathy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33771584/

741. Autoimmune encephalitis after ChAdOx1-S SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34846583/

742. COVID-19 vaccine and death: causality algorithm according to the WHO eligibility diagnosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34073536/

743. Bell’s palsy after vaccination with mRNA (BNT162b2) and inactivated (CoronaVac) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: a case series and a nested case-control study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34411532/

744. Epidemiology of myocarditis and pericarditis following mRNA vaccines in Ontario, Canada: by vaccine product, schedule, and interval: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.21267156v1

745. Anaphylaxis following Covid-19 vaccine in a patient with cholinergic urticaria: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33851711/

746. Anaphylaxis induced by CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccine: clinical features and results of revaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34675550/.

747. Anaphylaxis after Modern COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34734159/.

748. Association of self-reported history of high-risk allergy with allergy symptoms after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34698847/

749. Sex differences in the incidence of anaphylaxis to LNP-mRNA vaccines COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34020815/

750. Allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, after receiving the first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine – United States, December 14 to 23, 2020: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33641264/

751. Allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, after receiving the first dose of Modern COVID-19 vaccine – United States, December 21, 2020 to January 10, 2021: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33641268/

752. Prolonged anaphylaxis to Pfizer 2019 coronavirus disease vaccine: a case report and mechanism of action: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33834172/

753. Anaphylaxis reactions to Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine: report of 3 cases of anaphylaxis following vaccination with Pfizer BNT162b2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34579211/

754. Biphasic anaphylaxis after first dose of 2019 messenger RNA coronavirus disease vaccine with positive polysorbate 80 skin test result: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34343674/

755. Acute myocardial infarction and myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34586408/

756. Takotsubo syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34539938/.

757. Takotsubo cardiomyopathy after coronavirus 2019 vaccination in patient on maintenance hemodialysis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34731486/.

758. Premature myocardial infarction or side effect of COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33824804/

759. Myocardial infarction, stroke, and pulmonary embolism after BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged 75 years or older: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34807248/

760. Kounis syndrome type 1 induced by inactivated SARS-COV-2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34148772/

761. Acute myocardial infarction within 24 hours after COVID-19 vaccination: is Kounis syndrome the culprit: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34702550/

762. Deaths associated with the recently launched SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (Comirnaty®): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33895650/

763. Deaths associated with recently launched SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34425384/

764. A case of acute encephalopathy and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction after vaccination with mRNA-1273: possible adverse effect: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34703815/

765. COVID-19 vaccine-induced urticarial vasculitis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34369046/.

766. ANCA-associated vasculitis after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34280507/.

767. New-onset leukocytoclastic vasculitis after COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34241833/

768. Cutaneous small vessel vasculitis after COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34529877/.

769. Outbreak of leukocytoclastic vasculitis after COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33928638/

770. Leukocytoclastic vasculitis after exposure to COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34836739/

771. Vasculitis and bursitis in [ 18 F] FDG-PET/CT after COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: post hoc ergo propter hoc?; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34495381/.

772. Cutaneous lymphocytic vasculitis after administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34327795

773. Cutaneous leukocytoclastic vasculitis induced by Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34660867/.

774. Case report: ANCA-associated vasculitis presenting with rhabdomyolysis and crescentic Pauci-Inmune glomerulonephritis after vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34659268/

775. Reactivation of IgA vasculitis after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34848431/

776. Varicella-zoster virus-related small-vessel vasculitis after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34310759/.

777. Imaging in vascular medicine: leukocytoclastic vasculitis after COVID-19 vaccine booster: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34720009/

778. A rare case of Henoch-Schönlein purpura after a case report of COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34518812/

779. Cutaneous vasculitis following COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34611627/.

780. Possible case of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-induced small-vessel vasculitis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34705320/.

781. IgA vasculitis following COVID-19 vaccination in an adult: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34779011/

782. Propylthiouracil-induced anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis following vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34451967/

783. Coronavirus disease vaccine 2019 (COVID-19) in systemic lupus erythematosus and neutrophil anti-cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33928459/

784. Reactivation of IgA vasculitis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34250509/

785. Clinical and histopathologic spectrum of delayed adverse skin reactions after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34292611/.

786. First description of immune complex vasculitis after COVID-19 vaccination with BNT162b2: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34530771/.

787. Nephrotic syndrome and vasculitis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: true association or circumstantial: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34245294/.

788. Occurrence of de novo cutaneous vasculitis after vaccination against coronavirus disease (COVID-19): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34599716/.

789. Asymmetric cutaneous vasculitis after COVID-19 vaccination with unusual preponderance of eosinophils: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34115904/.

790. Henoch-Schönlein purpura occurring after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34247902/.

791. Henoch-Schönlein purpura following the first dose of COVID-19 viral vector vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696186/.

792. Granulomatous vasculitis after AstraZeneca anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34237323/.

793. Acute retinal necrosis due to varicella zoster virus reactivation after vaccination with BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34851795/.

794. A case of generalized Sweet’s syndrome with vasculitis triggered by recent vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34849386/

795. Small-vessel vasculitis following Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34310763/

796. Relapse of microscopic polyangiitis after COVID-19 vaccination: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34251683/.

797. Cutaneous vasculitis after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34557622/.

798. Recurrent herpes zoster after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with chronic urticaria on cyclosporine treatment – A report of 3 cases: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34510694/

799. Leukocytoclastic vasculitis after coronavirus disease vaccination 2019: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34713472/803

800. Outbreaks of mixed cryoglobulinemia vasculitis after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34819272/

801. Cutaneous small-vessel vasculitis after vaccination with a single dose of Janssen Ad26.COV2.S: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34337124/

802. Case of immunoglobulin A vasculitis after vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34535924/

803. Rapid progression of angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma after BNT162b2 mRNA booster vaccination: case report: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.798095/

804. COVID-19 mRNA vaccination-induced lymphadenopathy mimics lymphoma progression on FDG PET / CT: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33591026/

805. Lymphadenopathy in COVID-19 vaccine recipients: diagnostic dilemma in oncology patients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33625300/

806. Hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy after administration of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine Covid-19: incidence assessed by [ 18 F] FDG PET-CT and relevance for study interpretation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33774684/

807. Lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: review of imaging findings: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33985872/

808. Evolution of bilateral hypermetabolic axillary hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy on FDG PET/CT after 2-dose COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34735411/

809. Lymphadenopathy associated with COVID-19 vaccination on FDG PET/CT: distinguishing features in adenovirus-vectored vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34115709/.

810. COVID-19 vaccination-induced lymphadenopathy in a specialized breast imaging clinic in Israel: analysis of 163 cases: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34257025/.

811. COVID-19 vaccine-related axillary lymphadenopathy in breast cancer patients: case series with literature review: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34836672/.

812. Coronavirus disease vaccine 2019 mimics lymph node metastases in patients undergoing skin cancer follow-up: a single-center study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34280870/

813. COVID-19 post-vaccination lymphadenopathy: report of fine-needle aspiration biopsy cytologic findings: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34432391/

814. Regional lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: review of the literature and considerations for patient management in breast cancer care: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34731748/

815. Subclinical axillary lymphadenopathy associated with COVID-19 vaccination on screening mammography: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34906409/

816. Adverse events of COVID injection that may occur in children.Acute-onset supraclavicular lymphadenopathy coincident with intramuscular mRNA vaccination against COVID-19 may be related to the injection technique of the vaccine, Spain, January and February 2021: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33706861/

817. Supraclavicular lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination in Korea: serial follow-up by ultrasonography: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34116295/

818. Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination induced lymphadenopathy on [18F] choline PET / CT, not just an FDG finding: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33661328/

819. Biphasic anaphylaxis after exposure to the first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34050949/

820. Axillary adenopathy associated with COVID-19 vaccination: imaging findings and follow-up recommendations in 23 women: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33624520/

821. A case of cervical lymphadenopathy following COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34141500/

822. Unique imaging findings of neurologic phantosmia after Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 vaccination: a case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34096896/

823. Thrombotic adverse events reported for Moderna, Pfizer, and Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines: comparison of occurrence and clinical outcomes in the EudraVigilance database: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34835256/

824. Unilateral lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: a practical management plan for radiologists of all specialties: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33713605/

825. Unilateral axillary adenopathy in the setting of COVID-19 vaccination: follow-up: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34298342/

826. A systematic review of cases of CNS demyelination following COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34839149/

827. Supraclavicular lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: an increasing presentation in the two-week wait neck lump clinic: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33685772/

828. COVID-19 vaccine-related axillary and cervical lymphadenopathy in patients with current or previous breast cancer and other malignancies: cross-sectional imaging findings on MRI, CT and PET-CT: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34719892/

829. Adenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33625299/.

830. Incidence of axillary adenopathy on breast imaging after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34292295/.

831. COVID-19 vaccination and lower cervical lymphadenopathy in two-week neck lump clinic: a follow-up audit: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33947605/.

832. Cervical lymphadenopathy after coronavirus disease vaccination 2019: clinical features and implications for head and neck cancer services: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34526175/

833. Lymphadenopathy associated with the COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33786231/

834. Evolution of lymphadenopathy on PET/MRI after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33625301/.

835. Autoimmune hepatitis triggered by SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34332438/.

836. New-onset nephrotic syndrome after Janssen COVID-19 vaccination: case report and literature review: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34342187/.

837. Massive cervical lymphadenopathy following vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34601889/

838. ANCA glomerulonephritis following Modern COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34081948/

839. Extensive longitudinal transverse myelitis following AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34507942/.

840. Systemic capillary extravasation syndrome after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34362727/

841. Unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy related to COVID-19 vaccine: pattern on screening breast MRI allowing benign evaluation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34325221/

842. Axillary lymphadenopathy in patients with recent Covid-19 vaccination: a new diagnostic dilemma: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34825530/.

843. Minimal change disease and acute kidney injury after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34000278/

844. COVID-19 vaccine-induced unilateral axillary adenopathy: follow-up evaluation in the USA: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34655312/.

845. Gastroparesis after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34187985/.

846. Acute-onset supraclavicular lymphadenopathy coincident with intramuscular mRNA vaccination against COVID-19 may be related to the injection technique of the vaccine, Spain, January and February 2021: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33706861/

847. Supraclavicular lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination in Korea: serial follow-up by ultrasonography: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34116295/

848. Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination induced lymphadenopathy on [18F] choline PET / CT, not just an FDG finding: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33661328/

849. Biphasic anaphylaxis after exposure to the first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34050949/

850. Axillary adenopathy associated with COVID-19 vaccination: imaging findings and follow-up recommendations in 23 women: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33624520/

851. A case of cervical lymphadenopathy following COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34141500/

852. Unique imaging findings of neurologic phantosmia after Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 vaccination: a case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34096896/

853. Thrombotic adverse events reported for Moderna, Pfizer, and Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines: comparison of occurrence and clinical outcomes in the EudraVigilance database: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34835256/

854. Unilateral lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: a practical management plan for radiologists of all specialties: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33713605/

855. Unilateral axillary adenopathy in the setting of COVID-19 vaccination: follow-up: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34298342/

856. A systematic review of cases of CNS demyelination following COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34839149/

857. Supraclavicular lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: an increasing presentation in the two-week wait neck lump clinic: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33685772/

858. COVID-19 vaccine-related axillary and cervical lymphadenopathy in patients with current or previous breast cancer and other malignancies: cross-sectional imaging findings on MRI, CT and PET-CT: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34719892/

859. Adenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33625299/.

860. Incidence of axillary adenopathy on breast imaging after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34292295/.

861. COVID-19 vaccination and lower cervical lymphadenopathy in two-week neck lump clinic: a follow-up audit: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33947605/.

862. Cervical lymphadenopathy after coronavirus disease vaccination 2019: clinical features and implications for head and neck cancer services: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34526175/

863. Lymphadenopathy associated with the COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33786231/

864. Evolution of lymphadenopathy on PET/MRI after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33625301/.

865. Autoimmune hepatitis triggered by SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34332438/.

866. New-onset nephrotic syndrome after Janssen COVID-19 vaccination: case report and literature review: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34342187/.

867. Massive cervical lymphadenopathy following vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34601889/

868. ANCA glomerulonephritis following Modern COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34081948/

869. Extensive longitudinal transverse myelitis following AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34507942/.

870. Systemic capillary extravasation syndrome after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34362727/

871. Unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy related to COVID-19 vaccine: pattern on screening breast MRI allowing benign evaluation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34325221/

872. Axillary lymphadenopathy in patients with recent Covid-19 vaccination: a new diagnostic dilemma: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34825530/.

873. Minimal change disease and acute kidney injury after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34000278/

874. COVID-19 vaccine-induced unilateral axillary adenopathy: follow-up evaluation in the USA: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34655312/.

875. Gastroparesis after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34187985/.

876. Abbate, A., Gavin, J., Madanchi, N., Kim, C., Shah, P. R., Klein, K., . . . Danielides, S. (2021). Fulminant myocarditis and systemic hyperinflammation temporally associated with BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in two patients. Int J Cardiol, 340, 119-121. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.08.018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34416319

877. Abu Mouch, S., Roguin, A., Hellou, E., Ishai, A., Shoshan, U., Mahamid, L., . . . Berar Yanay, N. (2021). Myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Vaccine, 39(29), 3790-3793. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.05.087. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34092429

878. Albert, E., Aurigemma, G., Saucedo, J., & Gerson, D. S. (2021). Myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination. Radiol Case Rep, 16(8), 2142-2145. doi:10.1016/j.radcr.2021.05.033. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34025885

879. Aye, Y. N., Mai, A. S., Zhang, A., Lim, O. Z. H., Lin, N., Ng, C. H., . . . Chew, N. W. S. (2021). Acute Myocardial Infarction and Myocarditis following COVID-19 Vaccination. QJM. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcab252. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34586408

880. Azir, M., Inman, B., Webb, J., & Tannenbaum, L. (2021). STEMI Mimic: Focal Myocarditis in an Adolescent Patient After mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine. J Emerg Med, 61(6), e129-e132. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2021.09.017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34756746

881. Barda, N., Dagan, N., Ben-Shlomo, Y., Kepten, E., Waxman, J., Ohana, R., . . . Balicer, R. D. (2021). Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting. N Engl J Med, 385(12), 1078-1090. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2110475. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34432976

882. Bhandari, M., Pradhan, A., Vishwakarma, P., & Sethi, R. (2021). Coronavirus and cardiovascular manifestations- getting to the heart of the matter. World J Cardiol, 13(10), 556-565. doi:10.4330/wjc.v13.i10.556. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34754400

883. Bozkurt, B., Kamat, I., & Hotez, P. J. (2021). Myocarditis With COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines. Circulation, 144(6), 471-484. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056135. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34281357

884. Buchhorn, R., Meyer, C., Schulze-Forster, K., Junker, J., & Heidecke, H. (2021). Autoantibody Release in Children after Corona Virus mRNA Vaccination: A Risk Factor of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome? Vaccines (Basel), 9(11). doi:10.3390/vaccines9111353. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34835284

885. Calcaterra, G., Bassareo, P. P., Barilla, F., Romeo, F., & Mehta, J. L. (2022). Concerning the unexpected prothrombotic state following some coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown), 23(2), 71-74. doi:10.2459/JCM.0000000000001232. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34366403

886. Calcaterra, G., Mehta, J. L., de Gregorio, C., Butera, G., Neroni, P., Fanos, V., & Bassareo, P. P. (2021). COVID 19 Vaccine for Adolescents. Concern about Myocarditis and Pericarditis. Pediatr Rep, 13(3), 530-533. doi:10.3390/pediatric13030061. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34564344

887. Chai, Q., Nygaard, U., Schmidt, R. C., Zaremba, T., Moller, A. M., & Thorvig, C. M. (2022). Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in a male adolescent after his second Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Acta Paediatr, 111(1), 125-127. doi:10.1111/apa.16141. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34617315

888. Chamling, B., Vehof, V., Drakos, S., Weil, M., Stalling, P., Vahlhaus, C., . . . Yilmaz, A. (2021). Occurrence of acute infarct-like myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination: just an accidental co-incidence or rather vaccination-associated autoimmune myocarditis? Clin Res Cardiol, 110(11), 1850-1854. doi:10.1007/s00392-021-01916-w. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34333695

889. Chang, J. C., & Hawley, H. B. (2021). Vaccine-Associated Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis: Venous Endotheliopathy Leading to Venous Combined Micro-Macrothrombosis. Medicina (Kaunas), 57(11). doi:10.3390/medicina57111163. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34833382

890. Chelala, L., Jeudy, J., Hossain, R., Rosenthal, G., Pietris, N., & White, C. (2021). Cardiac MRI Findings of Myocarditis After COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination in Adolescents. AJR Am J Roentgenol. doi:10.2214/AJR.21.26853. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34704459

891. Choi, S., Lee, S., Seo, J. W., Kim, M. J., Jeon, Y. H., Park, J. H., . . . Yeo, N. S. (2021). Myocarditis-induced Sudden Death after BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Korea: Case Report Focusing on Histopathological Findings. J Korean Med Sci, 36(40), e286. doi:10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e286. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34664804

892. Chouchana, L., Blet, A., Al-Khalaf, M., Kafil, T. S., Nair, G., Robblee, J., . . . Liu, P. P. (2021). Features of Inflammatory Heart Reactions Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination at a Global Level. Clin Pharmacol Ther. doi:10.1002/cpt.2499. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34860360

893. Chua, G. T., Kwan, M. Y. W., Chui, C. S. L., Smith, R. D., Cheung, E. C., Tian, T., . . . Ip, P. (2021). Epidemiology of Acute Myocarditis/Pericarditis in Hong Kong Adolescents Following Comirnaty Vaccination. Clin Infect Dis. doi:10.1093/cid/ciab989. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34849657

894. Clarke, R., & Ioannou, A. (2021). Should T2 mapping be used in cases of recurrent myocarditis to differentiate between the acute inflammation and chronic scar? J Pediatr. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.12.026. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34933012

895. Colaneri, M., De Filippo, M., Licari, A., Marseglia, A., Maiocchi, L., Ricciardi, A., . . . Bruno, R. (2021). COVID vaccination and asthma exacerbation: might there be a link? Int J Infect Dis, 112, 243-246. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.09.026. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34547487

896. Das, B. B., Kohli, U., Ramachandran, P., Nguyen, H. H., Greil, G., Hussain, T., . . . Khan, D. (2021). Myopericarditis after messenger RNA Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination in Adolescents 12 to 18 Years of Age. J Pediatr, 238, 26-32 e21. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.07.044. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34339728

897. Das, B. B., Moskowitz, W. B., Taylor, M. B., & Palmer, A. (2021). Myocarditis and Pericarditis Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination: What Do We Know So Far? Children (Basel), 8(7). doi:10.3390/children8070607. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34356586

898. Deb, A., Abdelmalek, J., Iwuji, K., & Nugent, K. (2021). Acute Myocardial Injury Following COVID-19 Vaccination: A Case Report and Review of Current Evidence from Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System Database. J Prim Care Community Health, 12, 21501327211029230. doi:10.1177/21501327211029230. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34219532

899. Dickey, J. B., Albert, E., Badr, M., Laraja, K. M., Sena, L. M., Gerson, D. S., . . . Aurigemma, G. P. (2021). A Series of Patients With Myocarditis Following SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination With mRNA-1279 and BNT162b2. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging, 14(9), 1862-1863. doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2021.06.003. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34246585

900. Dimopoulou, D., Spyridis, N., Vartzelis, G., Tsolia, M. N., & Maritsi, D. N. (2021). Safety and tolerability of the COVID-19 mRNA-vaccine in adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis on treatment with TNF-inhibitors. Arthritis Rheumatol. doi:10.1002/art.41977. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34492161

901. Dimopoulou, D., Vartzelis, G., Dasoula, F., Tsolia, M., & Maritsi, D. (2021). Immunogenicity of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis on treatment with TNF inhibitors. Ann Rheum Dis. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221607. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34844930

902. Ehrlich, P., Klingel, K., Ohlmann-Knafo, S., Huttinger, S., Sood, N., Pickuth, D., & Kindermann, M. (2021). Biopsy-proven lymphocytic myocarditis following first mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in a 40-year-old male: case report. Clin Res Cardiol, 110(11), 1855-1859. doi:10.1007/s00392-021-01936-6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34487236

903. El Sahly, H. M., Baden, L. R., Essink, B., Doblecki-Lewis, S., Martin, J. M., Anderson, E. J., . . . Group, C. S. (2021). Efficacy of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine at Completion of Blinded Phase. N Engl J Med, 385(19), 1774-1785. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2113017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34551225

904. Facetti, S., Giraldi, M., Vecchi, A. L., Rogiani, S., & Nassiacos, D. (2021). [Acute myocarditis in a young adult two days after Pfizer vaccination]. G Ital Cardiol (Rome), 22(11), 891-893. doi:10.1714/3689.36746. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34709227

905. Fazlollahi, A., Zahmatyar, M., Noori, M., Nejadghaderi, S. A., Sullman, M. J. M., Shekarriz-Foumani, R., . . . Safiri, S. (2021). Cardiac complications following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review of case reports and case series. Rev Med Virol, e2318. doi:10.1002/rmv.2318. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34921468

906. Fazolo, T., Lima, K., Fontoura, J. C., de Souza, P. O., Hilario, G., Zorzetto, R., . . . Bonorino, C. (2021). Pediatric COVID-19 patients in South Brazil show abundant viral mRNA and strong specific anti-viral responses. Nat Commun, 12(1), 6844. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27120-y. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34824230

907. Fikenzer, S., & Laufs, U. (2021). Correction to: Response to Letter to the editors referring to Fikenzer, S., Uhe, T., Lavall, D., Rudolph, U., Falz, R., Busse, M., Hepp, P., & Laufs, U. (2020). Effects of surgical and FFP2/N95 face masks on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity. Clinical research in cardiology: official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 1-9. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01704-y. Clin Res Cardiol, 110(8), 1352. doi:10.1007/s00392-021-01896-x. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34170372

908. Foltran, D., Delmas, C., Flumian, C., De Paoli, P., Salvo, F., Gautier, S., . . . Montastruc, F. (2021). Myocarditis and Pericarditis in Adolescents after First and Second doses of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. doi:10.1093/ehjqcco/qcab090. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34849667

909. Forgacs, D., Jang, H., Abreu, R. B., Hanley, H. B., Gattiker, J. L., Jefferson, A. M., & Ross, T. M. (2021). SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines Elicit Different Responses in Immunologically Naive and Pre-Immune Humans. Front Immunol, 12, 728021. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.728021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34646267

910. Furer, V., Eviatar, T., Zisman, D., Peleg, H., Paran, D., Levartovsky, D., . . . Elkayam, O. (2021). Immunogenicity and safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases and in the general population: a multicentre study. Ann Rheum Dis, 80(10), 1330-1338. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220647. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34127481

911. Galindo, R., Chow, H., & Rongkavilit, C. (2021). COVID-19 in Children: Clinical Manifestations and Pharmacologic Interventions Including Vaccine Trials. Pediatr Clin North Am, 68(5), 961-976. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2021.05.004. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34538306

912. Gargano, J. W., Wallace, M., Hadler, S. C., Langley, G., Su, J. R., Oster, M. E., . . . Oliver, S. E. (2021). Use of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine After Reports of Myocarditis Among Vaccine Recipients: Update from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices – United States, June 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 70(27), 977-982. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7027e2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34237049

913. Gatti, M., Raschi, E., Moretti, U., Ardizzoni, A., Poluzzi, E., & Diemberger, I. (2021). Influenza Vaccination and Myo-Pericarditis in Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Investigating the Likelihood of Interaction through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and VigiBase. Vaccines (Basel), 9(1). doi:10.3390/vaccines9010019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33406694

914. Gautam, N., Saluja, P., Fudim, M., Jambhekar, K., Pandey, T., & Al’Aref, S. (2021). A Late Presentation of COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Myocarditis. Cureus, 13(9), e17890. doi:10.7759/cureus.17890. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34660088

915. Gellad, W. F. (2021). Myocarditis after vaccination against covid-19. BMJ, 375, n3090. doi:10.1136/bmj.n3090. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34916217

916. Greenhawt, M., Abrams, E. M., Shaker, M., Chu, D. K., Khan, D., Akin, C., . . . Golden, D. B. K. (2021). The Risk of Allergic Reaction to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and Recommended Evaluation and Management: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, GRADE Assessment, and International Consensus Approach. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract, 9(10), 3546-3567. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2021.06.006. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34153517

917. Haaf, P., Kuster, G. M., Mueller, C., Berger, C. T., Monney, P., Burger, P., . . . Tanner, F. C. (2021). The very low risk of myocarditis and pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination should not discourage vaccination. Swiss Med Wkly, 151, w30087. doi:10.4414/smw.2021.w30087. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34668687

918. Hasnie, A. A., Hasnie, U. A., Patel, N., Aziz, M. U., Xie, M., Lloyd, S. G., & Prabhu, S. D. (2021). Perimyocarditis following first dose of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 (Moderna) vaccine in a healthy young male: a case report. BMC Cardiovasc Disord, 21(1), 375. doi:10.1186/s12872-021-02183-3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34348657

919. Hause, A. M., Gee, J., Baggs, J., Abara, W. E., Marquez, P., Thompson, D., . . . Shay, D. K. (2021). COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Adolescents Aged 12-17 Years – United States, December 14, 2020-July 16, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 70(31), 1053-1058. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7031e1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34351881

920. Helms, J. M., Ansteatt, K. T., Roberts, J. C., Kamatam, S., Foong, K. S., Labayog, J. S., & Tarantino, M. D. (2021). Severe, Refractory Immune Thrombocytopenia Occurring After SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. J Blood Med, 12, 221-224. doi:10.2147/JBM.S307047. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33854395

921. Hippisley-Cox, J., Patone, M., Mei, X. W., Saatci, D., Dixon, S., Khunti, K., . . . Coupland, C. A. C. (2021). Risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolism after covid-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 positive testing: self-controlled case series study. BMJ, 374, n1931. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1931. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34446426

922. Ho, J. S., Sia, C. H., Ngiam, J. N., Loh, P. H., Chew, N. W., Kong, W. K., & Poh, K. K. (2021). A review of COVID-19 vaccination and the reported cardiac manifestations. Singapore Med J. doi:10.11622/smedj.2021210. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34808708

923. Iguchi, T., Umeda, H., Kojima, M., Kanno, Y., Tanaka, Y., Kinoshita, N., & Sato, D. (2021). Cumulative Adverse Event Reporting of Anaphylaxis After mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) Injections in Japan: The First-Month Report. Drug Saf, 44(11), 1209-1214. doi:10.1007/s40264-021-01104-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34347278

924. In brief: Myocarditis with the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. (2021). Med Lett Drugs Ther, 63(1629), e9. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34544112https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3454412

925. Ioannou, A. (2021a). Myocarditis should be considered in those with a troponin rise and unobstructed coronary arteries following Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination. QJM. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcab231. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34463755

926. Ioannou, A. (2021b). T2 mapping should be utilised in cases of suspected myocarditis to confirm an acute inflammatory process. QJM. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcab326. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34931681

927. Isaak, A., Feisst, A., & Luetkens, J. A. (2021). Myocarditis Following COVID-19 Vaccination. Radiology, 301(1), E378-E379. doi:10.1148/radiol.2021211766. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34342500

928. Istampoulouoglou, I., Dimitriou, G., Spani, S., Christ, A., Zimmermanns, B., Koechlin, S., . . . Leuppi-Taegtmeyer, A. B. (2021). Myocarditis and pericarditis in association with COVID-19 mRNA-vaccination: cases from a regional pharmacovigilance centre. Glob Cardiol Sci Pract, 2021(3), e202118. doi:10.21542/gcsp.2021.18. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34805376

929. Jaafar, R., Boschi, C., Aherfi, S., Bancod, A., Le Bideau, M., Edouard, S., . . . La Scola, B. (2021). High Individual Heterogeneity of Neutralizing Activities against the Original Strain and Nine Different Variants of SARS-CoV-2. Viruses, 13(11). doi:10.3390/v13112177. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34834983

930. Jain, S. S., Steele, J. M., Fonseca, B., Huang, S., Shah, S., Maskatia, S. A., . . . Grosse-Wortmann, L. (2021). COVID-19 Vaccination-Associated Myocarditis in Adolescents. Pediatrics, 148(5). doi:10.1542/peds.2021-053427. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34389692

931. Jhaveri, R., Adler-Shohet, F. C., Blyth, C. C., Chiotos, K., Gerber, J. S., Green, M., . . . Zaoutis, T. (2021). Weighing the Risks of Perimyocarditis With the Benefits of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination in Adolescents. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc, 10(10), 937-939. doi:10.1093/jpids/piab061. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34270752

932. Kaneta, K., Yokoi, K., Jojima, K., Kotooka, N., & Node, K. (2021). Young Male With Myocarditis Following mRNA-1273 Vaccination Against Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19). Circ J. doi:10.1253/circj.CJ-21-0818. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34744118

933. Kaul, R., Sreenivasan, J., Goel, A., Malik, A., Bandyopadhyay, D., Jin, C., . . . Panza, J. A. (2021). Myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc, 36, 100872. doi:10.1016/j.ijcha.2021.100872. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34568540

934. Khogali, F., & Abdelrahman, R. (2021). Unusual Presentation of Acute Perimyocarditis Following SARS-COV-2 mRNA-1237 Moderna Vaccination. Cureus, 13(7), e16590. doi:10.7759/cureus.16590. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34447639

935. Kim, H. W., Jenista, E. R., Wendell, D. C., Azevedo, C. F., Campbell, M. J., Darty, S. N., . . . Kim, R. J. (2021). Patients With Acute Myocarditis Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination. JAMA Cardiol, 6(10), 1196-1201. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2021.2828. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34185046

936. Kim, I. C., Kim, H., Lee, H. J., Kim, J. Y., & Kim, J. Y. (2021). Cardiac Imaging of Acute Myocarditis Following COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination. J Korean Med Sci, 36(32), e229. doi:10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e229. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34402228

937. King, W. W., Petersen, M. R., Matar, R. M., Budweg, J. B., Cuervo Pardo, L., & Petersen, J. W. (2021). Myocarditis following mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, a case series. Am Heart J Plus, 8, 100042. doi:10.1016/j.ahjo.2021.100042. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34396358

938. Klein, N. P., Lewis, N., Goddard, K., Fireman, B., Zerbo, O., Hanson, K. E., . . . Weintraub, E. S. (2021). Surveillance for Adverse Events After COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination. JAMA, 326(14), 1390-1399. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.15072. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34477808

939. Klimek, L., Bergmann, K. C., Brehler, R., Pfutzner, W., Zuberbier, T., Hartmann, K., . . . Worm, M. (2021). Practical handling of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines: A position paper from German and Austrian Allergy Societies AeDA, DGAKI, GPA and OGAI. Allergo J Int, 1-17. doi:10.1007/s40629-021-00165-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33898162

940. Klimek, L., Novak, N., Hamelmann, E., Werfel, T., Wagenmann, M., Taube, C., . . . Worm, M. (2021). Severe allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in Great Britain and USA: Position statement of the German Allergy Societies: Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) and Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA). Allergo J Int, 30(2), 51-55. doi:10.1007/s40629-020-00160-4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33643776

941. Kohli, U., Desai, L., Chowdhury, D., Harahsheh, A. S., Yonts, A. B., Ansong, A., . . . Ang, J. Y. (2021). mRNA Coronavirus-19 Vaccine-Associated Myopericarditis in Adolescents: A Survey Study. J Pediatr. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.12.025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34952008

942. Kostoff, R. N., Calina, D., Kanduc, D., Briggs, M. B., Vlachoyiannopoulos, P., Svistunov, A. A., & Tsatsakis, A. (2021a). Erratum to “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?” [Toxicol. Rep. 8C (2021) 1665-1684 / 1193]. Toxicol Rep, 8, 1981. doi:10.1016/j.toxrep.2021.10.003. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34642628

943. Kostoff, R. N., Calina, D., Kanduc, D., Briggs, M. B., Vlachoyiannopoulos, P., Svistunov, A. A., & Tsatsakis, A. (2021b). Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19? Toxicol Rep, 8, 1665-1684. doi:10.1016/j.toxrep.2021.08.010. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34540594

944. Kremsner, P. G., Mann, P., Kroidl, A., Leroux-Roels, I., Schindler, C., Gabor, J. J., . . . Group, C.-N.-S. (2021). Safety and immunogenicity of an mRNA-lipid nanoparticle vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 : A phase 1 randomized clinical trial. Wien Klin Wochenschr, 133(17-18), 931-941. doi:10.1007/s00508-021-01922-y. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34378087

945. Kustin, T., Harel, N., Finkel, U., Perchik, S., Harari, S., Tahor, M., . . . Stern, A. (2021). Evidence for increased breakthrough rates of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in BNT162b2-mRNA-vaccinated individuals. Nat Med, 27(8), 1379-1384. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01413-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34127854

946. Kwan, M. Y. W., Chua, G. T., Chow, C. B., Tsao, S. S. L., To, K. K. W., Yuen, K. Y., . . . Ip, P. (2021). mRNA COVID vaccine and myocarditis in adolescents. Hong Kong Med J, 27(5), 326-327. doi:10.12809/hkmj215120. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34393110

947. Lee, E., Chew, N. W. S., Ng, P., & Yeo, T. J. (2021). Reply to “Letter to the editor: Myocarditis should be considered in those with a troponin rise and unobstructed coronary arteries following PfizerBioNTech COVID-19 vaccination”. QJM. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcab232. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34463770

948. Lee, E. J., Cines, D. B., Gernsheimer, T., Kessler, C., Michel, M., Tarantino, M. D., . . . Bussel, J. B. (2021). Thrombocytopenia following Pfizer and Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Am J Hematol, 96(5), 534-537. doi:10.1002/ajh.26132. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33606296

949. Levin, D., Shimon, G., Fadlon-Derai, M., Gershovitz, L., Shovali, A., Sebbag, A., . . . Gordon, B. (2021). Myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination – A case series. Vaccine, 39(42), 6195-6200. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.09.004. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34535317

950. Li, J., Hui, A., Zhang, X., Yang, Y., Tang, R., Ye, H., . . . Zhu, F. (2021). Safety and immunogenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b1 mRNA vaccine in younger and older Chinese adults: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 1 study. Nat Med, 27(6), 1062-1070. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01330-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33888900

951. Li, M., Yuan, J., Lv, G., Brown, J., Jiang, X., & Lu, Z. K. (2021). Myocarditis and Pericarditis following COVID-19 Vaccination: Inequalities in Age and Vaccine Types. J Pers Med, 11(11). doi:10.3390/jpm11111106. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34834458

952. Lim, Y., Kim, M. C., Kim, K. H., Jeong, I. S., Cho, Y. S., Choi, Y. D., & Lee, J. E. (2021). Case Report: Acute Fulminant Myocarditis and Cardiogenic Shock After Messenger RNA Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination Requiring Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Front Cardiovasc Med, 8, 758996. doi:10.3389/fcvm.2021.758996. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34778411

953. Long, S. S. (2021). Important Insights into Myopericarditis after the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Adolescents. J Pediatr, 238, 5. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.07.057. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34332972

954. Luk, A., Clarke, B., Dahdah, N., Ducharme, A., Krahn, A., McCrindle, B., . . . McDonald, M. (2021). Myocarditis and Pericarditis After COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination: Practical Considerations for Care Providers. Can J Cardiol, 37(10), 1629-1634. doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2021.08.001. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34375696

955. Madelon, N., Lauper, K., Breville, G., Sabater Royo, I., Goldstein, R., Andrey, D. O., . . . Eberhardt, C. S. (2021). Robust T cell responses in anti-CD20 treated patients following COVID-19 vaccination: a prospective cohort study. Clin Infect Dis. doi:10.1093/cid/ciab954. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34791081

956. Mangat, C., & Milosavljevic, N. (2021). BNT162b2 Vaccination during Pregnancy Protects Both the Mother and Infant: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Antibodies Persistently Positive in an Infant at 6 Months of Age. Case Rep Pediatr, 2021, 6901131. doi:10.1155/2021/6901131. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34676123

957. Mark, C., Gupta, S., Punnett, A., Upton, J., Orkin, J., Atkinson, A., . . . Alexander, S. (2021). Safety of administration of BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccine in youths and young adults with a history of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and allergy to PEG-asparaginase. Pediatr Blood Cancer, 68(11), e29295. doi:10.1002/pbc.29295. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34398511

958. Martins-Filho, P. R., Quintans-Junior, L. J., de Souza Araujo, A. A., Sposato, K. B., Souza Tavares, C. S., Gurgel, R. Q., . . . Santos, V. S. (2021). Socio-economic inequalities and COVID-19 incidence and mortality in Brazilian children: a nationwide register-based study. Public Health, 190, 4-6. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2020.11.005. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33316478

959. McLean, K., & Johnson, T. J. (2021). Myopericarditis in a previously healthy adolescent male following COVID-19 vaccination: A case report. Acad Emerg Med, 28(8), 918-921. doi:10.1111/acem.14322. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34133825

960. Mevorach, D., Anis, E., Cedar, N., Bromberg, M., Haas, E. J., Nadir, E., . . . Alroy-Preis, S. (2021). Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine against Covid-19 in Israel. N Engl J Med, 385(23), 2140-2149. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2109730. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34614328

961. Minocha, P. K., Better, D., Singh, R. K., & Hoque, T. (2021). Recurrence of Acute Myocarditis Temporally Associated with Receipt of the mRNA Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine in a Male Adolescent. J Pediatr, 238, 321-323. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.06.035. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34166671

962. Mizrahi, B., Lotan, R., Kalkstein, N., Peretz, A., Perez, G., Ben-Tov, A., . . . Patalon, T. (2021). Correlation of SARS-CoV-2-breakthrough infections to time-from-vaccine. Nat Commun, 12(1), 6379. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-26672-3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34737312

963. Moffitt, K., Cheung, E., Yeung, T., Stamoulis, C., & Malley, R. (2021). Analysis of Staphylococcus aureus Transcriptome in Pediatric Soft Tissue Abscesses and Comparison to Murine Infections. Infect Immun, 89(4). doi:10.1128/IAI.00715-20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33526560

964. Mohamed, L., Madsen, A. M. R., Schaltz-Buchholzer, F., Ostenfeld, A., Netea, M. G., Benn, C. S., & Kofoed, P. E. (2021). Reactivation of BCG vaccination scars after vaccination with mRNA-Covid-vaccines: two case reports. BMC Infect Dis, 21(1), 1264. doi:10.1186/s12879-021-06949-0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34930152

965. Montgomery, J., Ryan, M., Engler, R., Hoffman, D., McClenathan, B., Collins, L., . . . Cooper, L. T., Jr. (2021). Myocarditis Following Immunization With mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Members of the US Military. JAMA Cardiol, 6(10), 1202-1206. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2021.2833. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34185045

966. Murakami, Y., Shinohara, M., Oka, Y., Wada, R., Noike, R., Ohara, H., . . . Ikeda, T. (2021). Myocarditis Following a COVID-19 Messenger RNA Vaccination: A Japanese Case Series. Intern Med. doi:10.2169/internalmedicine.8731-21. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34840235

967. Nagasaka, T., Koitabashi, N., Ishibashi, Y., Aihara, K., Takama, N., Ohyama, Y., . . . Kaneko, Y. (2021). Acute Myocarditis Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination: A Case Report. J Cardiol Cases. doi:10.1016/j.jccase.2021.11.006. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34876937

968. Ntouros, P. A., Vlachogiannis, N. I., Pappa, M., Nezos, A., Mavragani, C. P., Tektonidou, M. G., . . . Sfikakis, P. P. (2021). Effective DNA damage response after acute but not chronic immune challenge: SARS-CoV-2 vaccine versus Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Clin Immunol, 229, 108765. doi:10.1016/j.clim.2021.108765. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34089859

969. Nygaard, U., Holm, M., Bohnstedt, C., Chai, Q., Schmidt, L. S., Hartling, U. B., . . . Stensballe, L. G. (2022). Population-based Incidence of Myopericarditis After COVID-19 Vaccination in Danish Adolescents. Pediatr Infect Dis J, 41(1), e25-e28. doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000003389. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34889875

970. Oberhardt, V., Luxenburger, H., Kemming, J., Schulien, I., Ciminski, K., Giese, S., . . . Hofmann, M. (2021). Rapid and stable mobilization of CD8(+) T cells by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. Nature, 597(7875), 268-273. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03841-4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34320609

971. Park, H., Yun, K. W., Kim, K. R., Song, S. H., Ahn, B., Kim, D. R., . . . Kim, Y. J. (2021). Epidemiology and Clinical Features of Myocarditis/Pericarditis before the Introduction of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Korean Children: a Multicenter Study. J Korean Med Sci, 36(32), e232. doi:10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e232. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34402230

972. Park, J., Brekke, D. R., & Bratincsak, A. (2021). Self-limited myocarditis presenting with chest pain and ST segment elevation in adolescents after vaccination with the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Cardiol Young, 1-4. doi:10.1017/S1047951121002547. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34180390

973. Patel, Y. R., Louis, D. W., Atalay, M., Agarwal, S., & Shah, N. R. (2021). Cardiovascular magnetic resonance findings in young adult patients with acute myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination: a case series. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson, 23(1), 101. doi:10.1186/s12968-021-00795-4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34496880

974. Patone, M., Mei, X. W., Handunnetthi, L., Dixon, S., Zaccardi, F., Shankar-Hari, M., . . . Hippisley-Cox, J. (2021). Risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmias associated with COVID-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nat Med. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01630-0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34907393

975. Patrignani, A., Schicchi, N., Calcagnoli, F., Falchetti, E., Ciampani, N., Argalia, G., & Mariani, A. (2021). Acute myocarditis following Comirnaty vaccination in a healthy man with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Radiol Case Rep, 16(11), 3321-3325. doi:10.1016/j.radcr.2021.07.082. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34367386

976. Perez, Y., Levy, E. R., Joshi, A. Y., Virk, A., Rodriguez-Porcel, M., Johnson, M., . . . Swift, M. D. (2021). Myocarditis Following COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine: A Case Series and Incidence Rate Determination. Clin Infect Dis. doi:10.1093/cid/ciab926. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34734240

977. Perrotta, A., Biondi-Zoccai, G., Saade, W., Miraldi, F., Morelli, A., Marullo, A. G., . . . Peruzzi, M. (2021). A snapshot global survey on side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among healthcare professionals and armed forces with a focus on headache. Panminerva Med, 63(3), 324-331. doi:10.23736/S0031-0808.21.04435-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34738774

978. Pinana, J. L., Lopez-Corral, L., Martino, R., Montoro, J., Vazquez, L., Perez, A., . . . Cell Therapy, G. (2022). SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibody detection after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: Prospective survey from the Spanish Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and Cell Therapy Group. Am J Hematol, 97(1), 30-42. doi:10.1002/ajh.26385. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34695229

979. Revon-Riviere, G., Ninove, L., Min, V., Rome, A., Coze, C., Verschuur, A., . . . Andre, N. (2021). The BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents and young adults with cancer: A monocentric experience. Eur J Cancer, 154, 30-34. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2021.06.002. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34233234

980. Sanchez Tijmes, F., Thavendiranathan, P., Udell, J. A., Seidman, M. A., & Hanneman, K. (2021). Cardiac MRI Assessment of Nonischemic Myocardial Inflammation: State of the Art Review and Update on Myocarditis Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination. Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging, 3(6), e210252. doi:10.1148/ryct.210252. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34934954

981. Schauer, J., Buddhe, S., Colyer, J., Sagiv, E., Law, Y., Mallenahalli Chikkabyrappa, S., & Portman, M. A. (2021). Myopericarditis After the Pfizer Messenger Ribonucleic Acid Coronavirus Disease Vaccine in Adolescents. J Pediatr, 238, 317-320. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.06.083. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34228985

982. Schneider, J., Sottmann, L., Greinacher, A., Hagen, M., Kasper, H. U., Kuhnen, C., . . . Schmeling, A. (2021). Postmortem investigation of fatalities following vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines. Int J Legal Med, 135(6), 2335-2345. doi:10.1007/s00414-021-02706-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34591186

983. Schramm, R., Costard-Jackle, A., Rivinius, R., Fischer, B., Muller, B., Boeken, U., . . . Gummert, J. (2021). Poor humoral and T-cell response to two-dose SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA vaccine BNT162b2 in cardiothoracic transplant recipients. Clin Res Cardiol, 110(8), 1142-1149. doi:10.1007/s00392-021-01880-5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34241676

984. Sessa, F., Salerno, M., Esposito, M., Di Nunno, N., Zamboni, P., & Pomara, C. (2021). Autopsy Findings and Causality Relationship between Death and COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review. J Clin Med, 10(24). doi:10.3390/jcm10245876. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34945172

985. Sharif, N., Alzahrani, K. J., Ahmed, S. N., & Dey, S. K. (2021). Efficacy, Immunogenicity and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Immunol, 12, 714170. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.714170. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34707602

986. Shay, D. K., Gee, J., Su, J. R., Myers, T. R., Marquez, P., Liu, R., . . . Shimabukuro, T. T. (2021). Safety Monitoring of the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 Vaccine – United States, March-April 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 70(18), 680-684. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7018e2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33956784

987. Shazley, O., & Alshazley, M. (2021). A COVID-Positive 52-Year-Old Man Presented With Venous Thromboembolism and Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Following Johnson & Johnson Vaccination: A Case-Study. Cureus, 13(7), e16383. doi:10.7759/cureus.16383. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34408937

988. Shiyovich, A., Witberg, G., Aviv, Y., Eisen, A., Orvin, K., Wiessman, M., . . . Hamdan, A. (2021). Myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination: magnetic resonance imaging study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. doi:10.1093/ehjci/jeab230. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34739045

989. Simone, A., Herald, J., Chen, A., Gulati, N., Shen, A. Y., Lewin, B., & Lee, M. S. (2021). Acute Myocarditis Following COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination in Adults Aged 18 Years or Older. JAMA Intern Med, 181(12), 1668-1670. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.5511. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34605853

990. Singer, M. E., Taub, I. B., & Kaelber, D. C. (2021). Risk of Myocarditis from COVID-19 Infection in People Under Age 20: A Population-Based Analysis. medRxiv. doi:10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34341797

991. Smith, C., Odd, D., Harwood, R., Ward, J., Linney, M., Clark, M., . . . Fraser, L. K. (2021). Deaths in children and young people in England after SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first pandemic year. Nat Med. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01578-1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34764489

992. Snapiri, O., Rosenberg Danziger, C., Shirman, N., Weissbach, A., Lowenthal, A., Ayalon, I., . . . Bilavsky, E. (2021). Transient Cardiac Injury in Adolescents Receiving the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine. Pediatr Infect Dis J, 40(10), e360-e363. doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000003235. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34077949

993. Spinner, J. A., Julien, C. L., Olayinka, L., Dreyer, W. J., Bocchini, C. E., Munoz, F. M., & Devaraj, S. (2021). SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibodies after vaccination in pediatric heart transplantation: A first report. J Heart Lung Transplant. doi:10.1016/j.healun.2021.11.001. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34911654

994. Starekova, J., Bluemke, D. A., Bradham, W. S., Grist, T. M., Schiebler, M. L., & Reeder, S. B. (2021). Myocarditis Associated with mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination. Radiology, 301(2), E409-E411. doi:10.1148/radiol.2021211430. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34282971

995. Sulemankhil, I., Abdelrahman, M., & Negi, S. I. (2021). Temporal association between the COVID-19 Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and acute myocarditis: A case report and literature review. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. doi:10.1016/j.carrev.2021.08.012. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34420869

996. Tailor, P. D., Feighery, A. M., El-Sabawi, B., & Prasad, A. (2021). Case report: acute myocarditis following the second dose of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Eur Heart J Case Rep, 5(8), ytab319. doi:10.1093/ehjcr/ytab319. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34514306

997. Takeda, M., Ishio, N., Shoji, T., Mori, N., Matsumoto, M., & Shikama, N. (2021). Eosinophilic Myocarditis Following Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination. Circ J. doi:10.1253/circj.CJ-21-0935. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34955479

998. Team, C. C.-R., Food, & Drug, A. (2021). Allergic Reactions Including Anaphylaxis After Receipt of the First Dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine – United States, December 14-23, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 70(2), 46-51. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7002e1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33444297

999. Thompson, M. G., Burgess, J. L., Naleway, A. L., Tyner, H., Yoon, S. K., Meece, J., . . . Gaglani, M. (2021). Prevention and Attenuation of Covid-19 with the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Vaccines. N Engl J Med, 385(4), 320-329. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2107058. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34192428

1000. Tinoco, M., Leite, S., Faria, B., Cardoso, S., Von Hafe, P., Dias, G., . . . Lourenco, A. (2021). Perimyocarditis Following COVID-19 Vaccination. Clin Med Insights Cardiol, 15, 11795468211056634. doi:10.1177/11795468211056634. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34866957

1001. Truong, D. T., Dionne, A., Muniz, J. C., McHugh, K. E., Portman, M. A., Lambert, L. M., . . . Newburger, J. W. (2021). Clinically Suspected Myocarditis Temporally Related to COVID-19 Vaccination in Adolescents and Young Adults. Circulation. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056583. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34865500

1002. Tutor, A., Unis, G., Ruiz, B., Bolaji, O. A., & Bob-Manuel, T. (2021). Spectrum of Suspected Cardiomyopathy Due to COVID-19: A Case Series. Curr Probl Cardiol, 46(10), 100926. doi:10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2021.100926. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34311983

1003. Umei, T. C., Kishino, Y., Shiraishi, Y., Inohara, T., Yuasa, S., & Fukuda, K. (2021). Recurrence of myopericarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in a male adolescent. CJC Open. doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2021.12.002. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34904134

1004. Vidula, M. K., Ambrose, M., Glassberg, H., Chokshi, N., Chen, T., Ferrari, V. A., & Han, Y. (2021). Myocarditis and Other Cardiovascular Complications of the mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccines. Cureus, 13(6), e15576. doi:10.7759/cureus.15576. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34277198

1005. Visclosky, T., Theyyunni, N., Klekowski, N., & Bradin, S. (2021). Myocarditis Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine. Pediatr Emerg Care, 37(11), 583-584. doi:10.1097/PEC.0000000000002557. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34731877

1006. Warren, C. M., Snow, T. T., Lee, A. S., Shah, M. M., Heider, A., Blomkalns, A., . . . Nadeau, K. C. (2021). Assessment of Allergic and Anaphylactic Reactions to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines With Confirmatory Testing in a US Regional Health System. JAMA Netw Open, 4(9), e2125524. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.25524. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34533570

1007. Watkins, K., Griffin, G., Septaric, K., & Simon, E. L. (2021). Myocarditis after BNT162b2 vaccination in a healthy male. Am J Emerg Med, 50, 815 e811-815 e812. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2021.06.051. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34229940

1008. Weitzman, E. R., Sherman, A. C., & Levy, O. (2021). SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine Attitudes as Expressed in U.S. FDA Public Commentary: Need for a Public-Private Partnership in a Learning Immunization System. Front Public Health, 9, 695807. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.695807. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34336774

1009. Welsh, K. J., Baumblatt, J., Chege, W., Goud, R., & Nair, N. (2021). Thrombocytopenia including immune thrombocytopenia after receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Vaccine, 39(25), 3329-3332. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.04.054. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34006408

1010. Witberg, G., Barda, N., Hoss, S., Richter, I., Wiessman, M., Aviv, Y., . . . Kornowski, R. (2021). Myocarditis after Covid-19 Vaccination in a Large Health Care Organization. N Engl J Med, 385(23), 2132-2139. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2110737. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34614329

1011. Zimmermann, P., & Curtis, N. (2020). Why is COVID-19 less severe in children? A review of the proposed mechanisms underlying the age-related difference in severity of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Arch Dis Child. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2020-320338. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33262177

Abstract

Our group has been using the PULS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences, Inc, Irvine, CA) a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers which generates a score predicting the 5 yr risk (percentage chance) of a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The score is based on changes from the norm of multiple protein biomarkers including IL-16, a proinflammatory cytokine, soluble Fas, an inducer of apoptosis, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF)which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue, among other markers. Elevation above the norm increases the PULS score, while decreases below the norm lowers the PULS score.The score has been measured every 3-6 months in our patient population for 8 years.

Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients.This report summarizes those results.

A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk.

At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.