Prominent Canadian physician Dr. Charles Hoffe has spoken out courageously to warn people of the very serious dangers of the Covid mRNA genetic “vaccines”. He now faces trial from the Canadian health authorities aiming to silence him and effectively destroy his medical practice.
What is most disturbing about this unprecedented case is that, if the prosecution gets its way, all the evidence produced by the State claiming the Covid vaccines are “safe and effective” will be deemed indisputable, irrefutable — and Dr. Hoffe would not be able to defend himself or call expert witnesses!
In other words, a totalitarian show trial designed to intimidate all doctors and patients who value medical freedom of choice, the right to a fair trial, freedom of speech, and medical ethics.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, where Dr. Hoffe practices, had scheduled the disciplinary hearing for March 4th through March 15th. But at the last minute, the College pulled a fast one.
“When [the College] saw the mountain of evidence stacked against them, and against the public health narrative, obviously they panicked because I don’t think they realized how vigorous our opposition was going to be,” explains Hoffe in a March 7th interview.[1]
As a countermeasure, the College dumped a massive trove of documents on Dr. Hoffe’s lawyer AND invoked an almost unheard-of legal trick called Judicial Notice, which means the disciplinary Panel would accept all the College’s basic assertions as uncontestably true. Hoffe’s voluminous evidence — both from his own private practice as a family doctor and from the scientific literature — that the Covid mRNA vaccines cause widespread death, neurological problems, micro-clotting, infertility, immune-system damage, and other severe adverse side effects would be inadmissible.
Given this outrageous legal trick, Dr. Hoffe’s lawyer had no choice but to request an adjournment and hire four more attorneys to sift through the College’s eleventh-hour document-dump.
If the Disciplinary Committee implements Judicial Notice, explains Dr. Hoffe,
“I would have no opportunity to testify in my defense, nor would any of [my eight] expert witnesses….It would render this literally a kangaroo court. This is an astonishing act of injustice, where you literally accuse somebody of something and then remove their ability to defend themselves.”[2]
The government’s objective, he says, is “to try to make an example of me and make sure all the other doctors toe the line and keep quiet and just obey.” Dr. Hoffe, who is widely regarded as a heroic truth-teller across much of Canada, comes across as a down-to-earth man of great integrity, honesty and humility. An outspoken advocate for patient safety, medical ethics, and the Hippocratic oath (“First, do no harm”), he is accused by the medical authorities of spreading “misinformation,” putting people at risk, and encouraging “vaccine hesitancy.” After 31 years as an emergency room physician with not a single patient complaint against him, he was fired from his ER position for telling a nurse that somebody who had natural immunity didn’t need to get the Covid jab.
In a speech delivered at the site of the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Vancouver in August 2022, Dr. Hoffe declared:
“What we have seen in the last 18 months since the start of the vaccine rollout is the biggest disaster in medical history. Never before in medical history has any medical treatment killed and maimed so many people….You only have to look at the OpenVAERS.com in the USA. 30,000 people dead, 55,000 permanently disabled, 50,000 cases of myocarditis, and 1.3 million vaccine injuries…This is an utterly failed experiment, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons here in B.C. is the one organization who could have and should have said no.”[3]
OpenVAERS.com is an easy-to-access version of the US Centers for Disease Control’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. VAERS vastly underreports the number of vaccine-induced injuries and deaths, capturing an estimated 1% to 10% of adverse events.
In his March 7, 2024 interview about the upcoming trial, Hoffe notes that OpenVAERS currently reports “almost 70,000 permanently disabled and about 2 million vaccine injuries, and yet Health Canada and the FDA look the other way and continue to tell us it’s safe and effective.” At the time of this writing, OpenVAERS registered 37,231 COVID vaccine reported deaths.
The Covid vaccine manufacturers admit that their poorly tested, highly experimental injections do not prevent infection with Covid and do not stop transmission of the (alleged) SARS-CoV-2 virus.
And yet the charade goes on….in Canada, the United States, most of Europe, Australia and the no-longer “free world.”
Dr. Hoffe has repeatedly pointed out these facts as well as the fact that the more Covid shots you get, the more likely you are to be diagnosed with Covid. This is true of individuals and whole nations. As Hoffe cogently observes, “Every vaccine injury reporting system across the world reports record numbers of deaths and disabilities and vaccine injuries that we’ve never seen the likes of from any medical treatment in history. And yet they completely turn a blind eye and they just carry on recommending that people get vaccinated. It’s absolutely absurd.” [4]
Dr. Hoffe determined that up to 62% of his patients who got the Covid mRNA vaccine develop micro-blood-clots too small to detect on MRI or CT scan. He was the first medical expert to state publicly that these blood clots are not rare.
According to Hoffe, these micro-clots permeate the capillary network in the vaxxed, resulting in blockage of capillaries (pulmonary arterial hypertension); this condition usually kills people within 3 years, and those who survive may suffer steady deterioration, especially if they take another Covid shot. The only way you can find out if the Covid “vaccine” gave you micro-blood clots is to ask your doctor to give you a D-dimer test, like the one Dr. Hoffe has performed on his patients.[5]
This finding alone should have led to the immediate withdrawal of all the Covid-19 genetic “vaccines.” They are indeed “clot-shots” as the critics have warned repeatedly. But the Pharma-controlled mainstream media lies and assures us that both large and tiny blood clots are “extremely rare,” when the opposite is true.
Most of Dr. Hoffe’s patients developed micro-clots within 7 days after the jab, but others may well experience micro-clotting later on as the genetic cocktail (“vaccine”) wreaks its harmful effects on the body.
Another Canadian doctor, Rochagné Kilian, an emergency medicine specialist in Ontario, sounded the alarm on the astronomical rise in D-dimer levels she observed in patients shortly after they received a Covid-19 vaccine. She links this phenomenon to micro-clotting, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and autoimmune disease in the vaxxed. Dr. Kilian lost her job and had her license to practice medicine suspended for warning the public about the very serious risks of the Covid shots.[6,7]
To voice support for Dr. Charles Hoffe, please write concise, polite, yet strong letters to:
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC
300–669 Howe Street
Vancouver BC V6C 0B4
Canada
You could also fax them at 604-733-3503. FaxZero.com lets anyone send up to five free faxes per day to anywhere in the U.S. or Canada. The FaxZero website is easy to use and has no gimmicks or ads. Again, send polite, concise, powerfully worded faxes. The College’s website also has a Message facility (https://www.cpsbc.ca).
Let’s let the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC know what people think of their outrageous, underhanded ‘lawfare’ tactics and their persecution of an outstanding physician/healer.
The necessity of Dr. Hoffe to hire four additional lawyers will involve significant new legal expenses..
To help Dr. Hoffe with this burden, please go to:
https://www.givesendgo.com/GANZA or
https://www.fundingthefight.ca/donate
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Notes
1. Dr. Charles Hoffe Trial Update – March 7, 2024 (video). Interview with Derek Sloan https://rumble.com/v4hvp8x-dr.-charles-hoffe-trial-update-march-7-2024.html
2. Ibid.
3. Covid mRNA Vaccine. Biggest Disaster in Medical History: Dr. Charles Hoffe. Hoffe Gives Riveting Speech In Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-biggest-disaster-medical-history/5790270
4. https://rumble.com/v4hvp8x-dr.-charles-hoffe-trial-update-march-7-2024.html
5. Canadian Doctor: 62% of Patients Vaccinated for COVID Have Permanent Heart Damage. By Brian Shilhavy https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/canadian-doctor-62-of-patients-vaccinated-for-covid-have-permanent-heart-damage
6. Emergency Medicine Doctor shows Micro Blood Clots in D-dimer Tests Following COVID-19 Shots https://www.bitchute.com/video/RwKbDnR8BOzg
7. Government’s Own Data Proves COVID-19 Shots Are Causing Blood Clots, Heart Disease, and DEATH. Brian Shilhavy https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/governments-own-data-proves-covid-19-shots-are-causing-blood-clots-heart-disease-and-death
When I originally made this Substack, I found myself in a very frustrating position—I had something I felt was essential for the world to know (that we were repeating the disastrous smallpox vaccination campaign, its cruel mandates, and the widespread counterprotests against them by the working class). Still, I had no way to get the message out. I tried to find a way to do so for a while, and eventually, Steve Kirsch generously gave me a platform to do so.
Because of this, I have a considerable degree of empathy with people who find themselves in a similar position to mine. Thus one of my goals in building the subscriber base here has been to make that platform available to those in a similar situation to me, and I periodically publish compelling things readers share with me I believe are accurate (e.g., this citizen’s survey of blood clots amongst the vaccinated).
Recently a longtime reader contacted me to share his story. Based on my previous correspondences with him over the last year, I believe he has accurately represented himself here. I also want to note that his story shares many parallels to the treatment of other doctors attempting to do the right thing throughout COVID-19 (e.g., Paul Marik’s experience).
One of the reasons we lack doctors everyone wants to see is because those who try to do the right thing get pushed out of the system. Because there is so much corporate control of medicine, even doctors who want to do the right thing know they have no recourse if the hospital turns against them. Those doctors thus have to choose between toeing the line and doing their best within those circumstances or leaving the system entirely.
Their leaving thus leaves even fewer physicians that patients would want to see available within the corporate medical system. For many things like emergent hospital care, the patients cannot address the issue by simply opting out of the system. These problems worsened during COVID-19, particularly in the blue states, which has created the unfortunate situation where patients often have to travel out of state for the care they need, which is immensely unfair, especially to those who aren’t somewhat wealthy.
I am a physician who stood against the false narratives swirling around COVID and for a time, it seemed like I lost.
Before COVID became a public reality, I was working as a successful Trauma Surgeon and Surgical ICU Physician in the hospital that had the first diagnosed COVID case in America. I was working as one of the more senior surgeons of a team of 12 surgeons. The hospital and medical community had already been struggling prior to COVID with various departures from reality with narratives including ‘racism everywhere’ and ‘diversity as long as it supports deviancy,’ but it wasn’t appearing to dramatically affect patient care.
[Dr. Miller’s surgical specialty currently requires 6-7 years of grueling training after completing medical school and thus pays a high salary. Because of the investment required to obtain it, most doctors are reluctant to ever part with it].
In 2018-2019, I stumbled onto a fraud scheme perpetrated by some of the administrative doctors in our hospital that did cause patient harm, so I reported our hospital administration for fraud. I similarly observed and discovered other connected issues that caused patient harm, by various other providers, that I tried to bring to light in our hospital. I was “rewarded” with 12 complaints filed against me over a 2-week period, in retaliation. These complaints accused me of breaches of almost every aspect of professional behavior and ethics. It followed one of the administrators sending out an email asking her colleagues to ‘get rid of Dr. Miller.’ None of these allegations stood (they were all false to begin with), and I continued to do my job to the best of my abilities in this hostile situation, but it became increasingly difficult. Eventually, every single complaint was dismissed as unsubstantiated.
Then, through February and March of 2020, our hospital had a large number of COVID patients including a real upsurge of many sick patients in early March. A couple weeks later, it hit the news, but only AFTER the virus had passed its inflection point in our hospital and AFTER our healthcare system was not in any threat of having inadequate resources. Things then went completely mad with hype and fear- again, this was AFTER the real infectious surge was past.
Suddenly, our hospital outcomes and quality data became hidden and opaque to us. Prior to this, most all data was openly shared and discussed in quality assurance meetings. The hospital forced upon us a narrative that was pure lunacy and contrary to all available observations and previously available data. A chilling example is the following: I was working a shift in the ICU in late April 2020 and had basically nothing to do because greater than half our beds were empty. We were “low censusing” any nurses willing to go home because there were so few sick patients. I was having a cup of coffee, chatting with the staff and another ICU physician, who was in leadership, when the daily newspaper was delivered. Prior to the paper being delivered, we were all relaxed, jocular, and noting how little work we all had. The other ICU physician picked up the local paper where the main headline said, ‘Local ICU Overwhelmed.’ The article was referencing our ICU, as we were the only hospital in the county. He looked at me, started sweating, panicked, and said, “What are we going to do? We may not be able to handle this!” I replied with, “Pour another cup of coffee and laugh at the morons writing the paper.” He became visibly distressed and left to call the hospital administration about the situation, who confirmed they were complicit with the newspaper article. This colleague was one of the medical directors of our ICU. Our hospital and ICU were not overfull at the peak number of infections in March 2020. In fact, the ICU was never overfull, even after the horrible protocols that hurt so many patients were established. I knew we were in serious trouble as a medical community when clinical leaders started believing the words in a newspaper and hospital administrators more than their own eyes and experience.
[Mattias Desmet’s mass formation hypothesis helps explains how people can delude themselves into a reality in stark contrast to the objective evidence in front of them].
Then, I watched as every policy, practice, and quality metric that makes a trauma and surgical program have good patient outcomes be undermined or abandoned by my colleagues and hospital administration. I filed countless complaints to our quality department for disgusting breaches of care that were now becoming commonplace. I could not turn my back on my oaths taken to advocate for patients. Between mid-2020-2021, following a leak of information from the opaque administration, I learned that our unanticipated morbidity and mortality numbers had more than doubled for indexed trauma patients. It was horribly demoralizing to watch.
[This is an excellent example of a society in decline].
After the vaccine was rolled out in late 2020, it became a functional mandate in the broader community, and then definitively mandated by the late summer of 2021. The medical community in the county I was working in (Snohomish, WA) started refusing to care for unvaccinated patients, except in the hospital setting. I couldn’t believe that patients were banned from accessing basic primary care at first, but then I spoke to a man at my church who was denied both refills of his diabetic medications and treatment for a sinus infection by his primary care provider, all because of his COVID vaccination status. This was so inconceivable that I still didn’t believe it! Even when patients did make it to the hospital, I learned that the physicians and staff in the emergency room were directed to provide a lower tier of medicine to this group of patients. It was less than acceptable, and worse, less dignified, than the care given to any other patients pre and post COVID. I had to verify with physician leaders that they approved of this inhumanity. I found out that all the major healthcare systems in the county had agreed to this action, and drove the creation of the policies that demanded physicians act in direct opposition to their oaths. After discovering this, I departed from the medical community in spirit.
[My observation throughout history has been that when a malignant collective ideology takes hold, only 5-10% will be willing to go against it].
Working with my pastor, we turned our church into a free clinic to care for those ostracized from society. I obtained independent malpractice insurance, and we started seeing patients. People were desperate. We didn’t advertise, but there were so many people seeking basic healthcare that we struggled to see everyone. I did my best to see people in their time of need, but it was hard. I was still working in my full-time hospital position. I just didn’t have enough hours in the day. Most of the people I cared for were seen at the church - they were met with maskless smiles, prayer, support, and free medical care. Sometimes, people would be waiting in my driveway for me when I arrived home in the early morning after a night shift or late at night after I finished a day shift. What became obvious as the most important thing about our clinic, is that our patients needed to be treated as valuable people created in God’s image.
Prior to this experience, I was a seasoned/hardened subspecialist with the best reputation one could hope for in the hospitals I worked. When other doctors, health executives, nurses, and local politicians or their families had surgical problems, I was often the one asked to deliver their care even if I wasn’t scheduled to be working. After our health care system abandoned the oaths we took as physicians, I had an identity crisis and pivoted to putting more efforts into the free clinic, caring for the dispossessed patients.
[Throughout my career, I have tried to volunteer in free clinics because I frequently find they are the only place you can focus on helping patients rather than dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s the corporate medical system requires everyone to do].
Eventually, my work at the free clinic treating unvaccinated patients became known, and the hospital administration learned of it. Subsequently, the real pressure against me started. The hospital responded by opening an investigation of me on synthesized charges of ‘micro-aggression.’ There ended up being 2 separate and independent investigations (one by the hospital, one by my physician group leadership who were working in tandem with the hospital) into my conduct. My colleagues, who months earlier asked for my help and guidance about both professional and personal matters, would no longer return my calls, text messages, emails, or speak to me in public, for fear of being labeled as affiliated with me while in my state of political disfavor. The investigations themselves and the repercussions to my reputation were the punishment. I was treated as guilty, even when proven innocent, by the hospital administration and my colleagues. The investigations eventually exonerated me, my behavior, and my healthcare delivery, but left open the possibility for immediate suspension/termination if I committed a ‘micro-aggression’ in the future. Obviously, this was a no-win scenario for me since micro-aggressions are subjective, undefinable, unprovable, and therefore indefensible. I refused to continue working without an independent mediator, so the hospital gladly paid out my contract instead of mediation and restoration.
[One of the things that surprised me about working in hospitals was seeing things I’d previously associated with high school drama transpire inside the facility—something many of my colleagues have also observed].
Separately during this time, I was reported to the State Medical Board by an outpatient pharmacist for prescribing a 2-week course of Fluvoxamine (an anti-depressant) prescription to help a patient recovering after COVID. This prescription had been banned by the Washington State Medical Association as a treatment for COVID or its repercussions. Incidentally, the patient had a positive response and near complete recovery from her illness, but the pharmacist and WSMA didn’t seem to care about that data point but were apparently offended that I violated their protocol.
By March/April of 2022, multiple other clinics in the county began to accept care for most patients, regardless of vaccination status, and so we wound down the free clinic at my church, transitioning people’s care to physicians in established practices who would now agree to deliver appropriate care. As I had been reported to the state (although no formal charges were brought) and I was being pushed out of hospital medicine for practicing ethical medicine, I knew it was time to leave Washington State. The message to me was clear: if I stayed, I would have formal investigations that would prohibit me from obtaining a medical license in another state. My livelihood would be stripped away. So, we sold our homes and boats, liquidated our assets, and moved to South Florida in May 2022. I was, and am, bitter at the establishment of medicine that committed these crimes, so I planned to retire at age 50 with the move and have nothing further to do with the establishment.
[Dr. Miller made the correct decision. Had he not left, he likely would have been permanently barred from practicing medicine in the future. This illustrates a major issue with the current medical board system].
However, after the hurricane came through Florida in the fall of 2022, I started doing volunteer work for hurricane victims. This included some medical relief work. I realized there is still good that can be done in medicine, that people need healthcare providers, and that by nature, I am a healer.
So, in February of 2023, I returned to practicing medicine and started working as a Primary Care Physician at a holistic clinic where no patient is turned away. I discovered that I enjoy being a Family Physician, too. I lost my prestigious career and my social position, but I did not lose my ethics or integrity. I did not violate my oaths of practice. So, ultimately, I have won. And I’m happy.
I applaud Dr. Miller for being willing to share his story publicly. Many physicians over the years have told me that the medical profession's mistake was surrendering too much of each doctor's power to the corporate medical machine. Over the last few years, we have witnessed a direct consequence of this unchecked power grab.
In the future, I believe three concrete steps need to be taken to address this issue:
The first is that patients living in blue states must create the political will to have their state governments stop pushing these ridiculous actions. Doing so will likely require directly informing the public that most of the laws and policies being enacted are being done to support corporate interests rather than patients—as directly attacking specific violations of medical freedom has been largely unsuccessful thus far due to it being blended into the red vs. blue partisan dichotomy (which is very difficult to shift in either direction) rather than being portrayed as corruption affecting the entire electorate.
The second is that patients need to financially support services and physicians they believe in and, as much as possible, opt out of ones that don't. We are seeing a miniature version of that with Substack, as the legacy media is rapidly losing viewership (since most of what they publish is garbage). Simultaneously journalists are making more on Substack than they did at their old jobs—both of which are putting pressure on the legacy media to stop publishing garbage and making many journalists want to jump ship to Substack.
The third is the doctors need to be much more aggressive in taking their power back (they need to band together—potentially with the correct type of union). The corporate medical system cannot function without them, and there is a constant shortage of physicians in the United States, so that position needs to be leveraged to force the corporate medical system to behave rather than perpetuate the current corporate status quo
The following book represents an extraordinary historical achievement in the reporting of events in science and medicine.
It also appears to be a record of a great crime against humanity.
In 2022, the Pfizer documents, a tranche of 55,000 documents, many of them thousands of pages long, were released via a court order. This was due to a successful lawsuit by attorney Aaron Siri. The US Food and Drug Administration had asked the court to keep these documents hidden for 75 years — until after most of us alive now would be dead and gone.
Luckily, the court did not concur.
We at DailyClout.io, a website devoted to civic transparency, realized that the raw documents were impossible to cover in normal journalistic ways. One reason was the massive scope of the documentation. But another reason was that the documents are written for scientists and medical researchers, in language that only specialists in those fields could really understand properly or explain.
We sent out a call for expert volunteers from those fields on our own platforms, and we did so also on the video and podcast platform, War Room Pandemic, hosted by Stephen K. Bannon. A global audience thus recognized how important it was for an informed public — who had been harried, bullied, and “mandated” to receive Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA injections in 2021-2022 — to understand what was really revealed inside of the Pfizer documents.
As a result of our calls for expert help, we received 2000, then 2500, and finally 3500 responses from volunteers, many of whom are experts in their fields. Biostatisticians, lab clinicians, pathologists, anesthesiologists, sports medicine physicians, cardiologists, research scientists, RNs, and many other related disciplines are represented among these decent, highly-skilled people who offered to read through these difficult, technical documents — pro bono, as a service to humanity (and out of respect as well, in many cases, for their own lifelong commitment to real science, real medicine, and truth in general). Many of them were not only published, peer-reviewed academic authors in their fields, but some were peer reviewers themselves. There was no way, with a group this distinguished in science and medicine doing the labor, that the interpretation of these documents could be dismissed as “fringe,” subjective, or as the work of “conspiracy theorists.”
Of course, managing a project in which 3500 highly trained specialists from all over the world work together virtually on unpacking and reporting on such a massive trove of material, would have been impossible for mere mortals.
At first, indeed, we did not know how to organize the thousands of specialists who offered their help.
Enter Amy Kelly, who is also a heroine of this story. She is a talented project manager, and now DailyClout’s COO; and she has a distinguished background in complex organizational projects in various fields.
Ms. Kelly managed, seemingly effortlessly, to organize the volunteers into six working teams, with subcommittees of expert readers. Under her extraordinary leadership, the thousands of specialists around the globe started to communicate with one another, share their findings, and draft their reports. I trained the volunteers in writing for a general audience, and I also trained our DailyClout editors in editing what was often dense medical language, but with extremely important findings, into accessible reports that anyone with any level of education could follow and understand.
For all of us, but mostly for the volunteers and Ms. Kelly, the next year represented a Herculean effort to turn this material, that one of the most powerful companies in the world trusted would never be made public, into fifty readable reports sharing the most urgent headlines of all — the reports that are now in your hands.
You will see that the 46 reports document what may be a massive crime against humanity. You will see that Pfizer knew, as it appears, that the mRNA vaccines did not work. You will see that the ingredients, including lipid nanoparticles, in the mRNA injections bio-distributed throughout the body in a couple of days, accumulating in the liver, adrenals, spleen — and ovaries. You will see that Pfizer and the FDA knew that the injections damaged the hearts of minors — and yet waited months to inform the public. You will see that Pfizer sought to hire over a thousand new staffers simply to manage the flood of “adverse events” reports that they were receiving and that they anticipated receiving. You will see that 61 people died of stroke — half of the stroke adverse events being within a couple of days after injection — and that five people died of liver damage with, again, many of the liver damage adverse events sustained shortly after the injection. You will see neurological events, cardiac events, strokes, brain hemorrhages, and blood clots, lung clots and leg clots at massive scale. You will see that headaches, joint pain, and muscle pain are rampant as adverse events, though these are not disclosed as routine side effect warnings by our agencies.
Most seriously of all, you will see a 360-degree attack on human reproductive capability: with harms to sperm count, testes, sperm motility; harms to ovaries, menstrual cycles, placentas; you will see that over 80 per cent of the pregnancies in one section of the Pfizer documents ended in spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. You will see that 72 per cent of the adverse events in one section of the documents were in women, and that 16 percent of those were “reproductive disorders,” in Pfizer’s own words. You will see a dozen or more names for the ruination of the menstrual cycles of women and teenage girls. You will see that Pfizer defined “exposure” to the mRNA vaccine as including skin contact, inhalation and sexual contact, especially at the point of conception.
History has not yet concluded its assessment of what Pfizer — and the FDA, who were in custody of all of these documents — has done. We are at the very start of that assessment.
But to me it is clear that the following documents, written by impeccably skilled experts, and linked to primary sources, show that a crime has likely been committed against humanity that is unprecedented in its scale.
We owe the War Room/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Volunteers — some named, most of them unnamed — who labored for a year, and do so to this day, and for nothing more than the privilege of serving humanity, science, medicine and the actual truth — a tremendous debt. We thank Mr. Bannon and his team for so often supporting our call for experts and for helping us to announce the results in real time, as the reports came in. We thank all of the other news outlets, of all kinds, who risked reprisals from Big Pharma or even from the government — which recent lawsuits have shown allied with Big Pharma — who have also showcased the work of the Volunteers, in an effort truly to inform their viewers.
Please share this document with your loved ones if you also find it to be important.
Everyone by law deserves informed consent when it comes to medical interventions — it is actually a crime to withhold it (really many crimes appear to be represented here, but history will sort that out as well).
It has been a privilege to report on this team’s work, and to do all I can as CEO of DailyClout, to help sustain their, and the remarkable Ms. Kelly’s, work on humanity’s behalf.
Sincerely,
Dr. Naomi Wolf
CEO, DailyClout.io
March 21, 2023
Salem, Massachusetts
Note: This article is primarily a human story. The most important parts of this article are the videos (if you only have time to watch one, watch Maddie’s, below) that were compiled and edited for this article. The written details are just to provide the necessary context for the significance of their testimonies.
In the first part of this series, I discussed how the gross malfeasance observed by many in the COVID-19 vaccine trials did not come out of nowhere. Rather, it is yet one more occurrence in a chronic pattern of egregious conduct by the pharmaceutical industry, which has progressively worsened because there has not been the political will to address the growing corruption within the biomedical establishment.
There, I focused upon the events within the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine trials (and the subsequent red flags which emerged after they entered the market), because many at the time had difficulty believing something like that could even happen and it was possible to sweep the issue under the rug, since the vaccines were only targeted on one segment of the population—women. Now, not only has the exact same thing happened (to a very eerie degree) with the COVID vaccines across the globe, but what is happening now is even worse than what happened less than a decade ago.
The best metaphor I have come up with to describe what I’ve observed in the pharmaceutical clinical trial process is that enrolling in one is akin to entering an abusive relationship. The abuser will initially flatter you and promise you one thing after another in return for your consent to enter their web of deception. Then, once they have you, they will break each promise they made, gradually treating you worse and worse, and gaslight ing you into believing that those issues are not really happening. Finally, once they no longer need you, they will discard you and leave you to pick up the pieces (which is often almost impossible if you have a life-changing medical injury).
Thanks for reading The Forgotten Side of Medicine! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
In the previous article , I introduced the concept of two different types of scientific fraud:
While many are comfortable with committing "soft” fraud, very few will commit “hard” fraud (although this cannot necessarily be said of India or China ). Instead, most of the fraud we encounter is soft fraud (e.g., this characterizes many of the studies used to try to debunk hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19). This, in turn, makes it possible for outside investigators (e.g., this community) to read between the lines, identify what actually happened, and determine what the results of a given study should have been, had it not been twisted to provide the results desired by its sponsor.
Conversely, I believe that the general reluctance to commit hard fraud exists because it crosses a line that even the fairly corrupt academic and legal systems still stand behind. However, we frequently see things that come quite close to that line, such as dishonest researchers altering a trial midway through so it arrives at the needed results. Fauci, for example, did this repeatedly with remdesivir to get it onto the market, and similarly, the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers like Pfizer ended their previously promised long-term placebo groups once they got their emergency-use authorizations (which should have required that long-term follow-up), so the long-term side effects of these vaccines could never be assessed.
Note: Although you can conceal most things by manipulating clinical trials, the one thing that is very difficult to hide is the total number of deaths (as they cannot be reclassified to something else). When Pfizer prematurely ended their trial at 6 months, more people had died in the vaccine group than the placebo group (and I suspect that this would have further worsened with time). The report disclosing this inconvenient fact (which destroyed the entire rationale for vaccine mandates) was released over a year ago .
Much of modern (industry-sponsored) science is designed to conceal things that would create problems for those sponsoring the science. Similarly, an ethos has been installed within our culture to doubt our own observations, and instead defer to the evidence-based scientific consensus, as the former, but not the latter is allegedly highly susceptible to biases that invalidate its conclusions. I disagree with this, and would argue that important things can often only be discerned by perceptive anecdotal observations.
Many organized religions throughout history have sought to control their populations by monopolizing the truth, and modern science is no different, monopolizing the evidence so that only a costly industry narrative can constitute "truth.” All of this is why we repeatedly see situations where someone has an undeniable medical injury, and afterwards, every professional they talk to tells them the injury could not have possibly been linked to the medication because there is “ no evidence ” it could have happened (also known as medical gaslighting ).
With the COVID-19 vaccines, we have seen alarming evidence of their harm across the board. For example, so many people are being harmed that VAERS has received more serious adverse events from the COVID vaccines than all other vaccines in history-- 28% of Americans know someone whom they believe the vaccines killedThe life insurance industry shows an unprecedented spike in deaths amongst working-age Americans following workplace-mandated vaccines being forced upon them. However, all of these safety signals are being ignored and dismissed as erroneous products of cognitive biases because they don’t meet the elusive bar for “evidence.”
Our current society has been conditioned to worship “evidence-based” science, and believes that it should be the sole arbiter of truth. One of the core tenets of evidence-based medicine is that the best available evidence should be used to inform clinical decisions. This is now widely interpreted to mean that large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or clinical guidelines produced by committees of ( often corrupt ) experts are the “best” forms of evidence, and thus are the only things allowed to inform clinical decisions.
One of my largest disagreements with this dogma occurs when a situation arises where observations suggest something inconvenient to commercial interests, but the question at hand has not been formally assessed by large RCTs. The observations are summarily dismissed because “there is no evidence” for them. In these cases, I believe that the more limited data point (e.g., a series of similar clinical cases) constitutes the best available evidence, and should be treated as such until more comprehensive evidence is arrived at through a clinical study.
Much of my success as a clinician has arisen from utilizing more “limited” forms of evidence to inform my clinical decisions rather than waiting for an RCT (which may take years to be done) to settle the question—unfortunately many doctors become paralyzed and cannot act unless they have something like that to back them up. In contrast, if you read medical journals from earlier eras, physicians regularly made remarkable discoveries utilizing inductive reasoning, which is why I frequently study those ancient documents.
Overall, I believe there are three major issues with relying excessively upon RCTs:
The first, summarized in this essay by Harvey Risch, is that the value of (perfect) RCTs is heavily over-emphasized. In my eyes, most individuals who fixate on RCTs view an investigation being randomized and controlled as a necessary box to check off, rather than (like Risch) actually understanding what it entails from a statistical perspective.
Secondly, if the magnitude of an effect is small (e.g., this drug might reduce your risk of a heart attack years down the road by 5%), it takes an elaborate and costly trial to detect that faint effect, and it is very likely that you will have a greater chance of being harmed by a side effect than benefiting from the drug. Conversely, if the effect is large (e.g., shooting someone with a gun typically kills them), you don’t need an elaborate trial to detect the effect; a very small one will suffice to identify it. I subscribe to the belief that many useful medical interventions have a large enough magnitude of effect that it is not necessary to do complex testing to tease out their benefits.
The third point is that large RCTs are extremely expensive to conduct (meaning that only industry and occasionally vested interests within the government can fund them, which is why many therapies I stand behind have never been able to achieve this gold standard in research performed for them). The rarely considered cost of doing an RCT frequently invalidates the entire RCT model, because study after study has shown that the financial interests of a study’s sponsor heavily influence its conclusion, and that influence is much greater than any benefit that can be obtained through randomization or controlling for the placebo effect.
Because of the “sponsor bias”, large studies need to have a way to arrive at a sponsor’s desired conclusion without committing hard scientific fraud. Over the years, a relatively consistent toolbox has evolved for committing soft scientific fraud, and those familiar with it were able to immediately recognize it being applied throughout the COVID-19 clinical trials
The essential purpose of the COVID-19 vaccine trials was to do the following:
Be completed in a much shorter time frame than normal so that the vaccines could make it to the market before the pandemic ended on its own (which is essentially what has happened in Africa where vaccines were never used ).
Note: The FDA also understood the urgency to open this long-term marketplace and waived a variety of oversights that would normally be required using the present “emergency” as the justification for doing so.
Come up with something that could be used to justify that the vaccines were “effective” so that the medical profession would wholeheartedly support and promote them.
Conceal any adverse reactions from the vaccines that would make the medical profession reluctant to recommend the vaccines, and, more importantly, ensure doctors would deny any harms they observed in patients during the rollout could be linked to the vaccine (as doctors acknowledging widespread injuries would destroy the public’s willingness to continue vaccinating).
Long before the vaccines entered the market, I started to see the signs that an elaborate publicity campaign was being put together to frame the vaccines as the miraculous “ solution ” to the horrific pandemic situation we were experiencing (which was largely self-inflicted). Once the vaccines became available, that publicity campaign kicked into high gear and became the most aggressive propaganda campaign we had ever witnessed in our lifetimes. I tried to cover some of the most insane examples here:
Not surprisingly, this scheme also led to the vaccine manufacturers having the audacity to use titles like “ Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 [Pfizer] mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine ” for the publications of their trials . Simultaneously, we were hit with the same soundbite over and over “ well we had hoped the vaccines would be effective, but we never imagined they would be this effective .” My colleagues ate that up, and it became nearly impossible to provide any piece of evidence with which to challenge this modern-day miracle.
_Note: I mostly critique Pfizer. This is not because Pfizer is the only bad actor. It’s because I’ve spent the majority of my time reviewing their work (I can’t read everything), and because Pfizer received full approval for their vaccine, it was possible to view many of their regulatory submissions through FOIAs (and their equivalents)_
When I read through the Pfizer trial , a few red flags jumped out at me:
The vaccines were never tested for preventing transmission, and based on their design and my knowledge of precisely how previous vaccines failed to prevent transmission , I did not believe you could take it on faith that the vaccine's efficacy in reducing symptoms translated to the benefit all my colleagues ultimately cared about (reducing the transmission of COVID-19).
The actual benefits provided by the vaccine were very small. You had to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one minor case of COVID-19 (e.g., a sore throat + a positive test), 2711 people to prevent one “severe” case of COVID-19, and since no deaths were prevented in the trial, well over 21,720 people needed to be vaccinated (21,720 is the total number who were vaccinated in the trial) to prevent a single death from COVID-19.
Most of the suspected adverse reactions to these vaccines did not appear to have been amongst the adverse events that were monitored (they were also unlikely to appear in the brief timespan of symptoms being monitored within this trial).
The adverse events that were reported were much higher than what has typically been reported in trials for other vaccines [e.g., 59% experienced fatigue after Pfizer's vaccine, whereas around 10-15% experience fatigue after an influenza vaccine].
The actual benefit that the vaccines provided was much less than these adverse events that were acknowledged within the trial report. Arkmedic did an excellent breakdown of it here .
The noteworthy adverse events about which I remembered reading in the online support groups I had joined in 2020 for vaccine trial participants were not accounted for in any of the trial reports I read (Pfizer included). I had joined these online groups because I was suspicious of the vaccines and felt that doing this would be the only way to find out what the pharmaceutical companies had actually done.
From looking at all of this, my immediate thought was “if this was the best they could do using every possible trick at their disposal to rearrange their data to paint a positive picture of the vaccines, just how bad was the actual trial data ?”
Unfortunately, my physician colleagues (who frequently lectured us on how to skeptically dissect scientific publications) were so enraptured by the “the vaccine is even more safe and effective than we imagined” meme, that all these points fell on deaf ears. Fortunately, some did notice these issues, and Peter Doshi published a series of editorials (summarized here ) in the British Medical Journal (BMJ - considered to be one of the top 5 medical journals in the world ) that explained why the design of the vaccine trials and the evidence for Pfizer’s vaccines was very poor, and could not justify an FDA approval. Sadly, his experience with his colleagues mirrored my own, and his points were almost entirely ignored by the medical profession.
One of Doshi’s many observations was that there were signs in the data that the trial was not blinded, and the entire benefit of the vaccine may have been due to a failure to test vaccinated individuals for COVID-19 (thus creating the illusion that vaccinated individuals were less likely to have laboratory-confirmed COVID-19).
Subsequently, a whistleblower, Brook Jackson , who helped run one of Pfizer’s clinical trials, came forward and testified to the following:
•The trial was not blinded, and protocols that should have been followed to ensure blinding were flagrantly violated.
Vaccinated individuals with COVID-19 were not being tested for COVID-19.
Adverse reactions in vaccinated individuals were not adequately recorded.
Due to a concern that this conduct would violate the FDA’s requirements for clinical trial sites, Brook alerted her superiors about what was happening so that these issues could be addressed. After her pleas repeatedly fell on deaf ears, she eventually notified the FDA directly. Although the FDA did not investigate her concerns, they appeared to have informed her employer, as Brook was terminated the same day.
Note: As detailed by Doshi , there has been a longstanding issue with the FDA providing insufficient oversight for clinical trial sites, and as a separate investigation into vaccine oversight revealed, it was suspected that their laxity in oversight would dramatically worsen during Operation Warp Speed, which was the partnership between the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Defense(DOD) aimed at helping to accelerate the development of a COVID-19 vaccine.
After these events transpired, Brook submitted her story to the BMJ who corroborated her allegations through documents she provided, and through other employees at the trial site. I would strongly recommend reading the BMJ’s investigation to understand exactly what happened there. Since her termination, Brook filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Pfizer which is presently in the federal courts.
Later, when I reviewed the events with Brook, one of the most interesting things I learned is that most of the data which is collected at clinical trial sites never even makes it to the FDA. Instead the FDA only receive a very small sample of it that is trusted to be representative of everything that occurs. I suspect this is one of the many reasons why the FDA could truthfully claim they had no knowledge any of this happened, although as this article shows they are clearly also culpable since they did not choose to pursue getting the reports for adverse events (like Maddie’s) they knew were happening.
In summary, as you can see from the above information, there was a real risk that soft fraud would occur during the clinical trials. However, unlike the many cases in which this has happened in the past, for the COVID-19 vaccine, we also had the unique opportunity to have numerous whistleblowers come forward and corroborate that this happened for the COVID-19 vaccines.
[
A Midwestern Doctor @MidwesternDoc
Whistleblowers are critical for righting the wrongs in government and healthcare. They always pay a steep price, but still would choose to do it again. Gøtzsche's presentation provides the best explanation I have ever seen on what drives the heroes we need now more than ever.
](https://twitter.com/MidwesternDoc/status/1609225914885476353)
Pfizer and Moderna knew quite early on (although exactly how early is a matter of speculation) that there were serious risks involved in using the mRNA spike protein platform for vaccination (this was also most likely the case for AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson with their spike protein vaccine). This left them in a bit of a bind; how could the vaccines they were committed to making for Operation Warp Speed be “safe” enough to win the vaccine race and get the market share they wanted?
As far as I can tell from reading the preclinical documents (e.g., this one ), this was initially accomplished by opting out of much of the safety testing on non-human subjects, which would normally be required before proceeding to human studies (e.g., Pfizer was allowed by regulators to exempt itself from testing for autoimmunity or cancer risks). I took this as a tacit admission that it was known that there were serious issues here (given that there were major concerns with these issues and they have since become some of the most common serious complications of the vaccines). In turn, they concluded that their best option was to never formally test for them so they could plausibly deny knowing that the issue existed (this is a common industry tactic) and claim that there was no evidence that the issue exists.
Once the human trials began, the goal shifted to doing everything possible to minimize the number of inevitable adverse events which occurred. This was essentially accomplished by:
Making it very difficult for trial subjects to report any complications from the vaccines except for a very narrow subset of symptoms that were not a major publicity issue for the vaccine manufacturers. This characterizes both the limited V-safe data (which was still incriminating enough that a lawsuit was needed to get it from the CDC) and the even more limited list of adverse reactions found within the main section of Pfizer’s clinical trial report [fever, headache, fatigue, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle pain, joint pain, or use of a fever medication along with pain, redness, or swelling at the vaccination site]. Furthermore, all of these symptoms were only monitored for 7 days post- vaccination (many vaccine injuries do not occur within this brief window, which was a well known fact prior to the COVID-19 vaccines).
_Note: the more severe injuries in Pfizer’s study were reported in an extremely vague manner ( see page 9 ), which made it impossible to determine anything._
Aggressively reclassifying each serious complication as unrelated to the vaccines (typically by claiming it was in fact due to a pre-existing psychiatric condition or COVID-19).
Avoiding any type of long-term followup on patients which could provide incriminating safety data, regardless of prior commitments to do so.
Because of this strategy, the vaccine manufacturers could not acknowledge any complications that research participants experienced as being related to the vaccines. Instead, all they could do was gaslight the patients into believing that the injury was unrelated to the vaccine, and have healthcare providers collude to create the narrative that the injury was not related to vaccination.
One of the cruel complications of this approach was that it required reneging on the promises that were given to the trial subjects at the start of the research study—any medical complications they received would be covered (because providing any type of help would require acknowledging that there were potential complications from the vaccine). The one, possibly unanticipated, downside of choosing not to help with medical expenses accrued in the trial is that it could solicit the outrage necessary for trial participants to speak out publicly about what happened to them, and for the public to listen…which to some extent has now happened.
All of these potential issues were why the BMJ has repeatedly called for the raw data for the COVID-19 vaccine trials to be released. It is almost certain that the scant clinical trial data we have been provided by the pharmaceutical companies is highly misleading, and that lack of information makes it completely unethical to mandate the vaccines on the population. This is especially true because the lack of data acknowledging the injuries makes it impossible for those who are injured to receive any type of medical care or support (hence, why many providers are now labeling vaccine injuries as long-covid, because it represents the best shot they have of getting help).
When you review these cases, it does appear that they were all coordinated as a very similar playbook was used on each participant. However, I believe this was more of an emergent phenomenon because very similar things to the approaches used here have occurred in the past. Much of what follows is déjà vu from Merck’s HPV vaccine trials, and to a lesser extent these examples also match what friends of mine experienced with complications from other pharmaceuticals that were already FDA approved (as doctors are often very resistant to believing drugs they prescribed could cause harm).
For example, many of the adverse events shown below were reclassified as being a complication of pre-existing psychiatric conditions, and this has been the default strategy for gaslighting patients throughout the history of medicine . I believe the new emphasis on reclassifying injuries as COVID-19 resulted from a climate of hysteria, where anything could be labeled as COVID-19 and there is enough of an overlap between spike protein injuries from COVID-19 to the vaccine itself, that it could be rationalized that many vaccine injuries were actually due to the virus.
To expand the market for the COVID-19 vaccines, a case needed to be made that they were safe and effective for children (who had for all practical purposes a 0% chance of dying from COVID-19). For this reason, we saw a variety of predatory advertisements such as this one from Pfizer:
An individual who was severely injured in the above trial has dedicated her life to making her story known around the world:
Much of the time that went into this article came from editing Maddie de Garay’s story on the Highwire into a shorter version (as I recognize that while the entire presentation is extremely compelling, far fewer people will watch a full episode—as you’d guess it was extremely challenging to decide which parts to cut out of it).
Because of how important I felt this story was for the world to see, I emailed it to Pierre Kory for him to share it (he has a lot more followers), and I would request that you both watch this and consider sharing it as well, because it has a really powerful message:
[
Pierre Kory, MD MPA @PierreKory
Pfizer's trial only vaccinated 1,131 children so a single serious injury would have made the vaccine too dangerous. Maddie's story shows just how far medicine will go to betray and gaslight patients who threaten its narrative. We may never know who else was swept under the rug.
](https://twitter.com/PierreKory/status/1613319015178330113)
Most of what is in this video should speak for itself. A few additional things I’d add though:
Maddie’s attitude is remarkable. I am genuinely amazed that she is not more bitter about her situation, especially given how healthy and active she was before her injury (it is incredibly difficult for people who have serious injuries to come to terms with what has happened to them, and accept that they can no longer do what they had previously been able to do). Instead, she is almost entirely focused on preventing others from also experiencing her nightmare.
One of the issues highlighted in the Real Anthony Fauci is that Fauci has developed a network of principal investigators (PIs) to conduct questionable research trials for his drugs.
There is absolutely no question that Maddie’s PI, Dr. Frenck, knew what her injury was the moment it started (as it had previously been reported in many adults), knew what it meant for Pfizer if the injury was acknowledged by the trial (given how few people were in the trial), and that he had enough influence to shape the medical process which Maddie received so that it would not be something that had to go in the clinical trial report. His choice to initiate this coverup resulted in necessary care (which could have prevented her paralysis) being delayed until it was too late, and he is directly responsible for what happened to Maddie.
The allergist that Maddie worked with who diagnosed her with a faux condition, Functional Neurological Disorder (FND) to conceal the adverse event, according to Open Payments (a required database for pharmaceutical payments to physicians), from 2015-2021, had received $652,650.65 for associated research funding (with the amount increasing year by year).
FND is an extremely disingenuous disease that is frequently used to gaslight patients who have received severe neurological injuries. I wrote much more about it here , including how neurologists lack the insight to recognize what they are doing when they authoritatively throw this diagnosis around.
The experience Maddie had at the hospital was awful, and to some extent surreal, but for length considerations, I cut it from the presentation. Amongst other things, Maddie became much worse after she was at the hospital (e.g., she lost her ability to walk), and believes it was due to her MRI. I periodically encounter people with complex issues who get much worse from MRIs (especially the COVID-19 vaccine injuries). I’ve seen a few explanations for this, and of those, the most likely (but not only) explanation is it being due to the MRI’s contrast agent. Gadolinium is quite toxic for some, but this toxicity is rarely considered in medicine.
Maddie was very fortunate to have a parent who was a nurse. Similar situations are even worse for those who have no direct experience in health care.
They also provided the information at the end of the episode for Maddie’s lifefunder .
[
A Midwestern Doctor @MidwesternDoc
Exactly what happened in the clinical trials is critical to uncover as they are the basis for the lie the vaccines are safe and all other evidence is "anecdotal." Dressen (and others she's found) were erased and left to fend for themselves once their reactions raised red flags.](https://twitter.com/MidwesternDoc/status/1613370463958212608)
Many of the key points that needed to be made are contained within the above clip (I put two different presentations together). The key points I had to edit out to shorten it were:
Brianne was actively communicating with the National Institute of Health (NIH) as part of a study for treating COVID-19 neurological injuries, which were repeatedly delayed by the NIH for political reasons (but was eventually published). In that study, they eventually settled on using intravenous immunoglobulin to treat the injury (which interestingly, also sometimes helps HPV vaccine injuries, but is also an expensive treatment requiring a large donor pool, and thus has limits to its scalability ). I wrote more about Brianne’s experience with the NIH and their study here .
Brianne founded an organization dedicated to helping COVID-19 vaccine injury victims. According to their organization (this was in response to Maddie’s story):
In the longer version of the above presentation, she mentions she and three other individuals injured in the clinical trials (each detailed in this article) all had their injuries classified as something innocuous to conceal them (e.g., Maddie’s injury was functional abdominal pain, Olivia’s T-cell lymphoma was lymphadenopathy). If I find out who the other 3 participants were, I will update the article to include them.
Note: The reason I now post tweets with videos throughout these articles is because Substack only allows videos from a few platforms to be embedded in articles (this matters because most people understandably won’t click through to outside videos). Of those platforms, Twitter is the only one that does not censor or delete controversial videos (I thought Vimeo worked as well, but a month and a half ago Vimeo deleted my entire channel).
Olivia’s story is the video at the top of this article (presented in that way due to its length) and in the Rumble video below:
Although her story is very similar to the others, there are a few important takeaway points from Olivia’s story which may not be immediately apparent.
First, for a variety of reasons detailed here, it’s often difficult for doctors to recognize subtle medical injuries unless they have been specifically trained to look for them . Instead, doctors tend to rationalize all of them as being due to psychiatric issues . What is unique about Olivia’s situation is that because everything that happened to her was so unusual, and most importantly, could be directly observed visually (so you could not deny it was happening), outside doctors were actually willing to acknowledge her injuries. Despite that, this is how Moderna’s PI treated her (clipped from the above video):
[
A Midwestern Doctor @MidwesternDoc
If you are injured in a vaccine clinical trial, they will deny your injury, not help you as promised, and not report it. This story is remarkable because Olivia had such strong evidence linking her injury to Moderna, outside doctors agreed, but even then, this is what happened](https://twitter.com/MidwesternDoc/status/1612625075022491648)
Nonetheless, despite it being unambiguous that her injury was due to the vaccine, Moderna did not pay for her medical care as promised, and did not report her injury. Additionally, the clinical trial site director said she would only be able to acknowledge that the cancer Olivia had was linked to the vaccine if “ more research emerged in the future linking it ” even though this happened at the trial that was supposed to determine if this could happen ( note: this example illustrates a common deficit in critical thinking that exists throughout my profession ).
Although her shoulder injury is alarming (and like Maddie, the physical therapy Olivia was forced to go through to “address” it should never have been conducted), the cancer she has is much worse. Based on her history, there is a very strong case that it was linked to her vaccination, and had this been presented in Moderna’s trial report, would have had huge implications for the many patients now developing cancers who are told they cannot possibly be related to the vaccine, and thus these victims are denied the support they need.
A while back, I was requested to review 865 vaccine injuries that were submitted in a survey to assess the plausibility thatthe deaths described were due to the vaccine. One of the reports caught my eye since it represented a critical incident that was not reported within Moderna’s trial report (see page 40 ), so I reached out to the doctor (who will remain unnamed) who submitted the report and had good reason to be knowledgeable of this patient’s history.
According to the doctor, the gentleman who passed away was part of the clinical trial at Research Atlanta that was paid for by Moderna. He developed atrial fibrillation after the vaccine, and approximately 3 months after vaccination, he was hospitalized (but never vented or sent to the ICU) at Grady Memorial Hospital (which is very close to the CDC).
At the hospital, he received a CT scan, which revealed blood clots in his lungs. At the time, no one was aware that the vaccine could cause blood clots (both Moderna and the CDC had insisted that the vaccine was safe, and had not revealed it was associated with blood clots). The blood clots were then assessed to have been due to metastatic cancer, as there was no other explanation for them, despite the fact that a full cancer workup was conducted which could not detect any signs of cancer in the patient. The doctor I corresponded with (who I deemed competent to assess this question) is certain that the patient did not have metastatic cancer.
The patient was then assessed to be terminally ill, discharged to hospice, and then died in hospice care (which may have been partly due to respiratory difficulties resulting from the opioids he was given for hospice). As you might expect, the clinical trial contacts were notified of what happened to this patient, but they ignored the report.
Augusto was another clinical trial participant who was abused by Pfizer. Fortunately, he was a lawyer and did everything he could to hold them accountable.
The only direct summary I have found of Augusto’s experience can be found within this (shortened) interview (an article was also written documenting his experience here ):
Although Augusto had the same experience as everyone else (e.g., they tried to say his issues were due to psychological problems and his adverse event never ended up in Pfizer’s final clinical trial report), there were also some remarkable aspects of his case:
His hospitalization was initially documented by a senior specialist as an adverse reaction to a coronavirus vaccine (although as the previous examples have shown, this did not ultimately change the course of things).
In addition to the team erroneously reporting the hospitalization which Augusto had directly told them about, the PI who was supervising his case fabricated a medical record to claim Augusto had an anxiety disorder. His injury (a pericardial effusion suggestive of pericarditis) was attributed to COVID-19 (even though Augusto had a negative test) and anxiety (even though anxiety cannot to my knowledge cause a pericardial effusion).
The PI who was supervising his clinical trial site was also the lead author of Pfizer’s New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) study . Augusto’s experience and the documentation he had to support the lead author's misconduct is most likely the strongest argument for NEJM retracting Pfizer’s pivotal vaccine study ( note: in addition to the erroneous COVID-19 studies mentioned here, the NEJM also previously published Merck’s highly questionable HPV vaccine study ).
Augusto obtained the record of another participant who died from a heart attack at the same hospital to which he was admitted, but was not registered in the final Pfizer clinical trial report.
Augusto formally complained to the Department of Justice about this clinical trial conduct, but the government decided to avoid addressing it, despite their conduct being unlawful.
Although many things could be said about these cases (which I suspect also holds true for the other ones I am not yet familiar with), one of the things that stands out to me from these reports is the differences in how Pfizer and Moderna conducted their trials.
In Pfizer’s case, they had a robust apparatus in place to have a team of physicians immediately neutralize any claims that the vaccine could be harmful. However, in Moderna’s case, they just told the doctors involved that the events could not be related to the vaccine and most doctors took those claims at face value (as they did not want to believe the vaccine could be harmful). Moderna, in effect, succeeded through inaction (by not documenting injuries or paying compensation for medical care they were obligated to).
I suspect this difference in strategies was due to Moderna being a fledging pharmaceutical company without an apparatus like the one Pfizer had developed over decades. Fortunately for Moderna, their laid-back approach ended up working out just as well since the FDA just rubber-stamped both of their vaccines.
Regardless of the approach that was followed though, I hope this examination into their mutual research misconduct helps to explain how these “impossible to predict” side effects that were never detected in the “robust” clinical trials could have suddenly emerged once the vaccines entered the market.
Typically, it is nearly impossible to identify clinical trial participants and attempt to re-create what happened within a clinical trial. Due to the diligent work of leaders in this area like Del Bigtree , Aaron Siri , and a few clinical trial participants being brave enough to speak out publicly, we have been able to establish that serious adverse events occurred in all of the spike protein-producing vaccine trials.
More importantly, it should be apparent by now that the FDA has deliberately ignored this misconduct and tried to sweep the known adverse events under the rug. Based on all of this, I can state with near certainty there are other significant adverse reactions that did not make it to the final clinical trial reports.
Note: The fact that news stories like the above (the HPV vaccine trial malfeasance was the focus of the previous article ) received mainstream coverage (e.g., ABC news ) a mere decade ago goes to show just how rapidly the censorship of the media has increased in recent years. It also highlights how consequential failing to report the adverse events from a clinical trial can be for everyone injured after the fact .
Although exactly what degree of underreporting research fraud has occurred will probably never be known unless a legal investigation interviews each participant, as the examples in this article demonstrate, what is already known demonstrates that the vaccines are both ineffective and too dangerous to have on the market. On a more human level, what was done to these trial participants was appalling and needs to be prosecuted, and in the future may even happen if it becomes necessary to restore the public’s willingness to participate in the clinical trials which our medical system depends upon.
A major challenge of politics is catering a message to different political tribes, as each one will support certain messages and vehemently reject others. Most of the work we have done on the vaccine issue has been targeted to further convince those who already have doubts about the vaccines or sway those in the middle (which now represents a large portion of America ). Very little work however has been directed to those who are already committed to the vaccines (since it is largely a lost cause to try to change their minds).
For a variety of reasons detailed in a recent article , I believe the message that has the best shot at reaching those already committed to the vaccines (and motivating congress and the courts to do something) is to prove that fraud was committed by the manufacturers. This is why I attempted to present some of the best evidence we have currently for that assertion here (that Pfizer did not report what is actually in their vaccines). An even more important part of proving that case is showing exactly what actually happened in the clinical trials.
My sincere hope is that this article will inspire others who participated in the trials to come forward, and it is something that can be cited when people (especially doctors) try to argue that the clinical trials proved that the vaccines were “ safe .” I also faintly hope that awareness of this issue can inspire congressional hearings (which did happen previously with the disastrous anthrax vaccines that were forced on the military ). Although I doubt it would ever happen, I believe that the best solution to all the issues outlined in this article is to give trial participants the legal right to sue pharmaceutical companies for compensation if the severe adverse reactions they experience are not included in the final trial report.
Because of the videos, this article was an enormous amount of work to put together. I sincerely believe these stories need to be heard, so if you take the time to listen to them and share the ones that speak to you with others, many would sincerely appreciate that.
Lastly, on a lighter note, one of the practices I occasionally do to calibrate my medical intuition is to guess which fortune cookie best fits each member of a group I am with and then see how accurate the pairings were once they are opened. Sometimes I also go a step further and guess what specific subject the future fortune will address. The one I got today tested as being directed at the readers of this article:
”A dose of adversity is often as needful as a dose of medicine.”
I asked the AI Chat Bot “What was the role of the DoD in covid-countermeasures?” Here is what it wrote:
“The Department of Defense (DoD) played a significant role in the development of countermeasures against COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. The DoD worked closely with other federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to respond to the pandemic.
One of the main roles of the DoD in the COVID-19 response was to provide logistical support and medical resources to help healthcare workers and first responders on the front lines of the pandemic. The DoD also worked to develop and distribute personal protective equipment (PPE) and other supplies to support the response efforts.
In addition, the DoD provided funding and resources to support the development of vaccines and treatments for COVID-19. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a research arm of the DoD, played a key role in this effort by funding and supporting the development of treatments and vaccines through its "Rapid Response Research" program.
Overall, the DoD played a vital role in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic by providing logistical support, medical resources, and funding for research and development efforts to combat the disease.”
AI Chat Bot gets a “F” - for a highly controlled narrative answer, which was fed to all MSM sources, while the “alternative” media did not examine it very much, with some exceptions. It wasn't just logistics or even just lots of funding, and certainly nobody was “combatting disease”.
The truth is much more interesting than fiction:
All Covid countermeasures, including the biological warfare agents marketed as “Covid-19 vaccines”, were ordered by the US DoD as a “large scale manufacturing demonstration” via Other Transactions Authority contracts.
Hundreds of Covid countermeasures contracts became available via FOIA and SEC disclosures in redacted form. Review of these contracts indicates a high degree of control by the US Government (DoD/BARDA) and specifies the scope of deliverables as “demonstrations” and “prototypes” only. In other words, the US Government and DOD specifically ordered a fake theatrical performance from the pharmaceutical manufacturers. Just to make extra certain that the pharmas are free to conduct the fakery, the contracts include the removal of all liability for the manufacturers and any contractors along the supply and distribution chain under the 2005 PREP Act and related federal legislation.
The contracts are structured under Other Transactions Authority (OTA) - OTA method of contracting allows federal agencies to order otherwise-regulated products bypassing any such regulations, as well as financial accountability mechanisms that cover standard government contracting, and other laws that regulate disclosure and Intellectual Property (IP) derived from publicly funded research.
“Other” is a catchall category that is not a contract, not a research grant, not a procurement, etc.: not any normally regulated/accountable government contracting.
Here is a typical contract scope for “vaccines”:
While the DOD/BARDA countermeasure contracts refer to safety and efficacy requirements for vaccines and mention current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) compliance, these items are explicitly carved out as not being paid for nor ordered by the US Government.
This gets even more interesting when we examine some of the redactions in contracts:
I know what is in the redacted part of the above paragraph and it was not hard to figure out. The first redaction under 1.1.1 BACKGROUND is “Fosun Pharmaceuticals”, so the sentence reads “Fosun Pharmaceuticals”, Pfizer and BioNTech entered into an agreement for the co-development\u2026”
Note: the only journalist I am aware of in either “mainstream” or “resistance” who mentioned Fosun was Naomi Wolf, kudos to her. I was in touch with The Epoch Times to try to publish this information, and even they decided to bury the story (but they published my other materials). I did discuss this on Dr. Jane Ruby's show, and kudos to her as well for not being afraid to cover the truth.
Pfizer-BioNTech is really a 3-party R&D alliance: Fosun-Pfizer-BioNTech, and by “party” I mean that one of the three is the Chinese Communist Party. Fosun is a huge Chinese conglomerate that owns a large number of global companies, and its chairman Guo Guangchang is a very high ranking member of the CCP. It is curious that the US DoD awarded $10 billion (Pfizer's Operation Warp Speed/DoD/BARDA contract) to a venture whose substantial equity (and IP) holder is the the Chinese Communist Party. For avoidance of doubt:
Below is the timeline of some of the key investments and R&D deals I was able to identify from public SEC shareholder disclosures, immediately preceding and following the “pandemic”:
Just to make sure, we are talking about the exact technology in the mRNA shots. Here is the definition from March 17, 2020 agreement between Pfizer and BioNTech (p. 4):
The same document describes a data sharing agreement, “pharmacovigilance” globally among the 3 parties. They will count the bodies and share the data with each other:
On the “pharmacovigilance” aspect, there is a 4th participant in this arrangement - the Israeli Ministry of Health, which entered into a data sharing agreement with Pfizer on January 6, 2021 and gave Pfizer (and by extension, US DoD and anyone who controls it, BioNTech and anyone who controls it, Fosun and anyone who controls it, i.e. CCP) access to all their citizens' centralized electronic health records. But don't worry, Benjamin Netanyahu promised to keep the data de-identified. Right.
Side note - Israeli government recently “misplaced” the Manufacturing and Supply Agreement with Pfizer mentioned in the data sharing agreement above (so we know for sure it exists). The government sadly cannot find it for some reason\u2026
This gets even larger and more interesting when looking at the sources of “R&D” financing. Turns out, there were numerous financial backers and co-investors in the BioNTech “venture” in the years preceding the global fraud and mass murder exercise. According to Crunchbase, BioNTech, a tiny company with just a handful of employees and NO PRODUCTS or scale manufacturing, raised $1.7B in 9 rounds of investments since around 2008. Large portion of the money, $1B+ was raised before 2020. What was it for, since no big clinical trials or scale manufacturing was happening then? That's a good question, worth examining at some point. Cursory review of some of the investment rounds indicates wide and very international involvement of a variety investors from US, Europe, UK, Australia, South Africa, mainland China, Hong Kong and Singapore among others. These likely included many government actors: “sovereign” funds, pension funds and the like who often do these investments by allocating money to “private venture funds” (limited partners in a private venture funds are confidential). Maybe I will do a separate article on this at a later date.
Note, many people ask me “what about China and Russia?” when I talk about our own government and DoD engaged in mass genocide of Americans. I answered about China - they are allied with the US DoD on this. The CCP is profiting from the financial windfall of the US government printing dollars and throwing them into the mRNA furnaces where they are driving masses of the brainwashed citizens to suicide themselves. China claims to use “traditional vaccines” - if you believe what the Chinese say, I have a bridge to sell you.
I have not seen evidence of any similar alliance with Russia. This makes sense, because ultimately this boils down to the war of US vs Russia using proxies and alliances (as it always does). This does not mean that Russia are “the good guys”. Simply that the owners of Russia (whoever they are, not necessarily based in Russia) disagree with the owners of the US (whoever they are, not necessarily based in the US). Russia is running the same “covid script”, using knock off RNA/DNA injections, probably buying materials from the same suppliers, and also using war to kill off their own younger population. It's just that they are doing it for THEIR OWN interests, not that of the US and their allies.
Back to this western continent - we have already established that “Covid-19 vaccines” are biowarfare agents, legally not medicines, not pharmaceuticals, and not regulated as such.
Use of Emergency Use Authorized (EUA) covered countermeasures under a declared Public Health Emergency cannot constitute a clinical investigation (21 USC 360bbb-3(k)), therefore these countermeasures could not be tested for safety or efficacy in accordance with US law (21 CFR 312 and 21 CFR 601), nor could compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) or Good Distribution Practices (GxP in general) be enforced by the FDA.
This legal fact was known to the US Government, DOD, BARDA, FDA, CDC, HHS officials signing the contracts, involved in the OWS, and it was also known to Pfizer, Moderna and other pharma companies. mRNA technology has always been designated dual-use, a category of bioweapons:
From the start, “covid pandemic” was treated by the US Government as a national security matter (i.e. war) and covid policy was set by the National Security Council (assemblage of Defense and Intelligence heads), not HHS.
March 13, 2020: “PanCAP Adapted U.S. Government COVID-19 Response Plan” (PanCAP-A) states that United States policy in response to SARS-CoV-2 is set not by the public health agencies designated in pandemic preparedness protocols (Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act , PPD-44 , BIA), but rather by the National Security Council, or NSC. NSC does not have regular attendees from public health agencies and its focus is national security and foreign policy matters.\"
Below is the organization chart from the PanCAP-A document, p.9:
When a known weaponizable tech is given a liability-free, extrajudicial status shielded from all regulations, it's not hard to put 2 and 2 together. The national security, DoD and Intelligence officials absolutely knew all of this. They went ahead and authorized a $10 billion purchase order of this weaponizable tech from the Fosun-Pfizer-BioNTech enterprise (backed by numerous foreign governments including the Chinese), to deliver and deploy it onto Americans, during the time of war.
I think by now it should become clear that the “5th gen warfare” is not just the use of psyops and total control of social media by the FBI and CIA (that's so last century!) It's also not “profits over safety”, “bad FDA overlooked myocarditis” or “big pharma pays politicians for election campaigns”. We are way, way past that. I keep pointing out that if the motive were JUST PROFIT, then the most profitable strategy would have been to ship placebo. They would not be violating any laws by doing so, there would be no adverse events and deaths, the product would look perfectly cGMP compliant, while covid would have gone away quickly by itself. Yet, the governments (plural)-pharma cartel insists on killing and injuring millions of people, obviously limiting the profit potential by doing so.
The current war is the war of the global governments (plural), that only pretend to be at odds with each other, marketing themselves as “left”, “right”, “communists”, “green”, “capitalists”, “socialists”, “populists”, “conservatives”, etc. etc. in a never ending clown show of the political theater. Behind the scenes, the “official enemies” are partners and co-investors into “joint ventures” against us, people of the world. They use taxpayers' money to fund, develop, then “approve”, purchase and deploy prohibited biowarfare agents for killing and injuring their own civilian population, their own armed forces, first responders, healthcare workers, pregnant women and children . To stop this every one of us must start using correct precise language, start calling things what they really are.
This is the fourth part of a series in which Paula Jardine examines how the Covid vaccine programme was conceived by US defence planners nearly 20 years ago as a 21st century ‘Manhattan Project’ for biodefence. You can read Part 1 here, Part 2 here and Part 3 here.
BILL Frist was the 2003-2007 US Senate majority leader who championed the USA’s biodefence projects and promoted the concept of a ‘Manhattan Project’ against a pandemic, described in Parts 1, 2 and 3 of this series. He was also the politician who sponsored the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) Act of December 2005 as soon as the World Health Organisation’s International Health Regulations had been amended to include a provision enabling WHO to declare Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEIC). Critically it was this Act that established indemnity for the manufacturers of therapeutics, vaccines or diagnostics released during the course of a public health emergency against any and all harm caused.
Also working to influence US national biosecurity policy was Dr Robert Kadlec, described in Part 3. Working with him, and principally under the auspices of the Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security (founded by Dr Tara O’Toole in 1998) were other participants in Operation Dark Winter, the code name for a senior-level situational simulation conducted on June 22-23, 2001, designed to wargame a covert and widespread smallpox bio-terrorist attack on the United States. These biosecurity hawks included O’Toole and Tom Inglesby of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies (CCBS).
When O’Toole was nominated some years later to serve in the Department of Homeland Security in 2009, critics warned of her paranoia. Microbiologist Dr Richard Ebright, one of the scientists who, in May 2021, called for a full and unrestricted international forensic investigation into the origins of Covid-19, said it was a disastrous nomination: ‘O’Toole supported every flawed decision and counterproductive policy on biodefense, biosafety, and biosecurity during the Bush Administration. [She] is as out of touch with reality, and as paranoiac, as former Vice President Cheney . . . It would be hard to think of a person less well suited for the position . . . She was the single most extreme person, either in or out of government, advocating for a massive biodefense expansion and relaxation of provisions for safety and security’. Dr Ebright concluded: ‘She makes Dr Strangelove look sane.’
It was Kadlec who formed the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense in 2014 and began the planning his Manhattan Project in earnest. Those involved with him in this commission included Tom Ridge, the first Homeland Security Secretary, Donna Shalala, a former Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, Dr Margaret Hamburg, a former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner, Scooter Libby, formerly of Project for a New American Century (PNAC), William Karesh, the vice president of EcoHealth Alliance and an adviser to the WHO on reforms to the International Health Regulations (IHR), and Kenneth Wainstein, now the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis.
The Commission’s National Blueprint for Biodefense published in2015 called for major ‘reform’. Consider it the blueprint for Kadlec’s Manhattan Project, for the CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations) strategy and for the subsequent changes to the WHO IHR required to make the plan work.
The list of the BioDefense Commissions ‘we must’ demands follows:
· revolutionise the development of Medical Countermeasures (MCM, which are vaccines and therapeutics) for emerging infectious diseases;
· fully fund and incentivise the MCM enterprise;
· remove bureaucratic hurdles to MCM innovation;
· develop a system for environmental detection that leverages the ingenuity of industry and meets the growing threat;
· overhaul the Select Agent Program (which oversees the possession, use and transfer of risky biological agents and toxins) to enable a secure system that simultaneously encourages participation by the scientific community;
· help lead the international community toward the establishment of a fully functional and agile global public health response apparatus.
Three years later in May 2018 when Johns Hopkins ran Clade X, a table top simulation around a novel parainfluenza virus, O’Toole was involved once again. Johns Hopkins CHS also co-hosted with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation the better-known coronavirus simulation Event 201 in October 2019.
It was during a Clade X discussion on manufacturing capacity sufficient to end the fictitious pandemic through vaccination that O’Toole said: ‘Industry are more than willing to help but vaccines are very specific creatures that are difficult to turn to new purposes. We’re going to have to go to innovative manufacturing methods that will require a lot of leniency from the FDA and the understanding of the American people that we’re doing things on an emergency basis so every box in terms of safety and risk assessment may not be checked. But the vaccine is the only way forward.’ [My emphasis]
This was clear advocacy for vaccines as the exit strategy for the Clade X novel parainfluenza virus pandemic, and later once the Covid pandemic was underway, was to be the only exit offered to lockdown.
Today, O’Toole is an executive vice-president of the CIA spin-off venture capital firm In-Q-Tel in charge of a strategic initiative called BiologyNext. In April 2020 in a presentation to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) she said: ‘The bio-revolution is really founded on several core technologies that I’m going to simplify greatly. But it is all about being able to read, write, and edit the code of life. One of the most important recognitions of the past century in science, at least, is that life is written in code. And as Jason Kelly of Ginkgo Bioworks has put it: Biology is essentially programmable . . .
‘Ron Weiss, who is a synthetic biologist, predicted in 2014 that an RNA-based delivery method that allowed you to use RNA as a kind of platform to deliver new bits and pieces inside the cell would be a game-changing inflection point in synthetic biology. And the Covid-19 pandemic is giving us a chance to test that out. You may know that one of the vaccines that is coming on very quickly is made by Moderna. And it is a messenger RNA-based vaccine. So if that works, Ron Weiss’s prediction may come true.’ [My emphasis]
In August 2019 Kadlec’s department ran yet another table-top simulation, the Crimson Contagion. It simulated the impact of and response to the arrival in the US of an avian flu from China. It was a scoping exercise to identify legal authorities, US federal government funding resources and manufacturing capabilities for vaccines. It concluded that $10billion would be required to respond to a novel pandemic influenza strain.
A month later on September 19, 2019, President Trump signed the Executive Order on Modernizing Influenza Vaccines which launched the Manhattan Project by directing various US government departments and the US Department of Defense to propose a plan and a budget within 120 days – by January 17, 2020, to be precise.
Anthony Fauci’s diary, released following a freedom of information request, notes a teleconference concerning the ‘Global pandemic’ taking place on January 15, 2020, a date at which a global pandemic existed only in some people’s imaginations.
On January 23, 2020, after the Moderna vaccine announcement in Davos, Fauci had a conference call with Dr Richard Hatchett, CEPI’s CEO, and the following day, a Saturday, he had a senior leadership update with Dr Kadlec in advance of a meeting with Stephane Bancel of Moderna on Monday January 27. Perhaps Kadlec, Hatchett and Bancel were amongst the unnamed people on Fauci’s January 15conference call.
On January 30, 2020, when the WHO declared a SARS CoV2 Public Health Emergency of International Concern, just 7,818 patients were said to be sick with Covid, of whom only 82 were outside China. As far as Kadlec was concerned, this was now a shooting war.
Following CEPI’s announcement in Davos on January 23, US-based manufacturers Innovio Pharmaceuticals were miraculously ready to begin developing a Covid vaccine, and Moderna already had its funding to begin manufacturing the first batch of the vaccine co-owned and co-developed with Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for use in a human clinical trial.
The legislation that he and Frist had shepherded through Congress between 2003 and 2005 had concentrated power in the hands of the US Health and Human Services Secretary (and the US Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response) during public health emergencies.
The basic goals of the architects had been achieved. These, the American investigative paralegal Katherine Watt has argued, were to set up legal conditions in which all governing power in the United States would be automatically transferred from the citizens and the three constitutional branches into the hands of one person, the Health and Human Services Secretary, ‘effective at the moment the HHS Secretary himself declared a public health emergency, legally transforming free citizens into enslaved subjects’.
The HHS Secretary Alex Azar, to whom ASPR’s Kadlec reported, was the senior legal counsel at HHS when the PREP Act was passed in 2005. Azar co-operatively declared a public health emergency on January 30, 2020, backdating it to January 27.
He then made a PREP Act declaration on February 4, enhancing liability protection for any person or firm involved in developing countermeasures, including Innovio and Moderna.
The announcement said: ‘The world is facing an unprecedented pandemic. To effectively respond, there must be a more consistent pathway for Covered Persons to manufacture, distribute, administer or use Covered Countermeasures across the nation and the world.’
HHS Secretary determinations are unreviewable by the US courts.
Further research by Katherine Watt into another PREP Act declaration for medical countermeasures by Azar in March 2020 shows it effectively sidestepped the Nuremberg Code by stipulating that the ‘use’ of any counter measures ‘shall not be considered to constitute a clinical investigation’ while also removing the right to informed consent. As there is, by decree, no clinical trial, there are no stopping conditions for the use of said countermeasures.
It is startling how Dr Kadlec and his few associates have, over a period of more than 20 years, managed to orchestrate an undemocratic and unethical bio-security coup with global reach.
The Manhattan Project was renamed Operation WarpSpeed when it was launched in May 2020. The involvement of the US Federal Government which through the NIAID owns the patent for the spike protein used in the vaccines, and its Department of Defense that ran and financed Operation WarpSpeed, arguably elevates this War on Microbes Manhattan Project to an unprecedented bioweapon attack on humanity using an under-tested novel injectable pharmaceutical.
This is the third part of a series in which Paula Jardine examines how the Covid vaccine programme was conceived by US defence planners nearly 20 years ago as a 21st century ‘Manhattan Project’ for biodefence. You can read Part 1 here and Part 2 here.
WHEN it comes to the business of vaccines and biosecurity, the land of free enterprise is all up for large-scale state intervention to create and prop up markets. Some of the generals behind the biosecurity ‘Manhattan Project’ believe the War on Microbes is too important to leave to politicians or Adam Smith’s invisible hand.
In June 2020, former Senator Bill Frist appeared before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, reminding them he’d argued the need for this project fifteen years earlier.
‘I called for and had outlined “a greater than Manhattan Project for the 21st century” with no less than “the creation, with war-like concentration, of the ability to detect, identify and model any emerging or newly emerging infection, natural or otherwise; for the ability to engineer the immunization and cure, and to manufacture, distribute and administer whatever may be required to get it done and to get it done in time”,’ Frist told the Senate in his testimony.
‘We have a dangerously inadequate vaccine manufacturing base in the United States. This must be rectified. Bottom line: there’s so little profit and so much uncertainty in vaccine manufacturing today. We must establish longstanding public-private partnerships with industry that are sustained and are not at risk of disappearing with each [Congressional] appropriations cycle. We cannot expect the private sector to independently invest billions of dollars developing antivirals and vaccines for novel viruses that we hope we’ll never need to use. That’s not a sustainable business model.’
For some years to come, Frist asserted, this should be the chief work of the nation, ‘for the good reason that failing to make it so would be to risk the life of the nation’.
Whether this idea originated from Senator Frist is another matter. Dr Robert Kadlec, the ‘General Ripper’ behind this new Manhattan Project, was at that time the leading biosecurity official in President George W Bush’s administration. He was at the April 2005 National Academy of Sciences Pandemic Influenza Symposium where an unidentified participant called for funding for a Manhattan-like Project to protect against a pandemic, calling it an insurance policy.
But the groundwork for this Manhattan Project was being laid even earlier. In June 2001, two months before the 9/11 atrocity, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security (CHS) held a table-top exercise it called Dark Winter, simulating a smallpox bioterrorism attack on the US orchestrated by Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. Dr Tara O’Toole, who founded the CHS in 1998, was the principal designer of the exercise, butKadlec is credited with giving it its name. AColonel Randall Larsen, who’d hired Kadlec to work at the Air War College in the mid-1990s, was another designer of the exercise along with Tom Inglesby, the CHS’s current director.
Kadlec became the Homeland Security Director of Biosecurity Policy in January 2002 and soonafter attempted to restart the smallpox vaccination programme. In 2004, he launched Project Bioshield, a $5.6billion ten-year programme which created BARDA, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. This was intended to motivate US pharmaceutical companies to start developing biodefence products (medical countermeasures which are principally vaccines) ‘by providing a substantial guaranteed market, expediting governmental contracting practices and clarifying FDA regulatory requirements for products used in a public health emergency’.
Project Bioshield funding enabled the US government to stockpile smallpox and anthrax vaccines manufactured by the companies Bavarian Nordic and Emergent BioSolutions. Both companies and the industry lobby group Biotechnology Innovation Organization were amongst the funders of Kadlec’s Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense he founded ten years later, in 2014, when he was working as a paid consultant to Emergent BioSolutions.The company, founded by Fuad El-Hibri and originally known as BioPort Inc, purchased a vaccine factory and the rights to manufacture anthrax vaccine for the US military in 1998.
On his appointment as Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) in 2017, Kadlec failed to declare a conflict of interests on his ethics forms, that in 2012 he and El-Hibri had co-founded an international biodefence company called East West Solutions LLC or that he had been employed by Emergent BioSolutions as a consultant. https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/05062020%20Kadlec%20Ethics%20Letter%20Updated%20signed%20pdf.pdf In September 2019, when Kadlec was ASPR and in control of the US national stockpile, Emergent BioSolutions was awarded a ten-year $2billion contract to replenish the US national stockpile of smallpox vaccine.
Emergent BioSolutions was later subcontracted to manufacture Covid vaccines for AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson in the US. However the company’s poor manufacturing standards led to a Congressional investigation being launched in 2021.
Since Covid, the ‘war on microbes’ has not let up: attention simply moved on to the next opportunity to promote a vaccine. Each outbreak seems to follow the oft-repeated pattern of having been preceded by a Strangelove-like situational simulation based on a fictional scenario. Outbreaks of disease, requiring the WHO to declare a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) and public health authorities to announce a vaccination campaign, have a strange knack of occurring soon after the simulation exercises, ensuring the public health community is well prepared in advance.
In December 2020, the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), whose interim vice president is the former US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Hamburg, conducted a consultation with experts for a table top exercise on ‘reducing high-consequence biological threats’ in preparation for the exercise to run at the Munich Security Conference in March 2021. The scenario involved a fictitious monkeypox outbreak. Hamburg was herself a player in the June 2001 Dark Winter smallpox table top exercise and is a member of the Biodefense Commission. At the 2021 Munich monkeypox simulation she was joined by a familiar roster of biosecurity figures including the ubiquitous Sir Jeremy Farrar, his old friend George Gao, the then head of the China CDC, Dr Chris Elias of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, US Senator Sam Nunn who played the President in Dark Winter, Luc Debruyne, Vice President of CEPI, Dr Michael Ryan, Director of the WHO Emergencies Programme, with whom Anthony Fauci was in weekly contact in early 2020 during the time that Covid was escalated to a pandemic, and Arnaud Bernaert the WEF’s Head of Shaping the Future of Health and Health Care.
Bernaert, Gao and Elias were involved in Event 201, the coronavirus table top exercise co-sponsored by the Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security, the Gates Foundation and the WEF in October 2019. In the WEF press release for Event 201 Bernaert said, ‘We are in a new era of epidemic risk, where essential public-private cooperation remains challenged, despite being necessary to mitigate risk and impact. Now is the time to scale up cooperation between national governments, key international institutions and critical industries, to enhance global capacity for preparedness and response.’
In May 2022, the WHO declared a monkeypox outbreak which was escalated to a full-scale Public Health Emergency of International Concern in July 2022. Bavarian Nordic, the Danish headquartered vaccine manufacturer belonging to a Washington-based consortium called the Alliance for Biosecurity, signed a contract with an unnamed European country to supply smallpox vaccines for use as a monkeypox vaccine. The company is a sponsor of Kadlec’s Biodefense Commission, and its largest shareholder is ATP, Denmark’s national pension fund. Other notable entities amongst its top five shareholders include Vanguard Asset Management and Norway’s sovereign wealth fund Norge Bank.
In Part 4 I will examine how Kadlec began preparations for his Manhattan Project two years before the 2016 US Presidential election.
This is the second part of a series in which Paula Jardine examines how the Covid vaccine programme was conceived by US defence planners nearly 20 years ago as a 21st century ‘Manhattan Project’ for biodefence. You can read Part 1 here.
THE name Robert Kadlec may mean nothing to you, but anyone who has watched Stanley Kubrick’s Cold War era satirical masterpiece Dr Strangelove will quickly get the idea of who this man is.
Colonel Kadlec is the General Ripper of the War on Microbes. It is no small irony that the Biodefense Commission that Kadlec set up in 2014 is funded by the Hudson Institute, which was co-founded by Herman Kahn, the Rand Corporation war gamer. Kahn’s theory that nuclear war could be deterred if the Soviet Union believed the United States had second strike capability was the inspiration for Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove character and the film.
Kadlecbegan his career as an Air Force physician before he diverted into the world of biological weapons during the first Gulf War of 1990-91. He became an intelligence analyst for the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) on chemical and biological weapons. He subsequently became a member of the UN Weapons Inspection team in Iraq led by Dr David Kelly, who was found dead in 2003.
Kadlec was later (2014) to tell the House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security that ‘while the United States was victorious in 1991, the scale and scope of Iraq’s biological weapons programme remained elusive despite the most intrusive inspection and monitoring regime ever conceived and implemented by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM).’
No conclusive proof was ever found that Iraq had biological weapons, but testimony in 1995 from a defector, Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law Colonel General Hussein Kamel Hassan al-Majid, intelligence which was later assessed as being of limited content and value, maintained the belief of Kadlec and others that they did exist, providing the pretext for the 2003 Iraq War which removed Hussein from power. This belief was no doubt bolstered in part because in the 1980s the Iraqi Technical and Scientific Import Division had (quitelegally) bought samples of an anthrax strain developed by US germ warfare researchers at Fort Detrick, from the American Type Culture Collection, a non-profit organisation in Manassas, Virginia, that provides samples of bacteria and viruses for scientific study. (Arguably the absence of concrete evidence reinforced rather than diminished this belief in the graveness of the threat.)
Between 1993-96 Kadlec served on the US Delegation to the Biological Weapons Convention. His thinking on biowarfare is set out in his contribution to a 1995 Air War College book called Battlefield of the Future.
In it he argued that biological weapons are the poor nations’ nuclear bombs: they could be made cheaply and easily in facilities with other legitimate purposes, are invisible and, if aerosolised, could be spread over wide areas using an agricultural crop duster. His contention was that they uniquely offered the possibility of ‘plausible deniability’ to the perpetrators because pathogenic agents could be mistaken for naturally occurring epidemics. His particular concern was that vaccines, which are highly specific in what they protect against, take ten to 15 years to develop.
Wired magazine reported on the US military’s desire for genetic vaccines to make soldiers ‘immune to all known pathogens’ in 1996. As if that wasn’t enough of an aspirational Pandora’s Box, it also reported the military’s desire for the capability of targeting enemy leaders using genetically engineered super pathogens ‘so selective in their behaviour they’re capable of targeting specific individuals, verifying their identities by means of their DNA sequences’.
It was immediately after 9/11 in 2001 thatKadlec became a special adviser to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and subsequently appointed Director of Biosecurity Policy in the Homeland Security Department of President George W Bush, where he drafted a document calledNational Biodefense Policy for the 21st Century. This, in April 2004, became the Homeland Security Presidential Policy Directive 10. Kadlec wrote that theUnited States ‘will continue to use all means necessary to prevent, protect against, and mitigate biological weapons attacks perpetrated against our homeland and our global interests’.
Speaking about the need for a Homeland Biosecurity Policy,President G W Bush said: ‘Armed with a single vial of a biological agent, small groups of fanatics, or failing states, could gain the power to threaten great nations, threaten world peace. America, and the entire civilized world, will face this threat for decades to come. We must confront the danger with open eyes, and unbending purpose.’
Notably Kadlec’s 2018 update of this policy went much further. It declared the extraordinary intent to apply the US approach to countering weapons of mass destruction to all infectious disease outbreaks, naturally occurring or otherwise.
Returning to 2005, this was the year that saw Kadlec attending a National Academy of Sciences Symposium on Pandemic Influenza. This centred on the belief of American public health authorities thatthe recurrence of an influenza pandemic with high mortality was both inevitable and posed a grave threat to humanity. Becauseinfluenza rapidly mutates and is not usually particularly lethal it provideda good research model for biosecurity purposes, not to mention a useful tool for advancing policy objectives. The ubiquitous Imperial College London modeller Neil Ferguson told the symposium that disease containment required ‘a concerted international response – probably with teams on the ground chasing cases’, effectively laying the groundwork for ‘all means necessary’ not to stop at the US border.
Though the 1918 influenza pandemic was originally said to have been caused by H1N1 swine flu, today the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) says it was caused by ‘H1N1 with genes of avian origin’. This is based onUS Army researchers who claimed in 1999 to have fully sequenced ‘Spanish Influenza’ (using PCR) from autopsy samples taken in 1918 and a sample retrieved from a victim buried in permafrost since 1918. They said the illness was more closely related to avian flu than any mammalian species.
Ferguson’s modelling on avian flu was published in August 2005, claiming that ‘if targeted action is taken within a critical three-week window, then an outbreak could be limited to fewer than 100 individuals within two months’, but if unchecked up to 200million could die. This was just one of his wildly improbable and spectacularly wrong forecasts.
It was claimed that if bird flu mutated to more readily infect humans, the mortality rate would be more than 50 per cent. Bird flu, which first appeared in Thailand’s huge commercial poultry flocks, serendipitously appeared just as an eight-year marathon effort to have the World Health Assembly of the WHO agree key amendments to the International Health Regulations was coming to a close. The significance of these amendments, finally adopted in 2005, is that they included a new provision toenable the Director General to declare Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEIC) on the recommendation of the WHO Emergency Committee. This mirrored the Public Health Emergency provision added to American public health law in 1983. Covid was declared a PHIEC by the WHO on January 30, 2020.
From 2003 to 2007, only 216 people died from bird flu. The threat and the headline fatality rate appear to have been overstated. Dr Nguyen Tuong Van of Hanoi’s Institute for Clinical Research, who treated some bird flu victims during the 2004 outbreak said, ‘Most people who die of bird flu are poor and not in the best physical condition in the first place.’
Jeremy Farrar’s 2004 paper on the Vietnamese outbreaks says rapid antigen testing was ‘less sensitive than PCR for diagnosis of influenza H5N1.’ Patients were given anti-viral drugs, mainly Tamiflu, which was developed by Gilead Sciences, a company chaired by Donald Rumsfeld, and almost all were mechanically ventilated, which itself elevates the mortality rate. Tamiflu may have been part of the problem. As a recent review of Tamiflu concludes: ‘A cocktail of pandemic panic, publicity propaganda, and scientific misconduct turned a new medicine with only modest efficacy into a blockbuster. It appears that the multiple regulatory checks and balances gave way as science lost its primacy and pharmaceutical enterprise lost no time in making the most of it.’
The 2005 WHO report Avian Influenza: Assessing the pandemic threat itself makes curious, and occasionally implausible, reading. According to this account, the ‘highly pathogenic’ bird flu, as it was usually described, was being spread asymptomatically by wild waterfowl (airborne bioterrorists to Kadlec’s way of thinking) to the small domestic free-range flocks kept by rural families in Asia, and that these birds were transmitting it to people. The real problem according to the business end of the report was that H5N1 bird flu was so ‘highly pathogenic’ that it was killing the chicken embryos used for flu vaccine manufacture. This made finding new methods of manufacturing them all the more desirable. Even better if these new methods could produce more vaccines, faster.
Another conundrum, Dr Jesse Goodman of the FDA told the NAS symposium, was the markets. ‘Markets – that is demand and sales – are the main drivers of manufacturing. No one is going to build factories just for a possible pandemic,’ he said.
The WHO had convened a meeting in November 2004 with all the major vaccine manufacturers to explore ways in which industry, regulatory authorities, governments, and WHO could collectively speed up the development of pandemic vaccines that could be made rapidly and in as large a quantity as possible. It was argued that wider use of seasonal vaccines would make the vaccines more commercially viable and the resulting increased production capacity would enable manufacturers to pivot production to pandemic strains whenever they should be needed.
Senator Bill Frist, the Republican Senate Majority leader at the time Kadlec was the leading bioterrorism expert in the Bush Jr Administration, full-throatedly echoed Kadlec’s thinking at the 2005 WEF at Davos, saying: ‘The greatest existential threat we have in the world today is biological. Why? Because unlike any other threat it has the power of panic and paralysis to be global.’ He also asserted: ‘We need to do something that even dwarfs the Manhattan Project,’ the codename for the US effort to devise an atomic weapon during the Second World War.
Next: Kadlec’s simulation exercises and his conflicts of interest.
In this series, Paula Jardine examines how the Covid vaccine programme was conceived by US defence planners nearly 20 years ago as a 21st century ‘Manhattan Project’ for biodefence.
WHEN Dominic Cummings testified before Parliament in June 2021 and he was asked about the UK Covid Vaccine taskforce, he said: ‘What Bill Gates and people like that said to me and others at No 10 was, “You need to think of this much more like some of the classic programmes of the past – the Manhattan Project in World War Two or the Apollo programme – and build it all in parallel. In normal Government accounting terms, that is completely crazy, because if nothing works out you have spent literally billions building all these things up, and the end result is nothing – you get zero for it, it’s all waste.’
Gates is the promoter, facilitator and profiteer-in-chief of the great vaccine Manhattan Project but he certainly isn’t the originator of it. The call for a biosecurity Manhattan Project dates back to the George W Bush administration.
On July 11, 2019, a think tank called the Biodefence Commission held a panel discussion entitled A Manhattan Project for Biodefence: Taking Biological Threats off the Table. The objective was to ‘create a national, public-private research and development undertaking to defend the United States against biological threats’.
Dr Robert Kadlec, the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) in the US Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) was a panellist. During the discussion Kadlec said, ‘It’s time to say “Go big, or go home” on this issue.’ Covid-19 gave him just the opportunity to implement this Manhattan Project as appears to have been intended.
Kadlec founded the Biodefense Commission in 2014 when he was a consultant to one of its donors, the vaccine manufacturer Emergent Biosolutions. The Hudson Institute, a think tank co-founded by Herman Kahn of the Rand Corporation, the pioneer of war gaming who was satirised as Dr Strangelove in Stanley Kubrick’s film of the same name, is the Commission’s fiscal sponsor.
On Wednesday December 4, 2019, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce held its annual hearing on US public health preparedness and response for seasonal and pandemic influenza. Testifying before it were Dr Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr Nancy Messonnier from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Dr Peter Marks from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Kadlec.
Seventy-six days earlier,on September 19, 2019, an Executive Order on Modernizing Influenza Vaccines in the United States to Promote National Security and Public Health had been signed by President Trump, directing the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the CDC and the FDA to ‘accelerate the adoption of improved influenza vaccine technologies’. The Departments of Health and Human Services and the Department of Defense were to propose a plan and a budget for this effort within 120 days, in other words, before January 17, 2020.
The White House said: ‘Unfortunately, many of the vaccines we use today are produced overseas, using time-consuming, egg-based technology, which limits their effectiveness and makes production too slow to effectively combat a potential deadly influenza pandemic.’
Fauci may be the best known of the four witnesses but Kadlec is by far the most consequential. Kadlec, a retired US Air Force Colonel, and former Director of Biosecurity Policy in the George W Bush Administration, is the principal architect of 21st century US biosecurity policy. He said in his testimony: ‘ASPR’s mission is to save lives and protect Americans from 21st century health security threats.’
As a member of Bush’s Homeland Security Council he drafted the 2004 National Biodefense Policy for the 21st Century. He was the instigator behind the 2004 Project Bioshield Act that created a strategic national stockpile of anthrax and smallpox vaccines (manufactured by his Biodefense Commission’s funders). In 2005, as staff director to Senator Richard Burr’s Subcommittee on Bioterrorism, hedrafted the 2006 Pandemics and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA, pronounced ‘Papa’). This act created the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and Response (ASPR) position. The ASPR controls the national stockpile of smallpox and anthrax vaccines and otherpublic health emergency medical equipment such as ventilators. During emergencies this Assistant Secretary has expansive powers enabling him or her to act as the single point of control co-ordinating national response. Kadlec was confirmed as ASPRin August 2017 after being recommended to President Trump by Senator Burr.
At the December 4, 2019 meeting of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Kadlec was asked what his department was doing to enhance American manufacturing capacity. He said: ‘On the issue of vaccines alone, I think the key thing is, I can’t go into the particulars but we’re going to have an announcement here shortly that will indicate some investments domestically to expand some of our newer technologies for vaccine manufacturing and I think the key thing there is, we are actively pursuing this in accordance with the executive order.’
Fauci testified that pursuant to Trump’s executive order his agency, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), was conducting and supporting research into new platform technologies including mRNA. Fauci said: ‘State-of-the-art technologies could be used to develop universal influenza vaccines as well as improve the speed and agility of influenza vaccine manufacturing.’
When Kadlec wasasked what the benefits were to the American people of investing in platform technologies such as mRNA he said: ‘The availability of such platform-based approaches would transform national preparedness against currently known threats as well as newly emerging threats in the future.’ Citing theASPR/BARDA funded development of a Zika vaccine made using mRNA technology he went on: ‘This technology has promise as a rapid platform for a number of infectious diseases, including influenza and novel diseases that may emerge in the future.
The Zika vaccine he referred to was being developed by Moderna, the US-based mRNA gene-therapy biotech. It didn’t have an influenza vaccine in development but it was actively working with Fauci’s NIAID to develop a ‘jointly owned coronavirus vaccine’. A prototype of this vaccine was sent to Dr Ralph Baric, the leading coronavirus expert who has worked collaboratively with Dr Shi Zhenghli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, for animal testing on December 17, 2019.
Moderna’s European rival BioNTechannounced in August 2018 that it was in collaboration with Pfizer todevelop an mRNA flu vaccine. It was aiming to move this from the preclinical stage to phase 1 trials by the end of 2020. Professor Dr Ugur Sahin, co-founder and CEO of BioNTech said: ‘A significant presence in infectious disease supports our goal of building a global immunotherapy company that provides more effective and precise immune-mediated approaches for the prevention and treatment of serious illnesses, such as the prevention of flu and the treatment of cancer.’
BioNTech diversified from developing cancer therapies – none of which was successfully licensed – into vaccines after a provision in a 2009EU directive intended to enable genetic engineered viruses to be used in vaccines was identified in 2016 and interpreted by them and others as a regulatory loophole enabling gene therapies directed at infectious diseases to circumvent the more stringent and onerous Advance Medicines Clinical Trials protocols. In 2020, this flu vaccine research was pivoted to Covid vaccine research.
Using this regulatory back door, both the UK Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) evaluated BioNTech’s mRNA Covid gene therapies as run-of-the-mill vaccines. The mRNA gene therapies contain no viruses; instead they genetically modify the recipient, reprogramming their cells to produce a protein from the virus that will stimulate their immune system to create a response against the virus, meaning the EU directive should not have been applicable.
During the launch of Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) at Davos in January 2017, Gates enthusiastically promoted mRNA vaccines. ‘Now there’s a new class of vaccine, DNA / RNA vaccine that we hope we can just change a small part of it, and so the manufacturing facility would already be there, the trials you would go through would be very quick. You would understand what end point, what correlate you want and so in an emergency, the regulators would understand what sort of protocol we’re going to use,’ said Gates.
‘With Ebola we had a scientific challenge that these platforms weren’t ready, we didn’t understand which country, what type of indemnity, and so there was a lot of fumbling around. It’s only by fixing those regulatory uncertainties and using these new platforms that we have a chance of getting that time to be less than a year.’
Gates’s foundation took an equity stake in BioNTech ahead of its October 2019 US stock market launch. When he was asked in 2017 about the danger of these platform vaccines making people less well, he said: ‘You are right that the safety threshold is really, really extremely high because we have to maintain the reputations of all the vaccines, convince parents in all these countries that these shots are really there to help your child out. Anything that you do to healthy people is going to have a tougher standard than, say, a new cancer drug, where if you don’t have the new drug, the outcome is going to be quite negative.’
This tougher standard was soon forgotten. The Pfizer/BioNTech product was pushed into use by the UK Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority (MHRA) on December 2, 2020 using a ‘compassionate use’ mechanism called a Temporary Use Authorisation to bypass the European regulator during the last month that the UK was under European Union law. MHRA reviewed only a few hundred pages of summary data, not the full dossier.
The FDA has a pathway for accelerated approval of ‘vaccines licensed in other countries with competent regulatory authorities.’ p21 Emergency Use Authorisation of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine as provided for under the 2004 Project Bioshield Act quickly followed in the US on December 11, 2020 and the European Medicines Authority (EMA) fell into line on December 21. Kadlec’s long-desired Manhattan Project was now detonating.
Part 2 of this series will focus on Dr Robert Kadlec, the principal planner of the US’s War on Microbes and of this biosecurity ‘Manhattan Project’.
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.
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.
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
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.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
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
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.
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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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
One of the patterns you observe at every level in nature is that there are niches: Roles to play in an ecosystem that allow you to survive for an extended period of time. As you enter a niche and begin to dominate it, your environment will polish you like a raw gem, until eventually you perform your role in an optimal manner.
There’s this example, of Fortune 500 multinational corporations, which signal the pride flag in Western nations, but not in the Middle East or Africa. Institutions don’t really hold beliefs. Rather, they attempt to fit into their local niche through mutation. In the West that means the Catholic church for example will pretend to be OK with homosexuality. Corporations can go a step further, unbound by tradition they can proclaim they’re all in favor of all sorts of stuff.
Natural selection operates on institutions along with organisms. The Catholic church has survived for 2000 years, because it always sought to maintain appeal to wide sections of society. And so although it technically teaches you can go to hell for masturbation, it can simultaneously uphold an impression of having no real qualms with homosexuality anymore. The truth is that it will teach whatever its environment requires it to teach.
Religions are like viruses that infect the mind, they can be benign or virulent, depending on the environment they find themselves in. They also compete for hosts. Virulent versions like Salafism or Mormon fundamentalism can destroy lives, as patriarchs will end up marrying teenage girls and raping their own sons. These religions suffer from interference however. A more benign version like Hinduism, Buddhism, Evangelical Christianity or Catholicism will prevent such a highly virulent version from finding a host for itself.
As the population’s immune system develops, as people begin to recognize the damage caused to their society by virulent expressions of a religion, it becomes forced to evolve towards more benign forms, as its alternative is extinction through aggressive rejection. The Catholic church became more tolerant over time, as its alternative was to go extinct. Dutch priests who spend their days bemoaning unmarried couples living together, or homosexuality, or emphasizing other such doctrines tend to alienate what little flock they have left. Survival thus only happens insofar as the system purges more virulent variants of itself.
Once a religion becomes too benign however, once it ceases to control its followers lives, it risks moving towards extinction. If it’s benign enough to tolerate birth control, it becomes harder to produce new adherents. If it’s benign enough to cease warning people of hell, it’s benign enough for people to stop bothering with proselytizing. If a society’s immune system has grown sufficiently intolerant of the religion, it can drive it into extinction, but its myopic focus on its target can lead it to be blindsided by more virulent primitive versions that move into its host.
LGBTQI+ can be thought of as a competing religion that the immune system doesn’t recognize as a danger. It has its own theological doctrines reminiscent of neoplatonism, with people who have pre-existent “male” or “female” essences, that can be born into the “wrong body”, which can be solved through surgical and hormonal alterations to produce the “right body”, congruent with the pre-existing “gender identity”. It’s a religion shrouded in mystery that takes hold in societies that have eliminated competing religions.
Organisms tend to manipulate their environment to favor their own proliferation. If you have lactic acid bacteria and yeast in dough, they create the kind of PH and other environmental conditions that make it impossible for other organisms to conquer the bread. Similarly, religions try to create the kind of environment in which they can sustain themselves. For Catholicism this means abortion is eliminated, along with Internet porn. This then leads people to seek out sex with others, which leads to pregnancy, often unplanned, which then forces young people into the nuclear family framework that is compatible with Christian culture.
LGBTQI+ similarly creates an environment compatible with its own proliferation. You bombard social media with beautiful girls, so that the other girls start feeling insecure, they dissociate from their gender, feel unattractive to men and consider lesbianism or “non-binary” gender and associated solutions to their situation. Similarly, proliferation of Internet porn creates perverse sexual fetishes in men, which also helps proliferate the religion. Islam does similar things: By encouraging polygamy, the religion creates a deficit of women that men can have marital relations with. Those men are then encouraged to go out and conquer other communities.
This is basically the mob principle. You have different mobs to which you can pay protection money. The benign mob shatters your store’s window, the more virulent variants leave a horse’s head in your bed. If you pay the benign mob, it will help you avoid having to deal with the virulent mob, as they don’t wish to lose their milk cow.
But if you zoom in deep enough, at the level of self-replicating genetic material, you also encounter this principle. Before SARS-COV-2, there were four known corona viruses that regularly occupy our body. Those viruses are a product of natural selection. Their ancestors would have been relatively virulent, they would have injured or killed quite a few people they infected.
People who were infected with virulent variants of these viruses, would develop immunity that is relatively long-lasting and aggressive. People who were infected with more benign variants on the other hand, would develop less aggressive immunity. This would open them up to tolerance of the virus, or it would enable reinfection. Over time, the population would develop immunity against epitopes associated with virulence. And thus over time the four corona viruses known to infect our species became relatively benign, as is generally the case for all respiratory viruses capable of reinfection.
You don’t need the whole population to have immunity against every single epitope associated with virulence. In fact, a homogeneous immune response against anything is quite dangerous. Rather, you just need to make sure that every epitope associated with virulence, invokes a sufficiently aggressive immune response in a portion of the population, that more benign alternative varieties end up with a fitness advantage. When one in every ten shopkeepers shoots a mob guy who threatens him with a gun, variations of the mob that simply break your window will have a selective advantage.
The four known hCov viruses need to be thought of as benign domesticated versions of religion. You could think of a version of LGBTQIA+ that ceased believing in making fake penises out of forearm skin but now simply encourages girls to have boyish haircuts, or a version of Mormonism that ceased believing in polygamy. Through interference, these benign versions prohibit more virulent versions from spreading themselves. When you create a vacuum on the other hand, when you leave the niche unoccupied, it’s conquered by whatever shows up first, which tends to be something that aggressively replicated itself without consideration for its host.
The hCov viruses are capable of causing asymptomatic SARS-COV-2 infections, or preventing infection altogether. They are benign versions of the mob, that prevent SARS-COV-2 from spreading itself. Other viruses like rhinovirus also show such an effect. The social distancing experiment could be thought of as an attempt at State Atheism, that basically sought to ban all religions. Then once the experiment ended, Salafist extremism rapidly became the new form of Islam.
Rather than eliminating SARS-COV-2 through its social distancing experiments, Germany appears to have succeeded at almost eliminating the hCov viruses. The social distancing experiments would have caused a genetic bottleneck for these viruses. Whatever versions then survived were no match for the rapidly expanding genetic diversity and increasing ACE2 affinity of novel SARS-COV-2 variants. Just as the hCov’s interfere with SARS-COV-2, SARS-COV-2 interferes with its four cousins. And so the result could be a virological state shift: Just as a jellyfish dominated ocean creates the kind of conditions in which fish can’t replenish themselves, SARS-COV-2 can prevent the hCov’s from reestablishing themselves.
And so now you’re dealing with a situation where you chased the old mob out of town, only to be met with a new mob that is far more cruel. And when it comes to the process of viral domestication, people have been far too optimistic. You can go back a year and see how everyone hailed the arrival of Omicron as the end of the pandemic, yet today your excess mortality in the EU is higher than it was in 2021 and 2020 for the same period. The virus became less virulent but better capable of spreading itself. It is now readily returning to higher levels of virulence, as there is simply no proper discrimination against virulence-associated factors yet due to the mass vaccination program.
Medieval Europeans had wolf bounties, you could be paid for exterminating wolves, as they were recognized as dangerous animals that kill people and livestock. This is how wolves were exterminated in multiple countries. The same thing was done to bears, people received bounties for killing bears, which drove Norwegian bears into near extinction by the 1920’s. To such people, the idea that we would eventually regret extermination bears or wolves, that we would come to recognize them as vital elements of our ecosystem, would have been unthinkable.
In a similar manner, I’m quite convinced that as the global SARS-COV-2 experiment continues, along with the LGBTQI+ experiment, people will eventually start to look for ways to reign in the effect that these virulent viruses have on our population. There is a live vaccine against SARS-COV-2, that naturally spreads through populations. It’s called an hCov virus. How much genetic diversity of these viruses have we already lost? There may be rare variants out there, now lost to time, that would have infected people who were now infected with SARS-COV-2.
With every new virus that infects a population, it remains to be seen whether it is capable of losing its virulent characteristics. We’ve seen with Islam numerous times throughout history that virulent forms resurface. We’re biased by the anthropic principle: Viruses that don’t lose virulence would have wiped us out, so we wouldn’t be around to observe them today.
It could be that LGBTQI+ can’t lose its virulence, that installing fake penises on insecure teenage girls or making surgical wounds in porn-addicted nerds is a kind of fundamental pillar of this religion that no mutation can eliminate. LGBdroptheT was an attempt at producing a less virulent version of the religion, but it doesn’t get far.
Similarly, there’s no strict guarantee that SARS-COV-2 can lose its virulence. We fundamentally just don’t know. If virulence enables reinfection by killing or damaging T-cells, or if the virulence is tied to the furin cleavage site and losing that site creates a massive transmission disadvantage, then it’s possible to see a scenario in which this is just a permanent burden on our population that reduces life expectancy and accelerates the aging process for the rest of human history.
In that case, your best option may be something akin to rewilding of European nature. Rather than continuing the catastrophic social distancing experiments which attempt to artificially maintain a vacuum, you could become witness to intentional seeding of the hCov viruses. For those viruses to receive a helping hand in their natural role of functioning as a benign version of the mob against more cruel corona viruses that jump into our species from other animals could then enable them to move SARS-COV-2 towards extinction, aided by our own buildup of immunity against virulence associated epitopes over time.
Does this sound strange to you? Well then I would ask you: What do you think the polio virus vaccines are? They are an attempt to reduce the health impact of polio, by spreading more benign versions of the polio virus. Instead of 5000 cases of paralysis per million infections, these benign versions cause 3 cases per million. And similarly, the hCov’s are benign corona viruses that have withstood the test of time: We know they won’t spontaneously revert to some malignant form.
Attempts to eliminate the benign respiratory viruses need to be thought of as the insistence that the left has to kill off the vestiges of religion in the West. More virulent forms will just invade the niche: Salafism, LGBTQ, tradcats etc.
And just as the benign respiratory viruses train and strengthen the body so that it can deal with more malignant viruses, the benign religions train and strengthen the mind, so that it learns to be critical of authority. The absurdities and cruelties that happen within the religious system teaches you that all power has to be examined skeptically, even when it appeals to absolute unquestionable truths.
Without this kind of provoked immune response against authority, people stand no real chance when they are faced with a far more a malignant form, like a wealthy surgeon who proclaims in the name of “Science” that their LGBTQIA+ adhering daughter should have her breasts amputated.
And so perhaps we shouldn’t just be seeding the hCov’s. Perhaps we should start seeding the old religions again too.
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).
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:
Those that are trustworthy because they are based on sound scientific methods.
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.
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.
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:
Accurately detecting the presence of a pathogen using a laboratory-based test.
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:
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.
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).
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.
Cases of COVID-19 should only be determined as follows:
It should be a physician making the diagnosis.
It should be based on the presence of signs and symptoms that are consistent with the clinical definition of COVID-19.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
Bai, Y. et al. Presumed Asymptomatic Carrier Transmission of COVID-19. Jama 323, 1406-1407 (2020).
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).
Stock, A.D. et al. COVID-19 Infection Among Healthcare Workers: Serological Findings Supporting Routine Testing. Front Med (Lausanne) 7, 471 (2020).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Chaw, L. et al. Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in Different Settings, Brunei. Emerging infectious diseases 26, 2598-2606 (2020).
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).
Gao, M. et al. A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers. Respiratory medicine 169, 106026 (2020).
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).
Guan, W.J. et al. Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China. The New England journal of medicine 382, 1708-1720 (2020).
He, X. et al. Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19. Nat Med 26, 672-675 (2020).
Hodcroft, E.B. Preliminary case report on the SARS-CoV-2 cluster in the UK, France, and Spain. Swiss medical weekly 150 (2020).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Lu, X. et al. SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Children. The New England journal of medicine 382, 1663-1665 (2020).
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).
Luo, S.H. et al. A confirmed asymptomatic carrier of 2019 novel coronavirus. Chinese medical journal 133, 1123-1125 (2020).
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).
Sun, K. et al. Transmission heterogeneities, kinetics, and controllability of SARS-CoV-2. Science (New York, N.Y.) 371 (2021).
Nishiura, H. et al. Estimation of the asymptomatic ratio of novel coronavirus infections (COVID-19). Int J Infect Dis 94, 154-155 (2020).
Nishiura, H., Linton, N.M. & Akhmetzhanov, A.R. Serial interval of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) infections. Int J Infect Dis 93, 284-286 (2020).
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).
Pan, X. et al. Asymptomatic cases in a family cluster with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Lancet. Infectious diseases 20, 410-411 (2020).
Park, S.Y. et al. Coronavirus Disease Outbreak in Call Center, South Korea. Emerging infectious diseases 26, 1666-1670 (2020).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Sakurai, A. et al. Natural History of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection. The New England journal of medicine 383, 885-886 (2020).
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).
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).
Tong, Z.D. et al. Potential Presymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2, Zhejiang Province, China, 2020. Emerging infectious diseases 26, 1052-1054 (2020).
Treibel, T.A. et al. COVID-19: PCR screening of asymptomatic health-care workers at London hospital. Lancet (London, England) 395, 1608-1610 (2020).
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).
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).
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).
Yang, N. et al. In-flight transmission cluster of COVID-19: a retrospective case series. Infectious diseases (London, England) 52, 891-901 (2020).
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).
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).
Zhang, J., Tian, S., Lou, J. & Chen, Y. Familial cluster of COVID-19 infection from an asymptomatic. Critical care (London, England) 24, 119 (2020).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Full paper - PDF 50 Pages Posted: 12 Sep 2022
Date Written: August 31, 2022
Students at North American universities risk disenrollment due to third dose COVID-19 vaccine mandates. We present a risk-benefit assessment of boosters in this age group and provide five ethical arguments against mandates. We estimate that 22,000 - 30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation. Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities. Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable. University booster mandates are unethical because: 1) no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group; 2) vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people; 3) mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission; 4) US mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and 5) mandates create wider social harms. We consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialisation and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support. Finally, we discuss the relevance of our analysis for current 2-dose CCOVIDovid-19 vaccine mandates in North America.
Note: Funding: This paper was partially supported by a Wellcome Trust Society and Ethics fellowship awarded to KB (10892/B/15/ZE) and Wellcome Trust grants to EJ (216355, 221719, 203132).
Competing Interest Statement: We do not have any competing interests to declare.
Keywords: COVID-19 vaccines, mandates, ethics, young adults, risk-benefit analysis
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.
Two new clinical studies – one peer-reviewed by researchers in Turkey, and one pre-print by researchers in France – have begun to establish an alarming link between an incurable, degenerative brain disease called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) and the experimental Covid-19 vaccine.
CJD is a “rare” disease that is caused by abnormal infectious proteins in the brain called “prions,” according to NHS. Although the presence of prions is not necessarily dangerous or deadly, the proteins will cause degenerative brain damage if they become diseased or misfolded. Once this process begins, the malfunctioning prions will continue to corrupt other cells, leading to a prognosis that is always fatal.
As of right now, CJD is uncurable. There are zero treatment options available. The diagnosis is essentially a death sentence, but symptoms are traditionally dormant for several years before manifesting into a deadly complication.
Unfortunately, with the new cases of CJD that have been linked to the vaccine, that doesn’t seem to be the case. The disease is progressing at an alarming and unprecedented rate. So much so that the team of French researchers highlighted their concerns of the experimental mRNA vaccines contributing directly to creating a new, more aggressive type of CJD.
According to the French study, a total of 26 cases of vaccine-linked CJD were included in the research.
At the time of the study’s publication, a whopping 20 out of the 26 CJD patients had already passed away from the disease. Additionally, researchers found that there were “more than 50 cases” of the fatal disease that appeared after taking the experimental vaccines.
Despite traditionally taking as much as a decade to manifest with symptoms, the study found symptoms in these new cases began appearing just 11.38 days post-vaccination. In these cases, the disease is killing the affected individuals in under 5 months’ time (4.76 months).
From the French pre-print:
“…we are analyzing the concomitance of cases, which occurred in various European countries, between the first doses of Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine and the sudden and rapid onset of the first symptoms of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which usually requires several years before observing its first symptoms…
…We subsequently recall the usual history of this dreadfull subacute disease, and compare it with this new, extremely acute, prion disease, following closely vaccinations. In a few weeks, more 50 cases of almost spontaneous emergence of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease have appeared in France and Europe very soon after the injection of the first or second dose of Pfizer, Moderna or AstraZeneka vaccines.”
Researchers were also able to identify the probable cause of the sudden-onset CJD post-vaccination. When the vaccines were first synthesized, the genetic makeup was based on the original strain of the virus that came out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology – which had a prion region on its spike protein.
This spike protein and prion region in the experimental mRNA has been shown to interact with human cells and is the likely culprit for the more aggressive version of CJD, according to the French pre-print.
From The Epoch Times:
“…when the Wuhan variant’s spike protein gene information was made into a vaccine as part of the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines, the prion region was also incorporated.
As part of the natural cellular process, once the mRNA is incorporated into the cells, the cell will turn the mRNA instructions into a COVID-19 spike protein, tricking the cells into believing that it has been infected so that they create an immunological memory against a component of the virus…
…A U.S. study has speculated that a misfolded spike protein could in turn create a misfolded prion region that may be able to interact with healthy prions to cause damage, leading to CJD disease.”
Published just before the French study, the peer-reviewed paper out of Turkey also identified sudden CJD cases appearing after getting any of the experimental Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca vaccines. However, instead of taking over 11 days on average for symptoms to appear, the researchers found the disease is showing up 10x quicker – a single day after vaccination.
From the peer-reviewed study:
Reports of neurological problems are increasing for the clinical presentation of COVID19…
…Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, a spongiform encephalopathy caused by prions, is characterized by a severe neurological destruction, which has an extremely high mortality. In this publication, we presented a patient who was admitted to the Pamukkale University Anesthesiology Intensive Care Units with the neurological findings that developed after the COVID-19 vaccine (CoronaVac, Sinovac Life Sciences, Beijing, China). The patient died due to the progressive neurological disorders…
…The onset of acute neurological symptoms after Covid19 vaccination suggested that there might be an adverse effect related to the vaccine. Suppression of immunity after vaccination may have accelerated the emergence of prion disease or the onset of the disease may be coincidental. In order for CJD diagnosis to be associated with the vaccine, the cause-effect relationship between them must be revealed. Therefore, further studies are needed in this area.”
In the end, researchers (rightfully) called for more research to be conducted into this issue – Well that’s exactly what the team of French researchers did, and according to one of the main authors of that study – Dr. Jean-Claude Perez – the new findings confirm the worst – there is a new, more aggressive form of CJD.
From Dr. Perez:
“This confirms the radically different nature of this new form of CJD, whereas the classic form requires several decades.”
Add CJD to the list of mRNA vaccine horrors. We are really running out of room.
We need to understand not only that the vaccinators are wrong, and how they are wrong, but also why they are wrong. If we misdiagnose the source of their error, we’ll go looking for evidence against them in the wrong places, and oppose them in the wrong ways.
Consider a story I’ve been following since last week, about an epidemiologist at Berlin Charité named Harald Matthes. It’s nothing special, merely the most recent occurrence of an obnoxious media dynamic:
Last year, Matthes set up a simple online survey for vaccine side-effects. Volunteers could sign up to fill out questionnaires at regular intervals about their post-vaccination experience. About 0.8% of those surveyed reported what Matthes classified as serious adverse reactions, a number 40 times higher than the official Paul-Ehrlich-Institut rate of 0.02%. Matthes has yet to release his data, but last week he appeared in the German media to announce his preliminary results and demand outpatient clinics for victims of vaccination.
Then the fact-checkers descended. One of the most influential attacks appeared in [Die Zeit](http://Much claimed, nothing proven The doctor Harald Matthes says that severe side effects after the Corona vaccination are much more frequent than known. Research shows that his figures are untenable.), under the headline “Much claimed, nothing proven.” The article dismantles Matthes’s study piece-by-piece: He’s wrong because he defines “severe reaction” differently from the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut; he’s wrong because his survey data comes from volunteers rather than a representative sample; and, above all, he’s wrong because he failed to establish a background rate of severe events in the unvaccinated:
It’s completely normal for people to fall ill, sometimes seriously, during the observation period of a study. Every day, almost 1,000 people in Germany suffer a heart attack … It’s important to take this background noise into account, especially when looking for rare vaccine side effects.
There’s a reason I haven’t written about Matthes’s study: These are serious criticisms.
The point, though, is that when it comes to Long Covid, Die Zeit forgets all of this methodological rigour.
In article after article after histrionic article, their journalists demonstrate a total lack of regard for definitions. Everything and anything is Long Covid, so long as it’s preceded by at least the suspicion of SARS-2 infection. All kinds of methodologically dubious Long Covid studies receive the breathless endorsement of Die Zeit, a paper that has never really bothered about the background rate of brain fog or sleep disturbances or joint pain in the population of Germany. Throw it all into the Long Covid bucket, says Die Zeit; after all, SARS-2 is extremely dangerous. Any scary thing anybody says about it must be true.
If you want to know how millions of people can so relentlessly defend the vaccines as “safe and effective,” regardless of what harm they inflict, while simultaneously fearing SARS-2 as a killer virus even after the emergence of Omicron, wonder no more: It is precisely this tendency to uncritically accept every scary poorly-sourced study about SARS-2 risk, while subjecting every last finding to the disadvantage of the vaccines to exacting, isolated demands for rigour. Masks benefit from a similar dynamic, as did lockdowns before them, and mass testing, and contact tracing and other things besides.
If vaccine injuries and deaths were counted in the same way as Long Covid cases and Corona deaths, the vaccines would all be pulled from shelves tomorrow. Alternatively, if we minimised SARS-2 risk in the same way we whitewash the vaccines, nobody would care about mass vaccination at all.
There is very little overt, deliberate deception driving this mass delusion. This is why, as Alex Berenson points out, there’s just not very much in the Pfizer documents that we didn’t already know, and why there’s never going to be very much in them.
The present insanity arises not from the plans of genocidal masterminds in the WHO, but from two years of mass media panic propaganda bordering on psychological abuse, in response to which a great many people find themselves confined in their own self-fashioned moral prisons, having decided that they are not good people unless they mask and self-isolate until SARS-2 vanishes from the earth. They want the vaccines to work, and they find it uncomfortable to contemplate the risks and imperfections of these pharmaceutical products.
Scientists aren’t immune to these emotions. The vaccine developers at Moderna and Pfizer, together with their government regulators, designed trials that would help the vaccines succeed, because they’d spent months awash in Corona panic porn like the rest of us. They made the trials shorter, lest waning efficacy grab too many headlines; they did their best to recruit as few old and vulnerable participants as possible, to keep the efficacy numbers up. This is not to say that there are no liars and malicious actors in the halls of public health, merely that the influence of the insane, panicking hordes is greater.
Orchestrated lying by specific parties very clearly did play an important role in establishing lockdowns and other mass containment policies. The vaccines are a different matter. Hundreds of thousands of scientists and journalists across the world have been wrong about them, in the very same simple and predictable ways, from the very beginning.
A few liars and grifters would be easier – you could expose them and end all of this tomorrow. We’re instead facing the much more intractable problem of pervasive self-deception and motivated reasoning. We need to stop looking for the reveal, and start thinking about how we can ease people out of their madness.
That’s not going to be easy.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
How to cite this article: Blaylock RL. COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Surg Neurol Int 2022;13:167.
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.
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
In commenting on the many absurdities of the Corona regime, and asking what their purpose could possibly be, I’m often told that “it’s about power” or “it’s about control.”
I confess that I don’t find these explanations convincing. I think they’re grounded in a mistaken view of how western states exercise power and the constraints they face in this. The idea seems to be, that states accumulate the potential to act, which potential is however constrained by the law or popular opinion; and that they are forever striving to escape these artificial constraints through subterfuge and deception, in order to transmute more of their accumulated potential into real-world prerogatives.
I see it otherwise. As far as I can tell, neither laws nor popular opinion limit the action of modern states in any serious way. There are constraints, but these lie elsewhere, mostly in the area of coordination. As I’ve written several times now, our governments have become profoundly demobilised. Political power has accumulated at ever lower levels, with the press, academia and in the bureaucratic institutions. This process represents a kind of political decay, and yet it has distinct advantages for the senescent elite: It ensures broad consensus across all major corporate, government and media factions, shielding them precisely from things like popular opinion and judicial review.
The monstrous institutional apparatus can only act effectively if enough of its widely distributed nodes are activated and aligned behind the same agenda. This requires some kind of (in most cases external) stimulus. Corona has revealed how powerful modern states can be, if only they can get enough of their decentralised distributed substance to back a given programme. Laws become totally meaningless in the face of such coordination; the ensuing propaganda campaign overcomes popular resistance easily.
(The problem of coordination is also why I think the lockdowners and the vaccinators had a much harder time in the United States than in Europe. American [unlike German] federalism is a real force, which fragments the various parties to power still further. Coordination for the American government is thus much harder than it is in Europe, or New Zealand.)
Even in a condition of high coordination, though, the exercise of power or control by the state represents exertion. It’s like running, or lifting a weight. Modern states, with their multitude of international adventures and national initiatives, are fully committed here. The more the various arms of the state have been stirred to action, the more power it has to act in the moment; for a time, the stimulation of SARS-2 provided enough surplus energy to bring vaccine mandates within the realm of possibility. With Omicron, though, the enthusiasm and with it the coordination faded, and the exertion was no longer worth it. They could have still done it, but it would have meant redirecting resources from someplace else and not doing some other thing.
Anyway, that’s my basic model of how state power functions. It’s like the Eye of Sauron: It can’t look everywhere at once, it can’t do everything. And when it’s looking at you, the purpose isn’t just to control your life for the thrill of it. If that’s all the state wanted, it could look anywhere.
States act with purpose, towards specific goals. Their constituent pieces function like a distributed intelligence, which is always striving for something, and – especially when policies become bizarre, clearly unattainable, or circular – it’s worth trying to figure out what that something might be. It might not always be obvious; we shouldn’t assume that states will have goals or aims that make all that much sense to humans.
In fact, while they’re made up of people, western states often behave towards bizarre and alien ends, like an extraterrestrial or a sentient machine: They insist on human uniformity, they’re indifferent to children, they’re hostile to traditional cultures, they hate pathogens, they’re wary of real-life social interaction, they’re mildly wary of the natural world, they like buildings made of glass, steel and concrete, they abhor death, they like to count things, they dislike the rural environment, they prefer the highest possible degree of networking and interconnection.
Mike Yeadon
In this comprehensive review, Dr. Yeadon argues that all the main narratives about SARS-CoV-2 and imposed “measures” are lies.
Given the foregoing, it is no longer possible to view the last two years as well- intentioned errors. Instead, the objectives of the perpetrators are most likely to be totalitarian control over the population by means of mandatory digital IDs and cashless central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).
Download The-Covid-Lies-updated
In the first part of the article (The Covid Lies), Dr. Yeadon counters the 12 widespread Covid narratives with the following arguments:
In the second part of the article (How Much of the Covid-19 Narrative Was True? Additional Reflections), Dr. Yeadon further stresses his contention on the Covid-19 narratives on:
At the end of the article, Dr. Yeadon also provides a list of extra supplemental points to support his conclusions.
Dr. Michael YEADON PhD was Formerly Vice President & Chief Scientific Officer Allergy & Respiratory at Pfizer Global R&D. He holds Joint Honours in Biochemistry and Toxicology and a PhD in Respiratory Pharmacology. He is an Independent Consultant and Co-founder & CEO of Ziarco Pharma Ltd.
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.
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.
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?
Three of the four questions posed have been answered:
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
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.
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.
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].
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.
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.
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:
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.”
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…
Swiss Policy Research (SPR), founded in 2016, is an independent, nonpartisan and nonprofit research group investigating geopolitical propaganda. SPR is composed of independent academics and receives no external funding other than reader donations. Our analyses have been published by numerous independent media outlets and have been translated into more than two dozen languages.
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
Population Control: a Motive for Vaccination Beyond Digital ID and CBDCs
Covid Vaccines: Anti-Fertility Bioweapons?
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
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).
I want to focus on the latter half of that list.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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):
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.
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?
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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?
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)
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://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.
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.
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.
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.
Back in 2003, the United States federal government launched "Ready", a national public service campaign designed to "...educate and empower the American people to prepare for, respond to and mitigate emergencies, including natural and man-made disasters. The goal of the campaign is to promote preparedness through public involvement.
In a [recent posting](http:// https://www.ready.gov/nuclear-explosion) on the Ready website, we find some rather interesting information given that the world has taken a relatively significant step forward toward a nuclear exchange over the past few days. Here it is:
For my baby boomer-aged readers, you might remember this instructional video from the Cold War Part 1:
There is no doubt that coats, a student's desk and "ducking and covering" would provide students with complete protection from a nuclear blast and the accompanying radiation.
Now, let's look at at the advice being offered to Americans trying to survive a nuclear explosion during the Cold War Part 2 with my highlights throughout:
GET INSIDE
Get inside the nearest building to avoid radiation. Brick or concrete are best.
Remove contaminated clothing and wipe off or wash unprotected skin if you were outside after the fallout arrived. Hand sanitizer does not protect against fall out. Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth, if possible. Do not use disinfectant wipes on your skin.
Go to the basement or middle of the building. Stay away from the outer walls and roof. Try to maintain a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who are not part of your household. If possible, wear a mask if you’re sheltering with people who are not a part of your household. Children under two years old, people who have trouble breathing, and those who are unable to remove masks on their own should not wear them.
Notice that, even though you and your family have the potential to be killed or seriously injured by a nuclear explosion, one of your priorities is to make sure that you are masked and maintain the six foot physical distancing that we've all been brainwashed to believe will prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Here's more advice:
STAY INSIDE
Stay inside for 24 hours unless local authorities provide other instructions. Continue to practice social distancing by wearing a mask and by keeping a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who not part of your household.
Family should stay where they are inside. Reunite later to avoid exposure to dangerous radiation.
Keep your pets inside.
Yet again, keep wearing that face diaper and stay at least six feet away from people who are not part of your household even though that six foot distance may mean that the building in which you are taking shelter cannot accommodate as many potential victims of a nuclear explosion.
Now, let's look at the recommendations for a scenario where you are warned of an imminent attack (i.e. the nuclear weapons have been activated, launched and are on their way):
If warned of an imminent attack, immediately get inside the nearest building and move away from windows. This will help provide protection from the blast, heat, and radiation of the detonation.
When you have reached a safe place, try to maintain a distance of at least six feet between yourself and people who are not part of your household. If possible, wear a mask if you’re sheltering with people who are not a part of your household. Children under two years old, people who have trouble breathing, and those who are unable to remove masks on their own should not wear them.
If you didn't get the message the first two times, the third time should be a charm. You are to wear your mask and maintain at least a six foot physical distance from those sharing your fallout shelter that are not part of your household.
And, here's one last bit of advice on how to survive a nuclear explosion in the time of COVID-19:
If you have evacuated, do not return until you are told it is safe to do so by local officials.
"Make plans to stay with friends or family in case of evacuation. Keep in mind that public shelter locations may have changed due to COVID-19. Check with local authorities to determine which public shelters are open.
If you are told by authorities to evacuate to a public shelter, try to bring items that can help protect yourself and your family from COVID-19, such as hand sanitizer that contains at least 60 percent alcohol, cleaning materials, and two masks per person. Children under two years old, people who have trouble breathing, and people who cannot remove masks on their own should not wear them."
This gives you some sense of just how stupid and single-minded the government has become. You're about to face potential annihilation thanks to a nuclear explosion and the end of civilization as we know it but yet, the government expects that you're going to bring your own hand sanitizer that contains at least 60 percent alcohol, two masks for everyone in your household and other cleaning/sanitizing materials. Oh yes, and maintain at least a six foot distance between you and anyone who is not in your household.
A question - what happens in a scenario where you don't have hand sanitizer that contains at least 60 percent alcohol? Will you be shunned by the other people taking refuge with you? What the government isn't telling you is that, if there is a nuclear explosion, you'd be smartest to bend over and kiss your butt goodbye.
Every time that I think that we've reached peak stupid I'm disappointed to find out that we're not there yet.
It seems that the devil has got his tail in the sand and the world is going into a kind of cursed future where the other and the connections became, overnight, virtual, it is hard to go through, hugs are missing, work is missing, we are full of uncertainties.
But as long as we have the earth, the sun and the air, we will have bread, the seeds will germinate, the flowers will be reborn. As humanity we live through terrible injustices, wars, hunger, genocide, femicide.
Let us change the course of this system that hanged us until we reach this moment, where a virus leaves us in the fields and the road, because the health systems collapse, because those who have been governing the world are killing us for a long time.
Let's reflect about consumption, let's go back to the essence to be reborn from the ashes, let's take care of the planet, let's take care of others, let's have empathy with the one next to us.
Let's take care of life, as long as we keep breathing. It is our turn to stay at home, until the long-awaited hugs come back, and finally meet again with our loved ones.
May the world find us changed, to transform it into a more humane world.
Let's keep on fighting for the noble cause.
Florencia Amengual - May 10, 2020
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)
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.
Key-words: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, ivermectin, prophylaxis, prevention, coronavirus
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.
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).
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).
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.
Here’s a charming little piece of video.
Get to about 35 seconds when fauci funded peter daszak starts speaking in his own words about working to make SARS like viruses in animals infect humans by hotwiring their spike proteins.
This is what he says (my transcription, may have a couple minor errors, but i think it’s pretty much accurate.)
“you get a virus that looks like a relative of a known, nasty pathogen, just like we did with SARS and other coronaviruses in bats, a whole host of them, some of them looked very similar to SARS so we sequenced the spike protein, the protein that attaches to cells.
then we, well, i didn’t do this work but my colleagues in china did (he’s speaking here of wuhan institute of virology) you create pseudo-particles, you insert the spike proteins from those viruses to see if they bind to human cells.
each step of this you move closer and closer to “this virus could really become pathogenic in people.” so, you narrow down the field, you reduce the costs and you end up with a small number of viruses that really do look like killers….”
(i have downloaded this video in case it gets pulled. let me know if it does)
January 13th 2022 49 Retweets 57 Likes
this is EXACTLY what i have long said and suspected.
the work in wuhan was absolutely gain of function work. it was NOT work on weaponization. it was the mad scientist lunacy that daszak submitted to DARPA and they rejected but that fauci then funded through the NIAID.
they were making “killers” to see if they could find cures.
oopsie.
peter daszak: supervillain origin story
this was an attempt to predict what viruses MIGHT one day jump from bats to humans and to work on vaccines for them. that’s why he speaks of “narrowing down the field.”
this is literally: let’s find a possible risk and make it real. let’s see if we can add function and virulence to a pathogen until it’s a serious threat to humans and then see if we can immunize against it in case something like that ever happens one day.
talk about a self fulfilling prophesy...
they did it in china because work like this is too crazy to be allowed unsupervised in the US. (or likely allowed at all) and they broke all the rules of their grant and took to 10,000X what should have been limited to 10X (itself already extremely risky). and the NIH knew that. and they did nothing.
more:
it’s also likely why the NIH (of which NIAID is a part) happened to have access to the payload for an mRNA vaccine ready to go and licensed it to moderna an impossible 10 days after SARSCOV-2 was officially claimed to have been sequenced.
this has been in the works for years.
it also looks to have been half baked, untested, and we’ve all seen how THAT worked out.
this makes me suspect that the leak was accidental (though likely telegraphed to a number of insiders well before it was public.)
just how this same sort of tech made it to biontech (who then licensed it to pfizer) and how billy “pandemia” gates knew to buy a big chunk of the company in november of 2019 right before they cut that pfizer deal remains an open and interesting question.
but all pieces keep falling into place.
this was an ill conceived vaccine program run in china by people who, based on their DARPA submission, were barking mad. (read the daszak piece linked above. what he proposes to do in wuhan was literally mad scientist crazy)
it was funded by fauci after DARPA said no.
it was in the EXACT virus that became SARSCOV-2 in the exact location in which it appeared.
and it used the exact methods that led to the utterly improbable if not impossible gene signatures that many used early on to claim this was a lab escape before being buried under what has now clearly been shown to have been a concerted cover up.
i’m just not seeing any other way to explain this that does not require 3 or 4 ten million to one coincidences piled on top of one another.
we may never get the full story. it’s not like china is going to help.
but it’s all here somewhere and enough has surfaced that the mosaic is getting hard to miss.
we’re not safe from this happening again because such research is ongoing.
but we’re also not safe from outright blackmail and espionage.
think about it. china has the NIH over a barrel. they will have to do ANYTHING they are told and NIH funds everything.
they have their fingers in half the early stage disease research in the US.
they are the gold givers of the research system.
nearly every university virology department is beholden and so are all the university researchers that were involved with this wuhan scandal.
imagine you’re someone like professor baric at UNC and you wound up doing something like this:
(from DARPA grant ap)
how you feeling right now? how will you respond when a chinese intelligence agent demands that you procure and provide sensitive data and research from your university or they will leak your actions to the press?
this is precisely how one would cultivate such an asset.
and all this is a wide open, gaping vulnerability until we rip it out and cauterize the wound. it’s a blackmail bonanza.
these guys have been scrambling from the start to hide this.
and this is why we HAVE to get to the bottom of it no matter how embarrassing these revelations may be.
time to put our top people on it and allow no further whitewash.
There are many things we can do to liberate ourselves, and each other, from the tyranny of government. Unfortunately, for generations, we have been educated to believe we are powerless. Supposedly our voice can only be heard through the ballot box, our extremely limited ability to lobby and whatever protests we are allowed.
This is a deception. We have all the power, government has none and we can change the world whenever we choose.
All we need to do is realise our collective agency and strength. The good news is that, if we consistently work toward freedom, achieving it is a nailed on certainty. The bad news is that very few of us are even aware of the need to change our behaviour and fewer still know how to do it.
Our broad lack of awareness leaves us at the mercy of those who do understand how to misuse behaviour change techniques and applied psychology for nefarious purposes. This mistreatment has led a sizeable minority to rail against applied behavioural psychology. Yet, should we decide the use these strategies ourselves, the potential for positive social change is immense.
This article is written in the hope that we can all learn how use behaviour change techniques for our benefit. Behaviour change is a skill that can be learned and, with practice, become a powerful tool for personal development. We can use it to defeat the plans of those who would use it against us and construct a free society.
Over the last two years we have experienced, and are continuing to endure, a global behavioural change programme designed to force us into compliance. Psychological operations (psyops) have been used to adapt our behaviour to a so-called “new normal.” One of the objective is to condition us to respond automatically to an announced crisis, whatever it may be, and to obey government commands.
This isn’t a contentious point. Applied behavioural change techniques are common practice at both the world governance and national government level. The World Health Organisation outline how they interpret their use:
A health campaign follows a specific sequence that moves the target audience from awareness of an issue towards a behaviour resulting in a specific health outcome […] Presenting a consistent message from multiple sources increases the likelihood of action […] Trusted messengers and high-profile personalities can add their voices to the campaign.
In February 2020, one month before they declared a global pandemic, the WHO announced the creation of its Technical Advisory Group on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health (TAG). The group is chaired by Prof. Cass Sunstein and its members include behavioural change experts from the World Bank, the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Prof. Susan Michie, from the UK, is also a TAG participant.
Cass Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper titled Conspiracy Theories in which he and Prof. Adrian Vermeule advocated a series of psychological methods to counter the arguments of people who doubt official narratives. Sunstein & Vermeule ruled out engaging in logical, evidence based debate. Instead, they proposed a concerted psyop campaign to discredit anyone who questioned the government.
TAG soon published Principles and Steps for Applying a Behavioural Perspective to Public Health in which they identified six principles they would utilise. Deciding that knowledge was “often not enough to change behaviours,” TAG implemented a different methodology. Noting that the behavioural choices we make are “influenced by the environment in which an individual resides and makes decisions,” TAG concluded:
Approaching public health from a behavioural perspective requires focusing on people and their behaviours in the context in which those behaviours occur […] Behaviours can be defined so that the influences on those behaviours in terms of barriers and drivers can be diagnosed. The strategies and interventions that can change those behaviours can then be designed.
There was no mention of consent anywhere in the document. TAG advocate manipulation of the context in which behaviours occur. This enables them to design the behavioural response. We are the subjects of their efforts and TAG don’t consider either our knowledge or consent to be relevant.
Susan Michie is also a member of the UK government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). They have provided much of the “evidence” which the UK government used to justify its anti-scientific response to the pseudopandemic. Michie is also a leading member of the SAGE behavioural change subgroup, Spi-B.
Like her fellow TAG and Spi-B behavioural change experts, Michie favours psyops over logical discourse. In an advisory report, dated 22nd March 2020, SPi-B recommended that the UK government engage in a media led terror campaign to coerce the public into pseudopandemic compliance:
A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened […] The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging […] Some people will be more persuaded by appeals to play by the rules, some by duty to the community, and some to personal risk. All these different approaches are needed […] Use media to increase sense of personal threat […] Consider use of social disapproval for failure to comply.
Government in the UK, and elsewhere, deployed precisely this methodology with the assistance of their mainstream media partners. This was a continuation of the manipulation proposed in the UK governments 2010 document called MINDSPACE. The report outlined how government could misuse behaviour change for propaganda and compliance purposes.
It stressed the importance of avoiding any discussion of the evidence and focused upon overcoming peoples’ rational minds using psychological manipulation. Notably, this could be achieved without the subjects (us) even being aware that we were effectively being programmed:
People’s behaviour may be altered if they are first exposed to certain sights, words or sensations […] people behave differently if they have been ‘primed’ by certain cues beforehand.. Emotional responses to words, images and events can be rapid and automatic.. people can experience a behavioural reaction before they realise what they are reacting to […] This shifts the focus of attention away from facts and information, and towards altering the context within which people act […] Behavioural approaches embody a line of thinking that moves from the idea of an autonomous individual, making rational decisions, to a ‘situated’ decision-maker, much of whose behaviour is automatic and influenced by their choice environment […] citizens may not fully realise that their behaviour is being changed – or, at least, how it is being changed.
This approach utilises the covert psychological strategies suggested by Sunstein two years earlier. Spi-B and TAG were among those who exploited them throughout the pseudopandemic. Combined with wide reaching censorship and a concerted media propaganda campaign, the objective was to hide or otherwise obfuscate evidence and move people away from rationality towards becoming “situated decision makers.”
Programmed to accept a tightly defined set of limited discussion points, people were coerced into believing in a predetermined “choice environment.” The context and extent of their decision making was thus controlled, leaving many subjects psychologically disabled. Once the choice environment had been established, behavioural responses could then be designed without any resistance from the situated decision makers.
This form of brainwashing primarily targets the subconscious. It is highly effective because it leaves the subject imagining they have free choice or free will. This deception renders us far more likely to behave as instructed. However, in reality, our behavioural options are restricted to the desired outcomes only. The behavioural commitment of the subject is engineered by their situated position within the choice environment.
The misuse of behavioural change techniques, and the applied psychology that underpins them, is totally unethical. It is a form of psychological abuse that was and is still inflicted upon the global population to push an agenda.
In the UK this prompted a concerned group of psychologists and therapists to write to the British Psychological Society (BPS), urging them to investigate the abuse and issue a statement. Eventually the BPS replied with what many considered to be an evasive, disingenuous and wholly unconvincing reponse.
Given the activities of TAG, Spi-B and others, strong opposition to this psychological manipulation by government is understandable. It is essential that we draw a distinction between their covert, unethical misuse of behavioural change and the appropriate use of these strategies.
Used as part of talking therapy, behaviour change (or modification) is perhaps the most powerful technique for the treatment of many unwanted, self-destructive behaviours. It has helped millions of people around the world overcome addiction and provides us with tools we can use in our daily lives to achieve a wide range of goals and objectives.
For example, if freedom is our aim, we can use the skills we learn from Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) to live as free, sovereign human beings. If enough of us do so it is inevitable that we will create the free society most of us want. We do not have to live under the tyrannical oppression of any government that seeks to control us through brainwashing and fear.
Acceptance And Commitment Therapy (ACT) helps us to notice the thoughts and experiences that lead us to adopt potentially destructive behaviours. Once we have acknowledged and accepted the reality of our current condition we can identify the associated behaviours, develop better coping strategies and commit to behavioural change.
We can use the ACT matrix as a mental map to guide us away from damaging or life-limiting behaviours and instead actively choose behaviour that moves us closer to our goal. This is depicted below and the the diagram can be carried on the person as an aide-mémoire. However, once people are familiar with applying ACT in their daily lives, the simplicity of the model allows most to visualise it when needed.
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Matrix
Each of us perceive the world through our senses. This enables us to build a mental picture of reality. However, thoughts, emotions and physical sensations can impact upon our perception.
Take, for example, a forest walk. The sights, sounds, smells, textures and even tastes form our appreciation of nature and the experience. However, if we start to feel the uncomfortable sensation of substance withdrawal then, despite the evidence of our senses, we can perceive the forest as little more than a dark prison stopping us from getting to the substance we desire.
Our mental experience does not necessarily reflect reality. Other “unwanted stuff,” such as cravings or fear, often get in the way. When they do we can easily become “situated decision makers.”
Unable to cope with our internal conflicts, we often resort to behaviours that are driven by these unwanted thoughts, emotions, physical sensations or beliefs. We respond to them instead of the present reality of our environment or condition.
These behaviours, such as problematic substance use, can be fatal. The behaviours themselves can compound the unwanted thoughts, emotions, and physical sensations. We may enter the cycle of addiction where physical changes and altered brain function can occur, further compelling the destructive behaviour.
ACT teaches us that the first thing we need to do is pay attention to the here and now. Our reality is formed through both physical and psychological influences and we need to be “mindful” of both. The ability to root ourselves in awareness of the ‘here and now’ can be improved by practising mindfulness exercises.
The objective is not to sit in mindful contemplation but to improve self-awareness skills. Our capacity to focus upon what is happening to us in any given moment will afford us self-control.
For example, we might improve our awareness of the conflict between the tranquillity of a forest walk and our craving for a drug. Both can perceived simultaneously. The craving is an uncomfortable sensation but that does not need to alter our comprehension of the forest.
We are able to identify the difference between external reality and internal distress. In this awareness we can start to address the resultant behaviour that is driven by our personal experience, not the forest. We can no longer blame the forest (our environment or other people) for actions that are our own responsibility.
The next step in ACT is acceptance. It is pointless pretending that we are not experiencing cravings, emotional distress or physical pain when, in reality, we are. Trying to deny these experiences, whether psychosomatic or caused directly by physical stimuli, simply increases our anxiety, often heightening our discomfort.
If we accept what is happening to us we can confront it. If we deny it we never will.
When we don’t pay attention to the – here and now – it is very easy for us to automatically adopt learned behaviours based upon misconceptions. Especially if we use them as coping strategies whenever we encounter a trigger. Noticing is the key to unlocking behavioural control.
Let’s say we cope with stress by drinking alcohol. Every time we are in a stressful situation we increase the chance of drinking more because we wrongly believe that is our only option or that the behaviour carries no risk. For most people this isn’t a problem but for many it can become life threatening. If stress is a trigger, ACT teaches problematic drinkers to notice what causes them stress and the signs of being stressed as they emerge.
Once able to recognise the risk, as it occurs, the problematic drinker has an awareness of behavioural choice. They can rely upon a behaviour which they know to be harmful or they can use a different coping strategy that is less harmful or hopefully causes no harm at all.
ACT is about awareness of reality. If drinking chills you out, in the moment, then whatever behaviour you choose to use as a coping strategy also has to work. Otherwise it isn’t a real choice. Someone who is alcohol dependent, following detox and in recovery, may choose to listen to music, exercise, read, pray or cook instead of drinking. Whatever behaviour they use, all that matters is that it works and moves them towards their chosen goal.
ACT empowers people to gain control over behaviour that can either move them away or toward what is important to them. They do this through commitment to behavioural control. However, just as ACT demands that behavioural choice is real, so it requires a genuine appraisal of what matters to us.
Perhaps substance misuse has broken relationships, led to health problems or endangered the individual by repeatedly placing them in high risk situations. It is pointless pretending that relationships, health or safety matter more than using or drinking if that is not true. There is little chance of you moving away from harmful behaviour if you have nothing better to move toward.
For many people who use ACT this is perhaps the most challenging aspect. The moment they accept that their self-destructive or damaging behaviour matters more to them than anything else in the world can be an extremely painful realisation. It may be the first time they have truly confronted the stark reality of their problem.
This is a very high risk moment in the recovery journey. Relapse into self-destructive behaviour is a strong possibility.
ACT requires hard work and commitment. Hopefully, with the support of a decent therapist or psychologist, the individual can be afforded the safest possible opportunity to revaluate their life. This is no easy thing to do, as anyone who has been through it will attest. The majority are able to be honest with others most of the time, yet we struggle to be honest with ourselves.
Once this work is complete most people realise that their problematic behaviour is harming them and choose to readjust their priorities. They can set a goal that is truly more important to them than their problematic behaviour. It doesn’t really matter what this is. It could be rebuilding family relationships, health, safety, career, pets or, especially for those whose behaviour has led them into the judicial system, a commitment to freedom.
Every moment if filled with behaviour. Behaviour can lead us either away or toward what is important to us. ACT empowers individuals to recognise the risks inherent to the instance of behavioural choice. Rather than automatically responding as situated decision makers they can use the tools they have acquired to regain their autonomy and make rational behavioural decisions based upon their knowledge, values and objectives.
In light of the activities of TAG and Spi-B and other institutions, we must confront the reality that we have governments that do not serve us. They merely play a policy enforcement role in a worldwide network we can call the Global Public-Private Partnership (G3P).
Government serves the G3P, not us. They use covert brainwashing techniques to control us. Our behaviour is “designed” and we are not free.
Click The Image To Expand
The obvious deceit and disinformation that characterises the G3P’s pseudopandemic has led an increasing number of people to recognise the tyranny of our governments. They can now see that government seeks to control every aspect of our lives on behalf of their G3P partners.
While governments around the world are busy back-pedalling on their outlandish claims, it won’t be long before they roll-out the next fear inducing psyop. This problem will permanently remain unless we do something about it.
From censoring the Internet to attempting to ban all protest, forcing people to take drugs they don’t want, surreptitiously deceiving us into accepting digital identities, that we have consistently rejected in the past, and removing our so-called human rights whenever convenient, it is pretty clear that alleged representative democracy is being replaced by dictatorship.
We imagine that the only way to change government is to elect, lobby or protest. But the problem is not the political parties who form government, although the party political system is a problem in and of itself, it is that whoever forms government serves the G3P regardless. Voting won’t change that. No one elects the people who lead the G3P’s compartmentalised, authoritarian structure.
Faced with a global network of multinational corporations, governments, NGO’s, philanthropic foundations and a mainstream media industrial complex propaganda machine, who are also part of the G3P, it can feel like we are powerless to resist. However, this is itself an illusion.
The truth is that the whole apparatus of state has been created to oppress us precisely because those who benefit from it realise that they are ultimately powerless. If we collectively decide to act, while the G3P partners will fight to retain their authority, they cannot win.
All we need to do is take action as individuals. When enough of us do we will change the world. It is inevitable.
Protest, legal challenges, lobbying, sharing information and campaigning on issues we care about are all valuable if we want to be free but, in order to change the world, what we really need to do is change our own behaviour. Instead of doing the things that move us away from freedom we need to consistently do the things that move us toward it.
Though often misquoted, Mahatma Gandhi explained this process eloquently:
We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him.
We can make this change by using ACT. If freedom is what matters to us then we must persistently behave in a way that moves us toward it. Equally, we must stop behaving in a way that moves us away from freedom.
This requires that we notice what is happening in the here and now. Is there a difference between our thoughts, feelings and emotions and reality?
We may notice that everyone around us is wearing a mask, reinforcing the visual cues suggesting a danger. Fear could be the emotion that is driving our behaviour. We must accept both the physical reality of our environment and the psychological state of fear we may be in.
Understanding the “here and now” and armed with ACT principles, we can overcome our fear and commit to what is important to us in that moment. We must ask ourselves which direction our behaviour will, not may, lead us. We have a behavioural choice and if we want to reach our goal, we must act accordingly.
If we choose to behave in a way that moves us away from freedom then we will eventually lose our freedoms and move closer to tyranny. If we choose to behave in a way that moves us towards freedom then we will be one step closer to it. The cumulative effect of all these behavioural choices will either be freedom or tyranny.
We have previously discussed the kind of solutions we might pursue. With these in mind, we can use ACT to steadily move towards freedom.
We know that the G3P intend to introduce Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). It is no coincidence that the pseudopandemic has been very helpful in further reducing our use of cash. CBDC is planned to be a liability of the central banks. When it is introduced it will be their money and never ours.
It is also programmable money, meaning that individual transaction can be monitored and controlled by the central bank. You will no longer be free to choose what you buy or who you transact with. A CBDC world represents nothing less than total, global monetary slavery.
The disappearance of cash will more easily facilitate the introduction of CBDC. Therefore, if freedom is important to us, we must not let cash disappear. In fact, we need to make cash indispensable to businesses across the world.
Using ACT, whenever we make a purchase or transaction we must ask ourselves if our behaviour moves us towards or away from freedom. While it is not always possible to use cash but, wherever and whenever it is, if we want to move towards freedom, we must use cash. If a store refuses to accept cash then don’t frequent it, choose one that does. Doing so will move us towards freedom.
We have been subjected to an unprecedented mainstream media propaganda campaign. Paying your TV license or buying mainstream media rags moves us away from freedom. So, using ACT, consider what other behavioural options would better suit your objective. If you need to be updated with current affairs, choose alternative media or free online sources.
If you choose to support the independent media you will be moving toward freedom. You will probably be better informed and will move away from tyranny.
Use ACT to move toward freedom by considering where you buy goods and services. If you simply give your hard earned money to multinational corporations does that move you away or toward freedom? If it moves you away, don’t do it.
Instead give it to local traders and small businesses, or barter and exchange wherever possible. This maintains and increases choice and is a step toward freedom.
The G3P agenda is to centralise all authority at a global level. Centralisation of authority moves us away from freedom. Therefore, don’t simply obey the edicts of global authority. If it is possible to disobey then always disobey on principle. This moves us towards freedom and away from tyranny.
There are a never ending list of behavioural choices that we make every day that can either move us away from or towards freedom. If freedom matters and we persistently make those choices with regard to “what is important to us,” we will create the demand for freedom. If we do it in sufficient numbers that demand will be overwhelming and it will ensure that we live in freedom.
It is not going to be easy. It will be far less convenient and require more effort than simply going with the flow. But relying on behaviours that move us towards tyranny will assuredly lead us into tyranny. It cannot be otherwise.
It all comes down to what you believe and what is important to you. If you value freedom then you must actively choose the behaviour that leads you to freedom.
Once you are familiar with behavioural change principles, using them can quickly become second nature. While constantly checking your own behaviour can feel cumbersome or even irritating to begin with, stick with it.
In no time at all you will largely control your behaviour and will forge a path towards freedom. Not only can we build a society based upon the principles of freedom, if we each take personal responsibility for our behaviour, we will build it.
Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of the nine original mRNA vaccine patents, which were originally filed in 1989 (including both the idea of mRNA vaccines and the original proof of principle experiments) and RNA transfection. Dr. Malone, has close to 100 peer-reviewed publications which have been cited over 12,000 times. Since January 2020, Dr. Malone has been leading a large team focused on clinical research design, drug development, computer modeling and mechanisms of action of repurposed drugs for the treatment of COVID-19. Dr. Malone is the Medical Director of The Unity Project, a group of 300 organizations across the US standing against mandated COVID vaccines for children. He is also the President of the Global Covid Summit, an organization of over 16,000 doctors and scientists committed to speaking truth to power about COVID pandemic research and treatment.
Much more data and elaboration at original source.
...
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."
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.”
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.”
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."
By July 2, 2021, three weeks later, cases were down a full 99 percent.
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.
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."
"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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
A daily onslaught of media propaganda bombards us with messages attempting to steer us away from the safest and most effective treatments.
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.
Stolen from a well educated person who is also a healthcare professional:
“Among all the vaccines I have known in my life (diphtheria, tetanus, measles, rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis, meningitis and tuberculosis), I want to also add flu and pneumonia. I have never seen a vaccine that forced me to wear a mask and maintain my social distance, even when you are fully vaccinated. I had never heard of a vaccine that spreads the virus even after vaccination.
I had never heard of rewards, discounts, incentives to get vaccinated. I never saw discrimination for those who didn’t. If you haven’t been vaccinated no one has tried to make you feel like a bad person. I have never seen a vaccine that threatens the relationship between family, colleagues and friends. I have never seen a vaccine used to threaten livelihoods, work or school.
I have never seen a vaccine that would allow a 12-year-old to override parental consent.
After all the vaccines I listed above, I have never seen a vaccine like this one, which discriminates, divides and judges society as it is. And as the social fabric tightens… It’s a powerful vaccine! She does all these things except IMMUNIZATION. If we still need a booster dose after we are fully vaccinated, and we still need to get a negative test after we are fully vaccinated, and we still need to wear a mask after we are fully vaccinated, and still be hospitalized after we have been fully vaccinated, it will likely come to “It’s time for us to admit that we’ve been completely deceived.”
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.
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/
Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia with disseminated intravascular coagulation and death after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1052305721003414
Fatal cerebral hemorrhage after COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33928772/
Myocarditis after mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, a case series: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666602221000409
Three cases of acute venous thromboembolism in women after vaccination against COVID-19: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213333X21003929
Acute thrombosis of the coronary tree after vaccination against COVID-19: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1936879821003988
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/
Portal vein thrombosis associated with ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1253(21)00197-7/
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/
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
Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome associated with COVID-19 vaccines: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0735675721004381
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
Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome associated with COVID-19 viral vector vaccines: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0953620521001904
COVID-19 vaccine-induced immune-immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: an emerging cause of splanchnic vein thrombosis: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1665268121000557
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
Roots of autoimmunity of thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1568997221002160
Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after vaccination: the United Kingdom experience: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01788-8/fulltext
Thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia induced by SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejme2106315
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
Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104882?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article
Association of myocarditis with the BNT162b2 messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine in a case series of children: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34374740/
Thrombotic thrombocytopenia after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104840?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article
Post-mortem findings in vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (covid-19): https://haematologica.org/article/view/haematol.2021.279075
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
Acute symptomatic myocarditis in seven adolescents after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2021/06/04/peds.2021-052478
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
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
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
Blood clots and bleeding episodes after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: analysis of European data: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896841121000937
Cerebral venous thrombosis after BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1052305721003098
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
Myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA: practical considerations for care providers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0828282X21006243
“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
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
Myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiomyopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1443950621011562
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
Prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006497121009411
Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: the dark chapter of a success story: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589936821000256
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
Thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination: possible link to ACE pathways: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049384821004369
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
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
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
Immune thrombocytopenic purpura after vaccination with COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCov-19): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006497121013963.
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
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
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
Thrombocytopenia and intracranial venous sinus thrombosis after exposure to the “AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine”: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33918932/
Thrombocytopenia following Pfizer and Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33606296/
Severe and refractory immune thrombocytopenia occurring after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33854395/
Purpuric rash and thrombocytopenia after mRNA-1273 (Modern) COVID-19 vaccine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996471/
COVID-19 vaccination: information on the occurrence of arterial and venous thrombosis using data from VigiBase: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33863748/
Cerebral venous thrombosis associated with the covid-19 vaccine in Germany: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.26172
Cerebral venous thrombosis following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination of BNT162b2 against SARS-CoV-2: a black swan event: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34133027/
The importance of recognizing cerebral venous thrombosis following anti-COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34001390/
Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after messenger RNA vaccine -1273: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181446/
Blood clots and bleeding after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: an analysis of European data: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34174723/
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
Exacerbation of immune thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34075578/
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/
PF4 immunoassays in vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2106383
Antibody epitopes in vaccine-induced immune immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03744-4
Myocarditis with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056135
Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782900
Myocarditis temporally associated with COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.055891.
COVID-19 Vaccination Associated with Myocarditis in Adolescents: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2021/08/12/peds.2021-053427.full.pdf
Acute myocarditis after administration of BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33994339/
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
COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis: a case report with review of the literature: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871402121002253
Potential association between COVID-19 vaccine and myocarditis: clinical and CMR findings: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1936878X2100485X
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
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.
Acute myocarditis after administration of BNT162b2 vaccine: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214250921001530
Lymphohistocytic myocarditis after vaccination with COVID-19 Ad26.COV2.S viral vector: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352906721001573
Myocarditis following vaccination with BNT162b2 in a healthy male: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675721005362
Acute myocarditis after Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccination in a healthy male with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1930043321005549
Myopericarditis after Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002234762100665X
Pericarditis after administration of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1885585721002218
Acute myocarditis after vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 mRNA: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589790X21001931
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
Myopericarditis after vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA in adolescents 12 to 18 years of age: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347621007368
Acute myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in a 24-year-old man: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0870255121003243
Important information on myopericarditis after vaccination with Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA in adolescents: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347621007496
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
Takotsubo cardiomyopathy after vaccination with mRNA COVID-19: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1443950621011331
COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and myocarditis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34268277/
COVID-19 vaccine and myocarditis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34399967/
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.
COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34246566/
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
Myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiomyopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34340927/
Myocarditis with covid-19 mRNA vaccines: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056135
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/
Association of myocarditis with COVID-19 messenger RNA vaccine BNT162b2 in a case series of children: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2783052
Myocarditis after immunization with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in members of the U.S. military: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781601%5C
Myocarditis occurring after immunization with COVID-19 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781600
Myocarditis following immunization with Covid-19 mRNA: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2109975
Patients with acute myocarditis after vaccination withCOVID-19 mRNA: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781602
Myocarditis associated with vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA: https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2021211430
Symptomatic Acute Myocarditis in 7 Adolescents after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccination: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/148/3/e2021052478
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
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
Cardiac imaging of acute myocarditis after vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34402228/
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
Myocarditis / pericarditis associated with COVID-19 vaccine: https://science.gc.ca/eic/site/063.nsf/eng/h_98291.html
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
Perimyocarditis in adolescents after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: https://academic.oup.com/jpids/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jpids/piab060/6329543
The new COVID-19 mRNA vaccine platform and myocarditis: clues to the possible underlying mechanism: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34312010/
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/
Be alert to the risk of adverse cardiovascular events after COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.xiahepublishing.com/m/2472-0712/ERHM-2021-00033
Myocarditis associated with COVID-19 vaccination: echocardiographic, cardiac tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging findings: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.121.013236
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
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/
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/
Myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: a vaccine-induced reaction?: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34118375/
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/
Myopericarditis in a previously healthy adolescent male after COVID-19 vaccination: Case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34133825/
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/
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
Unusual presentation of acute perimyocarditis after modern SARS-COV-2 mRNA-1237 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34447639/
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
Acute myocarditis after the second dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: serendipity or causal relationship: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34236331/
Rhabdomyolysis and fasciitis induced by the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34435250/
COVID-19 vaccine-induced rhabdomyolysis: case report with literature review: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34186348/.
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
Guillain-Barré syndrome after AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination: causal or casual association: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303846721004169
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
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.
Guillain-Barré syndrome presenting as facial diplegia after vaccination with COVID-19: a case report: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467921006442
Guillain-Barré syndrome after the first injection of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: first report: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0035378721005853.
SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are not safe for those with Guillain-Barre syndrome following vaccination: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2049080121005343
Acute hyperactive encephalopathy following COVID-19 vaccination with dramatic response to methylprednisolone: a case report: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2049080121007536
Facial nerve palsy following administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: analysis of self-report database: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221007049
Neurological symptoms and neuroimaging alterations related to COVID-19 vaccine: cause or coincidence: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899707121003557.
New-onset refractory status epilepticus after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165572821001569
Acute myelitis and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: coincidental or causal association: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165572821002137
Bell’s palsy and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: an unfolding story: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309921002735
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
Acute-onset central serous retinopathy after immunization with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine:. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451993621001456.
Bell’s palsy after COVID-19 vaccination: case report: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S217358082100122X.
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
COVID-19 vaccine-induced axillary and pectoral lymphadenopathy in PET: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1930043321002612
ANCA-associated vasculitis after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272638621007423
Late cutaneous reactions after administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213219821007996
COVID-19 vaccine-induced rhabdomyolysis: case report with review of the literature: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871402121001880
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
Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome associated with COVID-19 vaccines:. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0735675721004381.
COVID-19 vaccine-associated anaphylaxis: a statement from the Anaphylaxis Committee of the World Allergy Organization:. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1939455121000119.
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.
Acute myocarditis after administration of BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19:. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S188558572100133X
Blood clots and bleeding after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: an analysis of European data:. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896841121000937.
immune thrombocytopenia associated with Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine:. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214250921002018.
Bullous drug eruption after the second dose of COVID-19 mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine: Case report: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876034121001878.
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
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.
Process-related impurities in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-477964/v1
COVID-19 mRNA vaccine causing CNS inflammation: a case series: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00415-021-10780-7
Allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33475702/
Allergic reactions to the first COVID-19 vaccine: a potential role of polyethylene glycol: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33320974/
Pfizer Vaccine Raises Allergy Concerns: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33384356/
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/
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/
Reports of anaphylaxis after coronavirus disease vaccination 2019, South Korea, February 26-April 30, 2021: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34414880/
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/
Immunization practices and risk of anaphylaxis: a current, comprehensive update of COVID-19 vaccination data: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34269740/
Relationship between pre-existing allergies and anaphylactic reactions following administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34215453/
Anaphylaxis Associated with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Approach to Allergy Research: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33932618/
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/
Allergic reactions and anaphylaxis to LNP-based COVID-19 vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33571463/
Reported orofacial adverse effects from COVID-19 vaccines: the known and the unknown: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33527524/
Cutaneous adverse effects of available COVID-19 vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34518015/
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/
COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of anaphylaxis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33685103/
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/
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/
Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a cause of anaphylaxis to Pfizer / BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33825239/
Acute allergic reactions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33683290/
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/
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/
Allergic reactions and adverse events associated with administration of mRNA-based vaccines. A health system experience: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34474708/
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
.IgE-mediated allergy to polyethylene glycol (PEG) as a cause of anaphylaxis to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318537/
Allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccination: putting the risk in perspective: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34463751/
Anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: a call for further studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33846043/ 188.
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/
COVID-19 vaccine and death: causality algorithm according to the WHO eligibility diagnosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34073536/
Fatal brain hemorrhage after COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33928772/
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/
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/
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/
Skin reactions after vaccination against SARS-COV-2: a nationwide Spanish cross-sectional study of 405 cases: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34254291/
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/
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/
Laboratory testing for suspicion of COVID-19 vaccine-induced thrombotic (immune) thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34138513/
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/
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/
Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after covid-19 vaccination; a systematic review: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34365148/.
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/.
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/
Primary adrenal insufficiency associated with thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia induced by Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (VITT): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34256983/
Acute cerebral venous thrombosis and pulmonary artery embolism associated with the COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34247246/.
Thromboaspiration infusion and fibrinolysis for portomesenteric thrombosis after administration of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34132839/
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/
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/
Myocarditis and other cardiovascular complications of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34277198/
Pericarditis after administration of COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34364831/
Unusual presentation of acute pericarditis after vaccination against SARS-COV-2 mRNA-1237 Modern: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34447639/
Case report: acute myocarditis after second dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 vaccine mRNA-1273: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34514306/
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/
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/
Immune thrombocytopenia in a 22-year-old post Covid-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33476455/
propylthiouracil-induced neutrophil anti-cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34451967/
Secondary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) associated with ChAdOx1 Covid-19 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34377889/
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/
COVID-19 vaccination association and facial nerve palsy: A case-control study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34165512/
The association between COVID-19 vaccination and Bell’s palsy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34411533/
Bell’s palsy after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33611630/
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/
Bell’s palsy after 24 hours of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34336436/
Sequential contralateral facial nerve palsy after first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34281950/.
Transverse myelitis induced by SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34458035/
Peripheral facial nerve palsy after vaccination with BNT162b2 (COVID-19): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33734623/
Acute abducens nerve palsy after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34044114/.
Facial nerve palsy after administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: analysis of self-report database: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34492394/
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/
Bell’s palsy after Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34014316/
Bell’s palsy after COVID-19 vaccination: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34330676/
A case of acute demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy with bilateral facial palsy following ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34272622/
Guillian Barré syndrome after vaccination with mRNA-1273 against COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34477091/
Acute facial paralysis as a possible complication of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33975372/.
Bell’s palsy after COVID-19 vaccination with high antibody response in CSF: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34322761/.
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/.
Bell’s palsy after a single dose of vaccine mRNA. SARS-CoV-2: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34032902/.
Autoimmune hepatitis developing after coronavirus disease vaccine 2019 (COVID-19): causality or victim?: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33862041/
Autoimmune hepatitis triggered by vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34332438/
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/.
Autoimmune hepatitis after COVID vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34225251/
A novel case of bifacial diplegia variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome after vaccination with Janssen COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34449715/
Comparison of vaccine-induced thrombotic events between ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Ad26.COV.2.S vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34139631/.
Bilateral superior ophthalmic vein thrombosis, ischemic stroke and immune thrombocytopenia after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33864750/
Diagnosis and treatment of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis with vaccine-induced immune-immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33914590/
Venous sinus thrombosis after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34420802/
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/
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/
Blood clots and bleeding after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: an analysis of European data: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34174723/
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/
First dose of ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines and thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events in Scotland: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34108714/
Cerebral venous thrombosis associated with COVID-19 vaccine in Germany: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34288044/
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/
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/.
Primary adrenal insufficiency associated with Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (VITT) vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34256983/
Thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34332437/.
Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis associated with thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33845870/.
Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after COVID-19 immunization: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34236343/
Acute myocardial infarction within 24 hours after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34364657/.
Bilateral acute macular neuroretinopathy after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34287612/
central venous sinus thrombosis with subarachnoid hemorrhage after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination: are these reports merely coincidental: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34478433/
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/
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/
Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis 2 weeks after first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34101024/
A case of multiple thrombocytopenia and thrombosis following vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against SARS-CoV-2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34137813/
Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: the elusive link between thrombosis and adenovirus-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34191218/
Acute ischemic stroke revealing immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia induced by ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine: impact on recanalization strategy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34175640/
New-onset refractory status epilepticus after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34153802/
Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome associated with COVID-19 viral vector vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34092488/
Pulmonary embolism, transient ischemic attack, and thrombocytopenia after Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34261635/
Thromboaspiration infusion and fibrinolysis for portomesenteric thrombosis after administration of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34132839/.
Spontaneous HIT syndrome: knee replacement, infection, and parallels with vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34144250/
Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) occurring shortly after second dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33687691/
Procoagulant antibody-mediated procoagulant platelets in immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34011137/.
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/.
Procoagulant microparticles: a possible link between vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia (VITT) and cerebral sinus venous thrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34129181/.
Atypical thrombosis associated with the vaccine VaxZevria® (AstraZeneca): data from the French network of regional pharmacovigilance centers: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34083026/.
Acute cerebral venous thrombosis and pulmonary artery embolism associated with the COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34247246/.
Vaccine-induced thrombosis and thrombocytopenia with bilateral adrenal haemorrhage: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34235757/.
Palmar digital vein thrombosis after Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34473841/.
Cutaneous thrombosis associated with cutaneous necrosis following Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34189756/
Cerebral venous thrombosis following COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34045111/.
Lipschütz ulcers after AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34366434/.
Amyotrophic Neuralgia secondary to Vaxzevri vaccine (AstraZeneca) COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34330677/
Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after Messenger vaccine RNA-1273: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34181446/
Intracerebral hemorrhage twelve days after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34477089/
Thrombotic thrombocytopenia after vaccination with COVID-19: in search of the underlying mechanism: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34071883/
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34033367/
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/
Immunoglobulin adjuvant for vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34107198/
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/.
A case of acute pulmonary embolism after immunization with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34452028/
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/
Thrombosis and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34237213/.
Acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic thrombocytopenic purpura: a rare disease associated with the BNT162b2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34105247/.
Immune complexes, innate immunity and NETosis in ChAdOx1 vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34405870/.
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/.
Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada syndrome after COVID-19 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34462013/.
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/.
Post-vaccinal encephalitis after ChAdOx1 nCov-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34324214/
Neurological symptoms and neuroimaging alterations related to COVID-19 vaccine: cause or coincidence?: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34507266/
Fatal systemic capillary leak syndrome after SARS-COV-2 vaccination in a patient with multiple myeloma: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34459725/
Polyarthralgia and myalgia syndrome after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCOV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34463066/
Three cases of subacute thyroiditis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: post-vaccination ASIA syndrome: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34043800/.
Facial diplegia: a rare and atypical variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome and the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34447646/
Association between ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination and bleeding episodes: large population-based cohort study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34479760/.
fulminant myocarditis and systemic hyperinflammation temporally associated with BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in two patients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34416319/.
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/
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/
Petechiae and peeling of fingers after immunization with BTN162b2 messenger RNA (mRNA)-based COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34513435/
Hepatitis C virus reactivation after COVID-19 vaccination: a case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34512037/
Bilateral immune-mediated keratolysis after immunization with SARS-CoV-2 recombinant viral vector vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34483273/.
Immune-mediated thrombocytopenic purpura after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in an elderly woman: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34513446/
Platelet activation and modulation in thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome associated with the ChAdO × 1 nCov-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34474550/
Reactive arthritis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34033732/.
Two cases of Graves’ disease after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: an autoimmune / inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33858208/
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/
Widespread fixed bullous drug eruption after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34482558/
COVID-19 mRNA vaccine causing CNS inflammation: a case series: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34480607/
Thymic hyperplasia after Covid-19 mRNA-based vaccination with Covid-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34462647/
Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34325334/
Tolosa-Hunt syndrome occurring after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34513398/
Systemic capillary extravasation syndrome following vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34362727/
Immune-mediated thrombocytopenia associated with Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen; Johnson & Johnson): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34469919/.
Transient thrombocytopenia with glycoprotein-specific platelet autoantibodies after vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34516272/.
Acute hyperactive encephalopathy following COVID-19 vaccination with dramatic response to methylprednisolone: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34512961/
Transient cardiac injury in adolescents receiving the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34077949/
Autoimmune hepatitis developing after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (Oxford-AstraZeneca): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34171435/
Severe relapse of multiple sclerosis after COVID-19 vaccination: a case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34447349/
Lymphohistocytic myocarditis after vaccination with the COVID-19 viral vector Ad26.COV2.S: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34514078/
Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34406660/.
IgA vasculitis in adult patient after vaccination with ChadOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34509658/
A case of leukocytoclastic vasculitis after vaccination with a SARS-CoV2 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34196469/.
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/
Hailey-Hailey disease exacerbation after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34436620/
Supraclavicular lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination in Korea: serial follow-up by ultrasonography: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34116295/.
COVID-19 vaccine, immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, jaundice, hyperviscosity: concern in cases with underlying hepatic problems: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34509271/.
Report of the International Cerebral Venous Thrombosis Consortium on cerebral venous thrombosis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34462996/
Immune thrombocytopenia after vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34435486/
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/
Rituximab-induced acute lympholysis and pancytopenia following vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34429981/
Exacerbation of plaque psoriasis after COVID-19 inactivated mRNA and BNT162b2 vaccines: report of two cases: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34427024/
Vaccine-induced interstitial lung disease: a rare reaction to COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34510014/.
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/
Vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia with severe headache: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34525282/
Acute perimyocarditis after the first dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34515024/
Rhabdomyolysis and fasciitis induced by COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34435250/.
Rare cutaneous adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines: a case series and review of the literature: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34363637/
Immune thrombocytopenia associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214250921002018
Secondary immune thrombocytopenia putatively attributable to COVID-19 vaccination: https://casereports.bmj.com/content/14/5/e242220.abstract.
Immune thrombocytopenia following Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34155844/
Newly diagnosed idiopathic thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccine administration: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8176657/.
Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and the Modern Covid-19 vaccine: https://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(21)00122-0/fulltext.
Thrombocytopenia after Pfizer and Moderna SARS vaccination – CoV -2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8014568/.
Immune thrombocytopenic purpura and acute liver injury after COVID-19 vaccination: https://casereports.bmj.com/content/14/7/e242678.
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
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
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
Cerebral venous thrombosis associated with COVID-19 vaccine in Germany: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34288044/.
Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination : Neurological and radiological management: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34327553/.
Cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33878469/.
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/.
Cerebral venous thrombosis induced by SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34090750/.
Carotid artery immune thrombosis induced by adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34312301/.
Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis associated with vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34333995/
The roles of platelets in COVID-19-associated coagulopathy and vaccine-induced immune-immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455073/
Cerebral venous thrombosis after the BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34111775/.
Cerebral venous thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34045111/
Lethal cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33983464/
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/
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/.
Central venous sinus thrombosis with subarachnoid hemorrhage after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination: are these reports merely coincidental: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34478433/
Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccination with a misleading first brain MRI: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34244448/
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/
Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis associated with post-vaccination thrombocytopenia by COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33845870/.
Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis 2 weeks after the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34101024/.
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/.
Adenovirus interactions with platelets and coagulation and vaccine-associated autoimmune thrombocytopenia thrombosis syndrome: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34407607/.
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/
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/
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/
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/
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/
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/
Procoagulant microparticles: a possible link between vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia (VITT) and cerebral sinus venous thrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34129181/
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/.
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/
Acute ischemic stroke revealing immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia induced by ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine: impact on recanalization strategy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34175640/
Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VITT): a new clinicopathologic entity with heterogeneous clinical presentations: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34159588/.
Imaging and hematologic findings in thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34402666/
Autoimmunity roots of thrombotic events after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34508917/
Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after vaccination: the UK experience: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34370974/
Massive cerebral venous thrombosis and venous basin infarction as late complications of COVID-19: a case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34373991/
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/
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/
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/.
A case of acute demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy with bilateral facial palsy after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine:. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34272622/
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/
Predicted and observed incidence of thromboembolic events among Koreans vaccinated with the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34254476/
First dose of ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines and thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic, and hemorrhagic events in Scotland: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34108714/
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/.
Pulmonary embolism, transient ischemic attack, and thrombocytopenia after Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34261635/
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/
Large hemorrhagic stroke after vaccination against ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: a case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34273119/
Polyarthralgia and myalgia syndrome after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCOV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34463066/
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/
Thrombosis and severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 vaccines: vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34237213/.
Renal vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism secondary to vaccine-induced thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VITT): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34268278/.
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/.
Association between ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination and bleeding episodes: large population-based cohort study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34479760/.
Secondary thrombocytopenia after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: case report of haemorrhage and hematoma after minor oral surgery: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34314875/.
Venous thromboembolism and mild thrombocytopenia after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34384129/
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/
A case of ANCA-associated vasculitis after AZD1222 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: victim or causality?: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34416184/.
Intracerebral hemorrhage associated with vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCOVID-19 vaccination in a pregnant woman: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34261297/
Massive cerebral venous thrombosis due to vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34261296/
Nephrotic syndrome after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARScoV-2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34250318/.
A case of vaccine-induced immune-immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia with massive arteriovenous thrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34059191/
Cutaneous thrombosis associated with cutaneous necrosis following Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34189756/
Thrombocytopenia in an adolescent with sickle cell anemia after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34331506/
Vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia with severe headache: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34525282/
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
COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and development of CMR-confirmed myopericarditis: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.13.21262182v1.full?s=09.
Severe autoimmune hemolytic anemia after receipt of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/trf.16672
Intravenous injection of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccine can induce acute myopericarditis in a mouse model: https://t.co/j0IEM8cMXI
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/
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
Bilateral uveitis after inoculation with COVID-19 vaccine: a case report: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221007797
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.
Immune-mediated hepatitis with the Moderna vaccine is no longer a coincidence but confirmed: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827821020936
Extensive investigations revealed consistent pathophysiologic alterations after vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-021-00329-3
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/
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
ChAdOx1 interacts with CAR and PF4 with implications for thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abl8213
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/
A prothrombotic thrombocytopenic disorder resembling heparin-induced thrombocytopenia after coronavirus-19 vaccination: https://europepmc.org/article/PPR/PPR304469 435.
VITT (vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia) after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34731555/
Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT): a new clinicopathologic entity with heterogeneous clinical presentations: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34159588/
Treatment of acute ischemic stroke associated with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34461442/
Spectrum of neurological complications after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34719776/.
Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after vaccination: the UK experience: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34370974/
Cerebral venous vein/venous sinus thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34373413/
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/
Hematuria, a generalized petechial rash and headaches after Oxford AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34620638/
Myocardial infarction and azygos vein thrombosis after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in a hemodialysis patient: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34650896/
Takotsubo (stress) cardiomyopathy after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34625447/
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/
Guillain-Barré syndrome after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 COVID-19 vaccination: a case series: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34548920/
Refractory vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) treated with delayed therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34672380/.
Rare case of COVID-19 vaccine-associated intracranial hemorrhage with venous sinus thrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34556531/.
Delayed headache after COVID-19 vaccination: a warning sign for vaccine-induced cerebral venous thrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34535076/.
Clinical features of vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia and immune thrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34379914/.
Predictors of mortality in thrombotic thrombocytopenia after adenoviral COVID-19 vaccination: the FAPIC score: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34545400/
Ischemic stroke as a presenting feature of immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia induced by ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34035134/
In-hospital observational study of neurological disorders in patients recently vaccinated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34688190/
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/
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/
Cerebral venous thrombosis developing after vaccination. COVID-19: VITT, VATT, TTS and more: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34695859/
Cerebral venous thrombosis and myeloproliferative neoplasms: a three-center study of 74 consecutive cases: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34453762/.
Possible triggers of thrombocytopenia and/or hemorrhage by BNT162b2 vaccine, Pfizer-BioNTech: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34660652/.
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/
Case series of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia in a London teaching hospital: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34694650/
Neuro-ophthalmic complications with thrombocytopenia and thrombosis induced by ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34726934/
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/
Intracerebral hemorrhage associated with vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCOVID-19 vaccination in a pregnant woman: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34261297/
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/.
Genital necrosis with cutaneous thrombosis following vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34839563/
Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34783932/.
COVID-19 vaccine-induced immune thrombosis with thrombocytopenia thrombosis (VITT) and shades of gray in thrombus formation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34624910/
Inflammatory myositis after vaccination with ChAdOx1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34585145/
Acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction secondary to vaccine-induced immune thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (VITT): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34580132/.
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/
COVID-19 vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: a case series: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34527501/
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/
Immune thrombocytopenia after immunization with Vaxzevria ChadOx1-S vaccine (AstraZeneca), Victoria, Australia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34756770/
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
Case study of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia syndrome after administration of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34781321/
Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome Associated with COVID-19 Vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34062319/
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/
COVID-19 vaccine-associated thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS): systematic review and post hoc analysis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34698582/.
Case report of immune thrombocytopenia after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34751013/.
Acute transverse myelitis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34684047/.
Concerns for adverse effects of thrombocytopenia and thrombosis after adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34541935/
Major hemorrhagic stroke after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: a case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34273119/
Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination: neurologic and radiologic management: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34327553/.
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/
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/
Minimal change disease with severe acute kidney injury after Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34242687/.
Case report: cerebral sinus vein thrombosis in two patients with AstraZeneca SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34609603/
Case report: Pityriasis rosea-like rash after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34557507/
Extensive longitudinal transverse myelitis after ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34641797/.
Acute eosinophilic pneumonia associated with anti-COVID-19 vaccine AZD1222: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34812326/.
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/
A case of ANCA-associated vasculitis after AZD1222 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: victim or causality?: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34416184/
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/.
Thrombosis in peripheral artery disease and thrombotic thrombocytopenia following adenoviral COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34649281/.
Newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia in a pregnant patient after coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34420249/
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/.
Sweet’s syndrome after Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (AZD1222) in an elderly woman: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34590397/
Sudden sensorineural hearing loss after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34670143/.
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/.
Acute hemichorea-hemibalismus after COVID-19 (AZD1222) vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34581453/
Recurrence of alopecia areata after covid-19 vaccination: a report of three cases in Italy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34741583/
Shingles-like skin lesion after vaccination with AstraZeneca for COVID-19: a case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34631069/
Thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination: possible link to ACE pathways: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34479129/
Thrombocytopenia in an adolescent with sickle cell anemia after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34331506/
Leukocytoclastic vasculitis as a cutaneous manifestation of ChAdOx1 corona virus vaccine nCoV-19 (recombinant): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34546608/
Abdominal pain and bilateral adrenal hemorrhage from immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia induced by COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34546343/
Longitudinally extensive cervical myelitis after vaccination with inactivated virus based COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34849183/
Induction of cutaneous leukocytoclastic vasculitis after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34853744/.
A case of toxic epidermal necrolysis after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34751429/.
Ocular adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34559576/
Depression after ChAdOx1-S / nCoV-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34608345/.
Venous thromboembolism and mild thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34384129/.
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/
Major artery thrombosis and vaccination against ChAdOx1 nCov-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34839830/
Rare case of contralateral supraclavicular lymphadenopathy after vaccination with COVID-19: computed tomography and ultrasound findings: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34667486/
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/.
Pancreas allograft rejection after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34781027/
Understanding the risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome following Ad26.COV2.S vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34595694/
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/
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
Eosinophilic dermatosis after AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34753210/.
Severe immune thrombocytopenia following COVID-19 vaccination: report of four cases and review of the literature: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34653943/.
Relapse of immune thrombocytopenia after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34591991/
Thrombosis in pre- and post-vaccination phase of COVID-19; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34650382/
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/
COVID-19 vaccine in patients with hypercoagulability disorders: a clinical perspective: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34786893/
Vaccine-associated thrombocytopenia and thrombosis: venous endotheliopathy leading to combined venous micro-macrothrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34833382/
Thrombosis and thrombocytopenia syndrome causing isolated symptomatic carotid occlusion after COVID-19 Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34670287/
An unusual presentation of acute deep vein thrombosis after Modern COVID-19 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34790811/
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/.
Thrombosis formation after COVID-19 vaccination immunologic aspects: review article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34629931/
Imaging and hematologic findings in thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34402666/
Spectrum of neuroimaging findings in post-CoVID-19 vaccination: a case series and review of the literature: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34842783/
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/
Fatal cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33983464/
Autoimmune roots of thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34508917/.
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.
Images of immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia induced by Oxford / AstraZeneca® COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33962903/.
Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA of BNT162b2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34796065/.
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/
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/
Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis following vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 (BNT162b2): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34595867/
A case of idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura after a booster dose of COVID-19 BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-Biontech): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34820240/
Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VITT): targeting pathologic mechanisms with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33851389/
Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura after vaccination with Ad26.COV2-S: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33980419/
Thromboembolic events in younger females exposed to Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34264151/
Potential risk of thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination with Oxford-AstraZeneca in women receiving estrogen: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34734086/
Thrombosis after adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccination: a concern for underlying disease: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34755555/
Adenovirus interactions with platelets and coagulation and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia syndrome: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34407607/
Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura: a new threat after COVID bnt162b2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34264514/.
Unusual site of deep vein thrombosis after vaccination against coronavirus mRNA-2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34840204/
Neurological side effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34750810/
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/
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/
Central retinal vein occlusion after vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34571653/.
Complicated case report of long-term vaccine-induced thrombotic immune thrombocytopenia A: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34835275/.
Deep venous thrombosis after vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S in adult males: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34659839/.
Neurological autoimmune diseases after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: a case series: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34668274/.
Severe autoimmune hemolytic autoimmune anemia after receiving SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34549821/
Occurrence of COVID-19 variants among recipients of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (recombinant): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34528522/
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/
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.
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
Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: inequalities in age and vaccine types: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/11/11/1106
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/
Shedding light on post-vaccination myocarditis and pericarditis in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 vaccine recipients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696294/
Myocarditis Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine: https://journals.lww.com/pec-online/Abstract/2021/11000/Myocarditis_Following_ mRNA_COVID_19_Vaccine.9.aspx.
Myocarditis following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 mRNA vaccine in Israel: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614328/.
Myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiomyopathy following COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.heartlungcirc.org/article/S1443-9506(21)01156-2/fulltext
Myocarditis and other cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34277198/
Possible Association Between COVID-19 Vaccine and Myocarditis: Clinical and CMR Findings: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34246586/
Hypersensitivity Myocarditis and COVID-19 Vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34856634/.
Severe myocarditis associated with COVID-19 vaccine: zebra or unicorn?: https://www.internationaljournalofcardiology.com/article/S0167-5273(21)01477-7/fulltext.
Acute myocardial infarction and myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8522388/
Myocarditis after Covid-19 vaccination in a large healthcare organization: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737
Association of myocarditis with COVID-19 messenger RNA BNT162b2 vaccine in a case series of children: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2783052
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
STEMI mimicry: focal myocarditis in an adolescent patient after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination:. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34756746/
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/
Myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34546329/.
Patients with acute myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination:. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2781602.
Myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: a case series: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X21011725?via%3Dihub.
Myocarditis associated with COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/148/5/e2021053427/181357
Myocarditis findings on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging after vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA in adolescents:. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34704459/
Myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: magnetic resonance imaging study: https://academic.oup.com/ehjcimaging/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ehjci/jeab230/6 421640.
Acute myocarditis after administration of the second dose of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8599115/
Myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352906721001603
Case report: probable myocarditis after Covid-19 mRNA vaccine in a patient with arrhythmogenic left ventricular cardiomyopathy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34712717/.
Acute myocarditis after administration of BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19: https://www.revespcardiol.org/en-linkresolver-acute-myocarditis-after-administration-bnt162b2-S188558572100133X.
Myocarditis associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccination: https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2021211430
Acute myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: a case report: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0248866321007098
Acute myopericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents:. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34589238/.
Perimyocarditis in adolescents after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination: https://academic.oup.com/jpids/article/10/10/962/6329543.
Acute myocarditis associated with anti-COVID-19 vaccination: https://ecevr.org/DOIx.php?id=10.7774/cevr.2021.10.2.196.
Myocarditis associated with COVID-19 vaccination: echocardiographic, cardiac CT, and MRI findings:. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34428917/.
Acute symptomatic myocarditis in 7 adolescents after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination:. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34088762/.
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.
COVID 19 vaccine for adolescents. Concern for myocarditis and pericarditis: https://www.mdpi.com/2036-7503/13/3/61.
Cardiac imaging of acute myocarditis after vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34402228/
Myocarditis temporally associated with COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34133885/
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/
Acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 vaccination: report of a case: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8639400/
Myocarditis following vaccination with COVID-19 messenger RNA: a Japanese case series: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34840235/.
Myocarditis in the setting of a recent COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34712497/.
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.
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/
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
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.
Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: inequalities in age and vaccine types: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/11/11/1106
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/
Shedding light on post-vaccination myocarditis and pericarditis in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 vaccine recipients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696294/
Diffuse prothrombotic syndrome after administration of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34615534/
Three cases of acute venous thromboembolism in women after coronavirus 2019 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34352418/
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.
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/
Post-mortem findings in vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://haematologica.org/article/view/haematol.2021.279075
COVID-19 vaccine-induced thrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34802488/.
Inflammation and platelet activation after COVID-19 vaccines: possible mechanisms behind vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34887867/.
Anaphylactoid reaction and coronary thrombosis related to COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34863404/.
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
Occurrence of splenic infarction due to arterial thrombosis after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34876440/
Deep venous thrombosis more than two weeks after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33928773/
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/
Information on ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine-induced immune-mediated thrombotic thrombocytopenia: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34587242/
Change in blood viscosity after COVID-19 vaccination: estimation for persons with underlying metabolic syndrome: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34868465/
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/
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/.
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
Incidence of acute ischemic stroke after coronavirus vaccination in Indonesia: case series: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34579636/
Successful treatment of vaccine-induced immune immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia in a 26-year-old female patient: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614491/
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/
Idiopathic idiopathic external jugular vein thrombophlebitis after coronavirus disease vaccination (COVID-19): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33624509/.
Squamous cell carcinoma of the lung with hemoptysis following vaccination with tozinameran (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34612003/
Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination in a man presenting as acute venous thromboembolism: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34096082/
Myocarditis associated with COVID-19 vaccination in three adolescent boys: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34851078/.
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/
Perimyocarditis after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34866957/
Epidemiology of acute myocarditis/pericarditis in Hong Kong adolescents after co-vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34849657/.
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/
Acute myocarditis after vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA in adults aged 18 years or older: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34605853/
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/
Young male with myocarditis after mRNA-1273 coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34744118/
Acute myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in a 24-year-old male: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34334935/.
Ga-DOTATOC digital PET images of inflammatory cell infiltrates in myocarditis after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34746968/
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/.
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/
Myocarditis Following Immunization with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in Members of the U.S. Military: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34185045/
Myocarditis after BNT162b2 vaccination in a healthy male: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34229940/
Myopericarditis in a previously healthy adolescent male after COVID-19 vaccination: Case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34133825/
Acute myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 mRNA vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34308326/.
Chest pain with abnormal electrocardiogram redevelopment after injection of COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by Moderna: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34866106/
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/
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/
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/
Acute myocarditis after Comirnaty vaccination in a healthy male with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34367386/
Acute myocarditis in a young adult two days after vaccination with Pfizer: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34709227/
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/
Acute myocarditis after 2019 coronavirus disease vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34734821/
A series of patients with myocarditis after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 with mRNA-1279 and BNT162b2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34246585/
Myopericarditis after Pfizer messenger ribonucleic acid coronavirus coronavirus disease vaccine in adolescents: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34228985/
Post-vaccination multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34852213/
Acute myocarditis defined after vaccination with 2019 mRNA of coronavirus disease: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34866122/
Biventricular systolic dysfunction in acute myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34601566/
Myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination: MRI study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34739045/.
Acute myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: case report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hc4bh_qNbZ7UVm5BLxkRdMPnnI9zcCsl/e
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/
Clinical suspicion of myocarditis temporally related to COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents and young adults: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34865500/
Myocarditis following vaccination with Covid-19 in a large healthcare organization: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614329/
AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and Guillain-Barré syndrome in Tasmania: a causal link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34560365/
COVID-19, Guillain-Barré and vaccineA dangerous mix: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34108736/.
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/.
Guillain-Barre syndrome after BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10072-021-05523-5.
COVID-19 adenovirus vaccines and Guillain-Barré syndrome with facial palsy: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.26258.
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
A case of Guillain-Barré syndrome after Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34567447/
Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34648420/.
Rate of recurrent Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/2783708
Guillain-Barre syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination in an adolescent: https://www.pedneur.com/article/S0887-8994(21)00221-6/fulltext.
Guillain-Barre syndrome after ChAdOx1-S / nCoV-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34114256/.
Guillain-Barre syndrome after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34767184/.
Guillain-Barre syndrome following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in 19 patients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34644738/.
Guillain-Barre syndrome presenting with facial diplegia following vaccination with COVID-19 in two patients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34649856/
A rare case of Guillain-Barré syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34671572/
Neurological complications of COVID-19: Guillain-Barre syndrome after Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33758714/
COVID-19 vaccine causing Guillain-Barre syndrome, an uncommon potential side effect: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34484780/
Guillain-Barre syndrome after the first dose of COVID-19 vaccination: case report; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34779385/.
Miller Fisher syndrome after Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34817727/.
Miller Fisher syndrome after 2019 BNT162b2 mRNA coronavirus vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34789193/.
Bilateral facial weakness with a variant of paresthesia of Guillain-Barre syndrome after Vaxzevria COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34261746/
Guillain-Barre syndrome after the first injection of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine: first report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34217513/.
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/
Reporting of acute inflammatory neuropathies with COVID-19 vaccines: subgroup disproportionality analysis in VigiBase: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34579259/
A variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: AMSAN: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34370408/.
A rare variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome after vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34703690/.
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/
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.
Acute transverse myelitis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: case report and review of the literature: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34482455/.
Variant Guillain-Barré syndrome occurring after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34114269/.
Guillian-Barre syndrome with axonal variant temporally associated with Modern SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-based vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34722067/
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/
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/
Clinical variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome with prominent facial diplegia after AstraZeneca 2019 coronavirus disease vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34808658/
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.
Bilateral facial nerve palsy and COVID-19 vaccination: causality or coincidence: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34522557/
Left Bell’s palsy after the first dose of mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34763263/.
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/
Neurological complications after the first dose of COVID-19 vaccines and SARS-CoV-2 infection: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34697502/
Type I interferons as a potential mechanism linking COVID-19 mRNA vaccines with Bell’s palsy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33858693/
Acute transverse myelitis following inactivated COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34370410/
Acute transverse myelitis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34579245/.
A case of longitudinally extensive transverse myelitis following Covid-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34182207/
Post COVID-19 transverse myelitis; a case report with review of the literature: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34457267/.
Beware of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder after vaccination with inactivated virus for COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34189662/
Neuromyelitis optica in a healthy woman after vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 mRNA-1273: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34660149/
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/
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/
Acute pericarditis and cardiac tamponade after vaccination with Covid-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34749492/
Myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents after the first and second doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34849667/
Perimyocarditis in adolescents after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34319393/
Acute myopericarditis after COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34589238/
Pericarditis after administration of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34149145/
Case report: symptomatic pericarditis post COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34693198/.
An outbreak of Still’s disease after COVID-19 vaccination in a 34-year-old patient: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34797392/
Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis following COVID-19 vaccination (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34862234/
Myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, a case series: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34396358/.
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/.
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/
Post-mortem investigation of deaths after vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34591186/
Acute kidney injury with macroscopic hematuria and IgA nephropathy after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34352309/
Relapse of immune thrombocytopenia after covid-19 vaccination in young male patient: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34804803/.
Immune thrombocytopenic purpura associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine Pfizer-BioNTech BNT16B2b2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34077572/
Retinal hemorrhage after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34884407/.
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/
Intracerebral hemorrhage due to vasculitis following COVID-19 vaccination: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34783899/
Peduncular, symptomatic cavernous bleeding after immune thrombocytopenia-induced SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34549178/.
Brain death in a vaccinated patient with COVID-19 infection: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34656887/
Generalized purpura annularis telangiectodes after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34236717/.
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/.
A case of outbreak of macroscopic hematuria and IgA nephropathy after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33932458/
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.
Severe immune thrombocytopenic purpura after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34754937/
Gross hematuria after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination in 2 patients with IgA nephropathy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33771584/
Autoimmune encephalitis after ChAdOx1-S SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34846583/
COVID-19 vaccine and death: causality algorithm according to the WHO eligibility diagnosis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34073536/
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/
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
Anaphylaxis following Covid-19 vaccine in a patient with cholinergic urticaria: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33851711/
Anaphylaxis induced by CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccine: clinical features and results of revaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34675550/.
Anaphylaxis after Modern COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34734159/.
Association of self-reported history of high-risk allergy with allergy symptoms after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34698847/
Sex differences in the incidence of anaphylaxis to LNP-mRNA vaccines COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34020815/
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/
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/
Prolonged anaphylaxis to Pfizer 2019 coronavirus disease vaccine: a case report and mechanism of action: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33834172/
Anaphylaxis reactions to Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine: report of 3 cases of anaphylaxis following vaccination with Pfizer BNT162b2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34579211/
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/
Acute myocardial infarction and myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34586408/
Takotsubo syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34539938/.
Takotsubo cardiomyopathy after coronavirus 2019 vaccination in patient on maintenance hemodialysis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34731486/.
Premature myocardial infarction or side effect of COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33824804/
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/
Kounis syndrome type 1 induced by inactivated SARS-COV-2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34148772/
Acute myocardial infarction within 24 hours after COVID-19 vaccination: is Kounis syndrome the culprit: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34702550/
Deaths associated with the recently launched SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (Comirnaty®): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33895650/
Deaths associated with recently launched SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34425384/
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/
COVID-19 vaccine-induced urticarial vasculitis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34369046/.
ANCA-associated vasculitis after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34280507/.
New-onset leukocytoclastic vasculitis after COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34241833/
Cutaneous small vessel vasculitis after COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34529877/.
Outbreak of leukocytoclastic vasculitis after COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33928638/
Leukocytoclastic vasculitis after exposure to COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34836739/
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/.
Cutaneous lymphocytic vasculitis after administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34327795
Cutaneous leukocytoclastic vasculitis induced by Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34660867/.
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/
Reactivation of IgA vasculitis after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34848431/
Varicella-zoster virus-related small-vessel vasculitis after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34310759/.
Imaging in vascular medicine: leukocytoclastic vasculitis after COVID-19 vaccine booster: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34720009/
A rare case of Henoch-Schönlein purpura after a case report of COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34518812/
Cutaneous vasculitis following COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34611627/.
Possible case of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-induced small-vessel vasculitis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34705320/.
IgA vasculitis following COVID-19 vaccination in an adult: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34779011/
Propylthiouracil-induced anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis following vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34451967/
Coronavirus disease vaccine 2019 (COVID-19) in systemic lupus erythematosus and neutrophil anti-cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33928459/
Reactivation of IgA vasculitis after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34250509/
Clinical and histopathologic spectrum of delayed adverse skin reactions after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34292611/.
First description of immune complex vasculitis after COVID-19 vaccination with BNT162b2: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34530771/.
Nephrotic syndrome and vasculitis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: true association or circumstantial: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34245294/.
Occurrence of de novo cutaneous vasculitis after vaccination against coronavirus disease (COVID-19): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34599716/.
Asymmetric cutaneous vasculitis after COVID-19 vaccination with unusual preponderance of eosinophils: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34115904/.
Henoch-Schönlein purpura occurring after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34247902/.
Henoch-Schönlein purpura following the first dose of COVID-19 viral vector vaccine: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696186/.
Granulomatous vasculitis after AstraZeneca anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34237323/.
Acute retinal necrosis due to varicella zoster virus reactivation after vaccination with BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34851795/.
A case of generalized Sweet’s syndrome with vasculitis triggered by recent vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34849386/
Small-vessel vasculitis following Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34310763/
Relapse of microscopic polyangiitis after COVID-19 vaccination: case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34251683/.
Cutaneous vasculitis after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34557622/.
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/
Leukocytoclastic vasculitis after coronavirus disease vaccination 2019: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34713472/803
Outbreaks of mixed cryoglobulinemia vasculitis after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34819272/
Cutaneous small-vessel vasculitis after vaccination with a single dose of Janssen Ad26.COV2.S: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34337124/
Case of immunoglobulin A vasculitis after vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34535924/
Rapid progression of angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma after BNT162b2 mRNA booster vaccination: case report: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.798095/
COVID-19 mRNA vaccination-induced lymphadenopathy mimics lymphoma progression on FDG PET / CT: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33591026/
Lymphadenopathy in COVID-19 vaccine recipients: diagnostic dilemma in oncology patients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33625300/
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/
Lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: review of imaging findings: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33985872/
Evolution of bilateral hypermetabolic axillary hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy on FDG PET/CT after 2-dose COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34735411/
Lymphadenopathy associated with COVID-19 vaccination on FDG PET/CT: distinguishing features in adenovirus-vectored vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34115709/.
COVID-19 vaccination-induced lymphadenopathy in a specialized breast imaging clinic in Israel: analysis of 163 cases: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34257025/.
COVID-19 vaccine-related axillary lymphadenopathy in breast cancer patients: case series with literature review: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34836672/.
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/
COVID-19 post-vaccination lymphadenopathy: report of fine-needle aspiration biopsy cytologic findings: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34432391/
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/
Subclinical axillary lymphadenopathy associated with COVID-19 vaccination on screening mammography: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34906409/
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/
Supraclavicular lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination in Korea: serial follow-up by ultrasonography: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34116295/
Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination induced lymphadenopathy on [18F] choline PET / CT, not just an FDG finding: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33661328/
Biphasic anaphylaxis after exposure to the first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34050949/
Axillary adenopathy associated with COVID-19 vaccination: imaging findings and follow-up recommendations in 23 women: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33624520/
A case of cervical lymphadenopathy following COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34141500/
Unique imaging findings of neurologic phantosmia after Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 vaccination: a case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34096896/
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/
Unilateral lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: a practical management plan for radiologists of all specialties: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33713605/
Unilateral axillary adenopathy in the setting of COVID-19 vaccination: follow-up: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34298342/
A systematic review of cases of CNS demyelination following COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34839149/
Supraclavicular lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: an increasing presentation in the two-week wait neck lump clinic: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33685772/
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/
Adenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33625299/.
Incidence of axillary adenopathy on breast imaging after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34292295/.
COVID-19 vaccination and lower cervical lymphadenopathy in two-week neck lump clinic: a follow-up audit: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33947605/.
Cervical lymphadenopathy after coronavirus disease vaccination 2019: clinical features and implications for head and neck cancer services: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34526175/
Lymphadenopathy associated with the COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33786231/
Evolution of lymphadenopathy on PET/MRI after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33625301/.
Autoimmune hepatitis triggered by SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34332438/.
New-onset nephrotic syndrome after Janssen COVID-19 vaccination: case report and literature review: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34342187/.
Massive cervical lymphadenopathy following vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34601889/
ANCA glomerulonephritis following Modern COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34081948/
Extensive longitudinal transverse myelitis following AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34507942/.
Systemic capillary extravasation syndrome after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34362727/
Unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy related to COVID-19 vaccine: pattern on screening breast MRI allowing benign evaluation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34325221/
Axillary lymphadenopathy in patients with recent Covid-19 vaccination: a new diagnostic dilemma: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34825530/.
Minimal change disease and acute kidney injury after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34000278/
COVID-19 vaccine-induced unilateral axillary adenopathy: follow-up evaluation in the USA: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34655312/.
Gastroparesis after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34187985/.
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/
Supraclavicular lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination in Korea: serial follow-up by ultrasonography: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34116295/
Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination induced lymphadenopathy on [18F] choline PET / CT, not just an FDG finding: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33661328/
Biphasic anaphylaxis after exposure to the first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34050949/
Axillary adenopathy associated with COVID-19 vaccination: imaging findings and follow-up recommendations in 23 women: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33624520/
A case of cervical lymphadenopathy following COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34141500/
Unique imaging findings of neurologic phantosmia after Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 vaccination: a case report: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34096896/
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/
Unilateral lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: a practical management plan for radiologists of all specialties: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33713605/
Unilateral axillary adenopathy in the setting of COVID-19 vaccination: follow-up: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34298342/
A systematic review of cases of CNS demyelination following COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34839149/
Supraclavicular lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: an increasing presentation in the two-week wait neck lump clinic: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33685772/
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/
Adenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33625299/.
Incidence of axillary adenopathy on breast imaging after vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34292295/.
COVID-19 vaccination and lower cervical lymphadenopathy in two-week neck lump clinic: a follow-up audit: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33947605/.
Cervical lymphadenopathy after coronavirus disease vaccination 2019: clinical features and implications for head and neck cancer services: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34526175/
Lymphadenopathy associated with the COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33786231/
Evolution of lymphadenopathy on PET/MRI after COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33625301/.
Autoimmune hepatitis triggered by SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34332438/.
New-onset nephrotic syndrome after Janssen COVID-19 vaccination: case report and literature review: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34342187/.
Massive cervical lymphadenopathy following vaccination with COVID-19: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34601889/
ANCA glomerulonephritis following Modern COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34081948/
Extensive longitudinal transverse myelitis following AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34507942/.
Systemic capillary extravasation syndrome after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34362727/
Unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy related to COVID-19 vaccine: pattern on screening breast MRI allowing benign evaluation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34325221/
Axillary lymphadenopathy in patients with recent Covid-19 vaccination: a new diagnostic dilemma: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34825530/.
Minimal change disease and acute kidney injury after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34000278/
COVID-19 vaccine-induced unilateral axillary adenopathy: follow-up evaluation in the USA: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34655312/.
Gastroparesis after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34187985/.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
I recently spoke at a gathering for medical freedom advocates in a little community center in the Hudson River Valley. I cherish this group of activists: they had steadfastly continued to gather throughout the depths of the “lockdown,” that evil time in history — an evil time not yet behind us — and they kept on gathering in human spaces, undaunted. And by joining their relaxed pot-luck dinners around unidentifiable but delicious salads and chewy homemade breads, I was able to continue to remember what it meant to be part of a sane human community.
Children played — as normal — frolicking around, and speaking and laughing and breathing freely; not suffocating in masks like little zombies, or warned by terrified adults to keep from touching other human children. Dogs were petted. Neighbors spoke to one another at normal ranges, without fear or phobias. Bands played much-loved folk songs or cool little indie rock numbers they had written themselves, and no one, graceful or awkward, feared dancing. People sat on the house’s steps shoulder to shoulder, in human warmth, and chatted over glasses of wine or homemade cider. No one asked anyone personal medical questions.
(While I believe that all decisions about how you live your life vis a vis an infectious disease are intensely personal, and I would never recommend to others to assume any specific level of risk or to pursue any specific strategy of risk reduction; I think it’s worth noting, by the way, that to my knowledge, they had gone through the last two years without having lost a soul to COVID.)
Meanwhile, what had been human community outside of that little group, and outside other isolated normal communities — and outside of a handful of normal states in America — became more and more surreal, terrifying and unrecognizable.
The rest of the world, at least on the progressive side in the United States, became increasingly cult-like and insular in its thinking, since March of 2020. As the months passed, friends and colleagues of mine who were highly educated, and who had been lifelong critical thinkers, journalists, editors, researchers, doctors, philanthropists, teachers, psychologists — all began to repeat only talking points from MSNBC and CNN, and soon overtly refused to look at any sources - even peer-reviewed sources in medical journals — even CDC data — that contradicted those talking points. These people literally said to me, “I don’t want to see that; don’t show it to me.” It became clear soon enough that if they absorbed information contradictory to “the narrative” that was consolidating, they risked losing social status, maybe even jobs; doors would close, opportunities would be lost. One well-educated woman told me she did not want to see any unsanctioned information because she was afraid of being disinvited from her bridge group. Hence the refrain: “I don’t want to see that; don’t show it to me.”
Friends and colleagues of mine who had been skeptical their whole adult lives of Big Agriculture — who only shopped at Whole Foods, who would never let their kids eat sugar or processed meat, or ingest a hint of Red Dye No 2 in candy, or eat candy itself for that matter in some cases — these same people lined up to inject into their bodies, and then offered up the bodies of their dependent minor children for the same purpose, an MRNA gene-therapy injection whose trials would not end for two more years. These parents announced on social media proudly that they had done this with their children. When I pointed out gently that the trials would not end til 2023, they yelled at me.
The progressive, right-on part of the ideological world — my people, my tribe, my whole life — became more and more uncritical, less and less able to reason. Friends and colleagues who were wellness-oriented, and who their whole adult lives had known the dangers of Big Pharma — and who would only use Burt’s Bees on their babies’ bottoms and sunscreen with no PABAs on themselves— lined up to take an experimental gene therapy; why not? And worse, it seemed, they crowded around, like the stone throwers in Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery,” to lash out at and to shun anyone who raised the most basic questions about Big Pharma and its highly compensated spokesmodels. Their critical thinking, but worse, their entire knowledge base about that industry, seemed to have evaporated magically into the ether.
Whole belief systems were abandoned painlessly and overnight as if it these communities were in the grip of a collective hallucination, like the witch craze of the 15th to 17th centuries in Northern Europe. Intelligent, informed people suddenly saw things that were not there and were unable to see things that were incontrovertibly before their faces.
Feminist health activists, who surely knew perfectly well the histories of how the pharmaceutical and medical industries had experimented ad nauseam on the bodies of women with disastrous results, lined up to take an injection that by March of 2021 women were reporting was wreaking painful havoc on their menstrual cycles. These same feminist health activists had spoken out earlier, as they should have, about Big Pharma’s and Big Medicine’s colonization of women’s reproductive health processes, and had spoken out about issues ranging from women’s access to safe contraception to abortion rights, to the rights of mothers to a midwifery delivery or to a birthing room, or to the right to labour or the right to store milk at work or the right to breastfeed in public.
But these formerly reliable custodians of well-informed medical skepticism and of women’s health rights, were silent, silent, as such voices as former HHS official Dr Paul Alexander warned that spike protein from MRNA vaccines may accumulate in the ovaries (and testes), https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-delivers-less-long-term-protection-from-hospitalization-after-four-months/, and as vaccinated women reported hemorrhagic menses — double digit percentages in a Norwegian study reported heavier bleeding (https://www.fhi.no/en/news/2021/menstrual-changes-following-covid-19-vaccination/). Many women also reported blood clotting, and women even reported post-menopausal bleeding — and mothers reported their vaccinated twelve year olds suddenly getting their periods; but it was two periods a month some girls endured.
Almost no one out of the luminaries of feminist health activism who had spent decades speaking out on behalf of women’s health and women’s bodies, raised a peep above the parapet. Those two or three of us who did were very visibly smeared, in some cases threatened, and in many ways silenced.
When I broke this story of menstrual dysregulation post-vaccination on Twitter in Spring of 2021, I was suspended. Matt Gertz works at CNN and Media Matters. The former is a channel on which I had appeared for decades; the latter, a group whose leadership members I’ve known for years, and in one instance, with whom I’ve worked.
In spite of both of his employers having sought out professional association with me, Matt Gertz publicly and repeatedly called me a “pandemic conspiracy theorist” upon my first having reported on menstrual dysregulation, and elsewhere accused me of “crack-pottery” https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-keeps-hosting-pandemic-conspiracy-theorist-naomi-wolf.
Shame on me for doing journalism. I broke the post-vaccination menstrual dysregulation story by doing what I always do: by using the same methodology that I used in writing The Beauty Myth (about eating disorders) and Misconceptions (about obstetrics), and Vagina (about female sexual health): I listened to women, that radical act.
The New York Times just re-broke my story of menstrual dysregulation, ten months later, January 2022, in a different year, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/health/covid-vaccine-menstrual-cycles.html, after perhaps millions of women readers may have been physically harmed by their lack of decent reporting and their uncritical acceptance of soundbites from captured regulatory authorities. There has been no retraction or apology from Mr Gertz, from The New York Times, or from other news outlets such as DailyMail.co.uk, who all then called me crazy but are now reporting my story as if it is their own — now that it’s clear that, once again, sadly, I was right.
Feminist health advocates who know about routine hysterectomies at menopause, about vaginal mesh that has to be removed, about silicone breasts implants that leaked or burst and had to be recalled or replaced, about Mirena that had to be removed, about Thalidomide that deformed babies’ limbs in utero, about birth control pills at hormonal doses that heightened heart attack risks and stroke risks and that lowered the female libido; about routine c-sections to speed up turnover at hospitals, about the sterilization of low income women and girls and women and girls of color without informed consent — were silent about the unproven nature of MRNA vaccines, and about coercive policies that violated the Nuremberg code and other laws, as a whole generation of young women who have not yet had their babies, was forced to take an MRNA vaccine (and sometimes second vaccine, and booster) with unproven effects on reproductive health, in order simply to return to campus or to get or to keep a job. The Our Bodies Ourselves collective? Nothing on vaccine risks and women’s health as a subject category: https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book-excerpts/. NARAL? Where were they? Crickets. Where were all the responsible feminist health activists, in the face of this global, unconsenting, uninforming, illegal experimentation on women’s bodies, and now on children, and soon, on babies?
People who had been up in arms for decades about eating disorders or about the coercive social standards that led to — horrors — leg shaving, were silent about an untested injection that was minting billions for Big Pharma; an injection that entered, according to Moderna’s own press material, every cell in the body, which would thus include involving uterus, ovaries, endometrium.
The sudden amnesia extended to feminist legal theory. Feminist jurists such as Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan debated President Biden’s vaccine mandates on January 7 — as if they had never heard of the legal claims for Roe v Wade: privacy law. As Politico reported of Justice Kagan, “The Supreme Court’s ruling on privacy rights served as a basis for its later decision, Roe v Wade” and as former Sen. Barbara Boxer had stated, “I have no reason to think anything else except that [Kagan] would be a very strong supporter of privacy rights because everyone she worked for held that view.” https://www.politico.com/story/2010/06/kagan-must-explain-abortion-stance-039096.
Except…now they seemingly don’t, and now Justice Kagan magically doesn’t. With medical mandates, there are no privacy rights for anyone ever.
But Justice Kagan seemed suddenly, after decades of this view, not to see a contradiction. Her career-long philosophical foundation that resulted in a consistent view, when it came to abortion rights, that citizens had a right to physical privacy in medical decision-making — “My body, my choice” — “It is between a woman and her doctor” — vanished, along with her expensive education and all of her knowledge of the Constitution.
Justice Sotomayor, for her part, said, in an article reported on Dec 10 2021, that it was “madness” that the state of Texas wanted to “substantially suspend[ed] a constitutional guarantee: a pregnant woman’s right to control her own body.” Her tone was, rightly, one of high dudgeon at the thought that anyone might override this right. But when it came to Justice Sotomayor’s discussion on Jan 7 2022, less than four weeks later, of President Biden’s vaccine mandates, that clear Constitutional right was now nowhere to be seen; it too had vanished into the ether. A part of Justice Sotomayor’s brain seems to have simply shut down at the word “vaccines” — though it was the same woman in the same Court, with the same Constitution before her, the Justice could no longer manage the Kantian imperative of consistent reasoning. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/10/supreme-court-abortion-ruling-texas-ban
Lifelong activists for justice and inclusion, for the Constitution and human rights and the rule of law — friends and colleagues of mine who are LGBTQ rights activists; the ACLU itself; activists for racial inclusion and equality; Constitutional lawyers who teach at all the major universities and run the law reviews; activists who argue against excluding anyone from any profession or access based on gender; almost all of them, at least on the progressive side of the spectrum (almost all: hello, Glenn Greenwald) — were silent; as a comprehensive, systematic, cruel, Titanic discrimination society was erected in a matter of months in such cities as New York City, formerly the great melting pot, the great equalizer; and as whole states such as California adopted a system pretty much like the apartheid systems based on other physical characteristics, in regimes that these same proud advocates for equality and inclusion had boycotted in college.
And yet now these former heroes for human rights and for equal justice under law, stood by calmly or even enthusiastically as the massive edifice of discrimination was constructed. And then they colluded. Without even a fight or a murmur.
And they had their “vaccinated-only” parties, and their segregated fashion galas, and their nonprofit-hosted discussions in nice medically-segregated New York City midtown hotels over expensive lunches served by staffers in masks — lunches celebrating luminaries of the civil rights movement or of the LGBTQ rights movement or the immigrants’ rights movement, or the movement to help girls in Afghanistan get access to schools which they had been prevented from attending— invitations which I received, but of which I could not make use, because — because I was prevented from attending.
And these elite justice advocates enjoyed the celebrations of their virtues and of their values, and did not seem to notice that they had become — in less than a year — exactly what they had spent their adult lives professing most to hate.
I could go on and on.
The bottom line, though, is that this infection of the soul, this abandonment of classical Liberalism’s — really, it’s not even partisan; modern civilization’s — most cherished postwar ideals, this sudden dropping of post-Enlightenment norms of critical thinking, this dilution even of parents’ sense of protectiveness over the bodies and futures of their helpless minor children, this acceptance of a world in which people can’t gather to worship, these suddenly-manifested structures themselves that erected this demonic world in less than two years and imposed it on everyone else, these heads of state and heads of the AMA and heads of school boards and these teachers; these heads of unions and these national leaders and the state level leaders and the town hall level functionaries all the way down to the men or woman who disinvite a relative from Thanksgiving due to social pressure, because of a medical status which is no one’s business and which affects no one — this edifice of evil is too massive, too quickly erected, too complex and really, too elegant, to assign to just human awfulness and human inventiveness.
Months before, I had asked a renowned medical freedom activist how he stayed strong in his mission as his name was besmirched and he faced career attacks and social ostracism. He replied with Ephesians 6:12: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206%3A12&version=KJV
I had thought of that a lot in the intervening time. It made more and more sense to me as the days passed.
I confessed at that gathering in the woods with the health freedom community, that I had started to pray again. This was after many years of thinking that my spiritual life was not that important, and certainly very personal, almost embarrassingly so, and thus it was not something I should mention in public.
I told the group that I was now willing to speak about God publicly, because I had looked at what had descended on us from every angle, using my normal critical training and faculties; and that it was so elaborate in its construction, so comprehensive, and so cruel, with an almost superhuman, flamboyant, baroque imagination made out of the essence of cruelty itself — that I could not see that it had been accomplished by mere humans working on the bumbling human level in the dumb political space.
I felt around us, in the majestic nature of the awfulness of the evil around us, the presence of “principalities and powers” — almost awe-inspiring levels of darkness and of inhuman, anti-human forces. In the policies unfolding around us I saw again and again anti-human outcomes being generated: policies aimed at killing children’s joy; at literally suffocating children, restricting their breath, speech and laughter; at killing school; at killing ties between families and extended families; at killing churches and synagogues and mosques; and, from the highest levels, from the President’s own bully pulpit, demands for people to collude in excluding, rejecting, dismissing, shunning, hating their neighbors and loved ones and friends.
I have seen bad politics all of my life and this drama unfolding around us goes beyond bad politics, which is silly and manageable and not that scary. This — this is scary, metaphysically scary. In contrast to hapless human mismanagement, this darkness has the tinge of the pure, elemental evil that underlay and gave such hideous beauty to the theatrics of Nazism; it is the same nasty glamour that surrounds Leni Riefenstahl films.
In short, I don’t think humans are smart or powerful enough to have come up with this horror all alone.
So I told the group in the woods, that the very impressiveness of evil all around us in all of its new majesty, was leading me to believe in a newly literal and immediate way in the presence, the possibility, the necessity of a countervailing force — that of a God. It was almost a negative proof: an evil this large must mean that there is a God at which it is aiming its malevolence.
And that is a huge leap for me to take, as a classical Liberal writer in a postwar world, — to say these things out loud.
Grounded postmodern intellectuals are not supposed to talk about or believe in spiritual matters — at least not in public. We are supposed to be shy about referencing God Himself, and are certainly are not supposed to talk about evil or the forces of darkness.
As a Jew I come from a tradition in which Hell (or “Gehenom”) is not the Miltonic Hell of the later Western imagination, but rather a quieter interim spiritual place (https://jel.jewish-languages.org/words/183). “The Satan” exists in our literature (in Job for example) but neither is this the Miltonic Satan, that rock star, but a figure more modestly known as “the accuser.”
We who are Jews, though, do have a history and literature that lets us talk about spiritual battle between the forces of God and negative forces that debase, that profane, that seek to ensnare our souls. We have seen this drama before, and not that long ago; about eighty years ago.
Other faith traditions of course also have ways to discuss and understand spiritual battle taking place through humans, and through human leaders, and here on earth.
It was not always the case that Western intellectuals were supposed to keep quiet in public about spiritual wrestling, fears and questions. Indeed in the West, poets and musicians, dramatists and essayists and philosophers, talked about God, and even about evil, for millennia, as being at the core of their understanding of the world and as forming the basis of their art forms and of their intellectual missions. This was the case right through the nineteenth century and into the first quarter of the 20th, a period when some of our greatest intellectuals — from Darwin to Freud to Jung — wrestled often and in public with questions of how the Divine, or its counterpart, manifested in the subjects they examined.
It was not until after World War Two and then the rise of Existentialism — the glorification of a world view in which the true intellectual showed his or her mettle by facing the absence of God and our essential aloneness — that smart people were expected to shut up in public about God.
So - it’s not wacky or eccentric, if you know intellectual history, for intellectuals to talk in public about God, and even about God’s adversary, and to worry about the fate of human souls. Mind and soul are not in fact at odds; and the body is not in fact at odds with either of these. And this acceptance of our three-part, integrated nature is part of our Western heritage. This is a truth only recently obscured or forgotten; a memory of our integrity as human beings that had been, only for the last seventy years or so, under attack.
So — I am going to start talking about God, when I need to do so, and about my spiritual questions in this dark time, along with continuing all of the other reporting and nonfiction analysis I always do. Because I have always told my readers the truth of what I felt and saw. This may be why they have come with me on a journey now of almost forty-three years, and why they keep seeking me out — though I have in the last couple of years — after I wrote a book that described how 19th century pandemics were exploited by the British State to take away everyone’s liberty, hm — been pulped, deplatformed, cancelled, re-cancelled, deplatformed again, and called insane by dozens of the same news outlets that had commissioned me religiously for decades.
It is time to start talking about spiritual combat again, I personally believe. Because I think that that is what we are in, and the forces of darkness are so big that we need help. Our goal? Perhaps just to keep the light somehow alive - a light of true classical humane values, of reason, of democracy, inclusion, kindness - in this dark time.
What is the object of this spiritual battle?
It seems to be for nothing short of the human soul.
One side seems to be wrestling for the human soul by targeting the human body that houses it; a body made in God’s likeness, so they say; the temple of God.
I am not confident. I don’t have enough faith. Truth is, I am scared to death. I just don’t think just humans alone can solve this one, or can win this one on their own.
I do think we need to call, as Milton did, as Shakespeare did, as Emily Dickinson did, on help from elsewhere; on what could be called angels and archangels, if you will; on higher powers, whatever they may be; on better principalities, on whatever intercessors may hear us, on Divine Providence — whatever you want to call whomever it is you can hope for and imagine. As I often say, I’ll take any faith tradition. I’ll talk to God in any language — I don’t think forms really matter. I think intention is everything.
I can’t say for sure that God and God’s helpers exist; I can’t. Who can?
But I do think we are at an unheard-of moment in human history — globally — in which I personally believe we have no other choice but to ask for assistance from beings — or a Being — better armed to fight true darkness, than ourselves alone. We’ll find out if they exist, if He or She exists, perhaps, if we ask for God’s help.
At least that’s my hope.
Which I guess is a kind of a prayer.
What follows is a long essay I wrote almost a year ago, in October 2020, on another platform. I had almost no audience at the time, but many people told me they enjoyed it, and I am happy to provide this edited, shortened and slightly updated version for many new readers.
In reading it now, I find that it is more heavily focused on lockdowns and mass containment than it would be if I wrote it today, but I think even these passages are still important. Lockdowns will be kept around, initially as selective “lock-outs” to repress and punish the unvaccinated; from there it will be trivial to impose closures on whole populations once again, as case statistics deteriorate in the winter.
Beyond all of the politics and hysteria and right-thinking, there is a real virus beneath it all. Its name is Sars-Cov-2. This virus is not to be confused with Covid-19, which is the illness that the virus causes. The distinction, like that between HIV and AIDS, is medically useful, and it invites us to make other, analogous distinctions, in service of cleaning up our thought.
Illness is as much a social matter as a biological one, and for most of us, the vastly more significant distinction is not that between virus and disease, but between the biological reality of the virus-disease, and the political and social perceptions of this virus-disease. Words help us think, and so here I propose to call the former biological virus-disease Sars2; and the latter, socio-political virus-disease, Covid.
Sars2 is only one of the players responsible for the social construction of Covid, and not even the most important one. It is best to think of Covid as a committee project, with a lot of creative talent. Politicians, epidemiologists, virologists, public health experts, computer models, public health institutes, journalists, Chinese bureaucrats, and yes, among them all, Sars2—they all get some say in constructing Covid. Sometimes Sars2 disagrees with their construct, and sometimes his fellow committee members listen to him. But sometimes he disagrees and gets overruled. He’s only one voice at the table, after all. When a Twitter blue-check or a scientist or your professor lectures you about the substance of scientific consensus, they are just delivering articles of faith about the social construct of Covid, as the committee has defined it.
When we say that something is a social construct, we don’t mean that it isn’t real. We just mean that it could be conceived of in a much different way; and that a big part of what we take for granted about the constructed thing is malleable. Clearly political and scientific authorities could have constructed a massively different version of Covid if they wanted to. If you doubt this, look at China. They have basically eradicated Covid by constructing it out of existence.
In the West, Covid has acquired a variety of features that demand constant and heavy-handed technocratic intervention. This is not the case everywhere, but in the West, where technocratic bureaucracies dominate, this is what Covid has become. The technocrats have had a huge hand in building Covid, and they have constructed the perfect nail for their hammer.
Above all, they have constructed Covid to be an intractable problem, because our bureaucracies derive much of their authority and legitimacy from permanent, intractable problems. This was not the only path. We very nearly embarked upon a quite different one. Before the permanent bureaucracy recognised that Sars2 provided fodder for another eternal project, they had taken substantial steps towards building a very different disease out of Sars2—a disease that nobody needed to worry about very much, that was not very different from other respiratory illnesses, and that would probably go away in the end, or that we could at least overlook if we didn’t think about it too carefully or test for it all that widely.
That changed very quickly. By March, western Covid committees had begun building a very different disease. One of its most important features, is its omnipresence and invisibility.
Central to our image of Covid is its appearance out of nowhere. A wet market deep in China, or some bio-lab—official discourse is agnostic. The earliest images to reach the West depicted apparently healthy Chinese people suddenly collapsing in convulsions, as if struck by God. Efforts to quarantine the earliest Covid patients in Europe totally failed, as the disease turned out to be circulating broadly among the population first in Lombardy, then in northern Europe, and finally in the United States. This early impression of Covid as omnipresent and invisible remains with us to this day. It is not enough to stay home if you are sick. Healthy people, who never develop symptoms of Covid, nevertheless spread the disease. Aerosolised transmission is the subject of much discussion; Covid menaces through the air. Interestingly, the aerosol aspect only took off after establishment scientists decided that transmission via surfaces was at best infrequent. Yet the menace of contaminated surfaces has persisted in our consciousness, alongside the contaminated air, and the contaminated healthy people, and the visibly contaminated sick.
In the ancient world, it was held that certain life-forms, such as fish, were generated spontaneously by the environment. If you kept a barrel of water around long enough, theory held you’d soon find little minnows swimming around in it. This is, functionally, how we behave with Covid. Two healthy people conversing in an unventilated room will probably yield Covid in one of them. In fact Covid can arise from any instance of social proximity. People fear objects that many others have touched. People fear friends or relatives who are perceived to socialise or travel too much.
Now, Covid does not lurk absolutely everywhere. It favours above all those spaces subject to the direct control of government bureaucracies. Schools, therefore, are especially feared. Public transit is considered another terrifying locus of infection. Covid is especially pervasive in hospitals; a lot of people avoid them now at all costs. In the first wave, it was common to close parks and playgrounds, even though we know the risk of transmission outdoors is minimal. Bureaucrats control public parks.
As you move away from bureaucratic oversight, the threat of Covid recedes. Bars and clubs, in most countries subject to substantial regulation but essentially private enterprises, are a kind of middle ground: Dangerous certainly, and the subject of much moral expostulation, but not quite the unmitigated danger of schools. Things like restaurants and chamber music concerts at private venues take a further step away from bureaucratic oversight, and Covid recedes accordingly. Private offices are managed by bureaucrats hardly at all, so we don't read that much about infection at work. The exception is government bureaucrats themselves, who hear a lot about how dangerous it is for them to go to the office. That space furthest removed from bureaucratic supervision, the home, is a safe haven from Covid, although it is the one place you’re most likely to contract Sars2.
The presence of Covid, which is invisible and potentially everywhere, can only be ascertained via special tests. While you can give yourself an antigen test at home, the results are far less authoritative than antigen tests administered by authorised agents of the bureaucracy, and these in turn are still less significant than PCR tests, administered by medical professions and processed in a lab.
Mere symptoms do not mean you are infected; you could have something else. On the other hand, perfect health does not mean you are Covid-free. I don’t think enough people have recognised how bizarre this situation is. Consider all those people these past months who have recovered from a respiratory illness, with fever and cough, without ever being tested. When they suggest that perhaps they had Covid, it is routine to doubt them. Certainly nobody would exempt them from vaccines on that basis. Compare them to all the people who have no symptoms at all, but test positive, and are widely considered to have a disease. The voluminous and eager literature on the asymptomatics is extremely telling. They are 20% of all cases, or 80%; they are responsible for 2% of infections, or 40%. They are tallied in the statistics, undifferentiated from the truly ill.
Central to the definition of Covid, is that mass testing programs be the only means of defining the extent of the disease, assessing the success of the technocratic response, and the virtue of the compliant population. Covid is not like other communicable diseases, which are diagnosed mostly in private, according to likely symptoms.
Covid as a hidden, lurking menace has had by far the worst consequences for children. Sars2, everybody knows, is not a danger to them. The virus himself has been very clear about this and it has not been possible for the disease bureaucrats to overrule him. It is easy to imagine a parallel universe, one where we are relieved at the near-total safety of our children in the face of this disease, one where we spare them the effects of public health interventions, because they are not at risk.
That is not our world. Government bureaucracies are heavily involved in the lives of children, particularly through schools. Thus public health authorities and, most unnaturally, many women, have come to fear children as a vector of infection. Some people even believe children are the main drivers of the pandemic. Covid lurks, a deadly silent threat, inside them, wherever they gather to play, wherever they gather in school. Classrooms and childcare centres have become places of intense microbial hysteria, silly simulacra of hospitals, with odd Plexiglas barriers, hand sanitiser around every corner, and constant, constant testing. In this world Covid creates its own reality vortex. You find infections where you swab the most. Every time schools are opened, intense surveillance uncovers a new flood of cases, which cements the image of children as dangerous and contaminated, a mortal threat to their grandparents.
If you say to a person of orthodox political alignments that this is a bizarre approach to any disease, to surround precisely those people at least risk with so many precautions, harmful in themselves; and at the same time to leave those most at-risk to their own devices with vague advice to self-isolate, they will say a great many things to you. One of the first things they say will be this: Covid is a totally new virus. It poses an unknown and wholly unprecedented threat to our society. There are no low-risk populations, and there is no way way to protect the vulnerable from this pervasive invisible pathogen. All we can do is disrupt hidden transmission among the invulnerable carriers.
As with the hidden menace, the foundations for this aspect of Covid were laid early on. In the beginning Covid was held to be a zoonotic virus, brought upon humans by exotic Chinese dietary practices. Now many admit that it is likely a laboratory invention, unleashed with some sinister purpose or by accident. However that may be, Covid is totally new to humans; it is unlike any disease we have ever faced before. It is beyond nature and we have no natural defences against it. In the discourse surrounding Covid there has always been the tendency to push this extra-natural facet to the extremes, nearly to the supernatural. The early paranoia about surfaces comes to mind yet again, with those old stories of mail-room employees picking up Covid from packages sent from far-off, plague-ridden lands. Covid can perfuse the air for hours after a fateful cough. There is no general unified Covid with a limited set of properties. Attempts to fix its characteristics dissolve in a pool of contradictory evidence. Note the widely differing characteristics of Covid in neighbouring, broadly similar countries. The better part of this variation arises from different national medical bureaucracies, which have lent Covid different properties according to their capacities and proclivities. But of course the variation is not understood in that way; it is rather put down to some magical aspect of the virus itself. Extranatural virions do one thing in Sweden, and another thing in Germany, and another thing in Italy.
Because Covid is an extra-natural disease, our natural immune systems are not up to fighting it. This is why the prospect of Covid reinfection has been a matter of obsession from the very beginning. The first rumours of reinfection arose in China, where reinfected were said to suffer devastating symptoms, such as heart attacks. Similar cases were never observed in the West and so everyone stopped talking about that. Later on, South Korean health officials began reporting various cases of reinfection, but then it emerged that this was an artefact of the manic Korean testing regime. Recovering Covid patients issued multiple tests may come up negative one day and positive the next, as their body sheds the virus. Though they had been proven wrong twice, reinfection theories persisted. Minor victory came when some serological studies failed to find antibodies in some confirmed Covid patients. Later they had the holy grail, namely several confirmed genuine reinfections.
You could say, perhaps, that the reinfectionists on the Covid committee forced a compromise with Sars2 on this point. Reinfection aligns neatly with established doctrine about the inadequacy of our natural defences. Only broad-scale social and political countermeasures have any chance of success against Covid. Think of it as a substitute, artificial, social immune system: Lockdowns, curfews, quarantines, travel bans, mass testing, masks, school closures, personal distance, interior ventilation, hand sanitiser, contact tracing apps, home office, and more. This is what a society of immune-compromised people looks like. Just as our bodily immune response is responsible for many of the symptoms we associate with illness, so too is the social immune response responsible for the majority of negative effects from Covid. We have made our whole society sick, in a vain effort to keep some people healthy.
The body’s immune system can overreact to the point that it poses a greater danger than the infection itself. In a related way, our social response to Sars2 has entered an inflammatory phase, a spiral of disease hysteria demanding mass testing and contact tracing leading to the discovery of more cases causing more stringent anti-Covid social measures that just make our nations and our societies vastly sicker and more dysfunctional than we were before. Remember that this all started with "two weeks to crush the curve," and consider how far we have come, and how far we might go still. It goes without saying that all these negative effects are taken as further proof of the unusual threat that Covid poses.
Beyond the extra-natural social defences, we have placed all of our hopes in an extra-natural vaccine. Here the discourse devolves into awkward contradiction. To begin with, vaccines, while indeed extra-natural, merely stimulate natural immunity. If we may hope for a vaccine, it is unclear why we cannot let some of our natural immune systems join the fight. What is more, despite unprecedented mass testing programs and enormous scientific interest and the bias of our perspective, Covid reinfection is not yet a pervasive phenomenon. Those with natural immunity are well protected indeed. From the very beginning, the developers of extra-natural vaccines have been warning for a long time that their products will provide only partial protection against Sars2. Yet their products were marketed, until recently, as more protective than infection, and to this moment, even as the vaccines fail, politicians everywhere insist that mass vaccination is the only answer.
Fundamental to this paradox, is the axiom that extra-natural Covid poses an unknowable yet grave risk to everyone. Reinfection is only the beginning of it. All those people who have recovered without lingering effects may well develop brain lesions next year. The health of their internal organs has yet to be confirmed and there are dark suppositions that no few harbour hidden heart or liver or kidney damage. A lot of people might never smell again. Many recover only to relapse several weeks later, and perhaps again several weeks after that. There is now an enormous body of literature about Long Covid, a chronic syndrome marked by every symptom you could imagine: Ongoing fatigue, shortness of breath, brain fog, joint pain, cartilage degeneration, insomnia, depression—on and on.
Before you get into the weeds of the journal literature on Long Covid or permanent organ damage from Sars2, consider this: Officially, the virus has infected over 220 million people across the world. That is a great river, wide and deep, for our Covid committee to trawl for stories of unusual complications, debilitating symptoms and incomplete convalescences, from now until forever. The question is not, what odd horrible things lurk in that river; but how many of them there are, relative to the ordinary pedestrian things. What are you most likely to find? Long Covid and relapsed Covid and heart attack Covid? Or low-grade grade fever Covid, mild-cough Covid, over-in-five-days-without-a-second-thought Covid? I think we can all answer that question for ourselves. That we let the rare and the unusual dominate our construction of Covid, rather than the mild and the pedestrian, is partly down to publication bias. The banal almost never makes it into print; the strange and unusual invariably find an audience.
But that is not the only reason we must constantly hear about the grave unknown risks of this extra-natural disease. There are others too, and the biggest is simply this: The bureaucracies responsible for constructing Covid have decided that infections must be minimised above all else. That is the Sisyphean task they have set themselves. As the costs of their containment measures increase and society gets sicker, they must tell ever grimmer stories about why it is unacceptable for anyone, ever, to contract Sars2.
Covid is the great sin of globalism, and globalism has brought it everywhere. Not even Antarctica remains Covid-free. Covid can infect animals as well as humans, and the prospect of reinfection has been leveraged to dispel the idea that anyone might become immune from Covid. In this way, the disease applies always and everywhere to everyone. (The opposite and far better-documented phenomenon, that a lot of people who have never had Sars2 have some partial immunity—presumably from prior non-Sars2 coronavirus infections—is contrary to Universal Covid and so it is excluded from official Covid doctrine.)
Because Covid is everywhere, and everybody is subject to it, containment policies must also be general, and vaccination policies must be too. For the disease bureaucrats, Universal Covid is a central doctrine, eagerly defended. The myth of Universal Covid is reinforced by the infection statistics we hear about every day. The only thing that ever makes headlines is how many positive tests there were today, as opposed to yesterday or last week; and which regions have the most infections right now. Since the Lombardy outbreak, everybody grasps that Sars2 infections have a regional particularism about them, but this is never presented as a challenge to Covid’s universality. Regional “hot-spots” are universally applicable examples of what will happen to your region, too, if Covid is not suppressed there and everywhere. Positive swabs might also be broken down into age cohorts, and these function much the same way. If your region has many new cases, but nobody really seems to be sick or dying, this is because the pandemic is currently concentrated among young people. Old people are next, if everybody does not comply with suppression measures. The effect is to make grim statistics a problem, even in the total absence of anybody actually suffering or dying.
Beyond these crude numbers, you don’t know anything about all those positive tests or the processes that generated them at all. It is very hard to figure out, for example, how many of them represent people who tested positive last week, and now have submitted a second test to see if they’ve cleared the virus and can leave their apartment again. Crucial for the interpretation of any such statistics, is to know how many of them emerge from contact-tracing operations, from the kinds of routine tests administered to people like doctors, teachers, and school children; and how many of them reflect actual patients seeking medical treatment. Equally central, if you want to make sense of these numbers, is how many of these people are actually sick, which is another question that many testing regimes leave wholly or mostly unanswered.
Western nations instituted mass testing programs, a universal solution to Universal Covid, after the example of South Korea. In the early days, it was thought that the Koreans had avoided a serious outbreak, without locking down, by testing and tracing everybody. So now we’re doing that too. The theory was that the technocrats would find the positives, shut them away, and allow the rest of us to go about our lives. In practice, it has been pretty much the opposite. Mass testing and tracing, far from replacing mass containment, merely provide the data to justify its enforcement. It is the same with vaccines, now that many regimes are struggling to vaccinate their way out of lockdowns. All that testing and tracing ought to make vaccines less important. Are they not identifying and quarantining the sick? Alas, you can never test and trace your way out of the Universal Covid we have constructed. That would only work for a Local Covid or an Endemic Covid, which we have not built—a Covid that afflicts certain people and not others. So the contact tracers do their thing, but the statistics that their activities generate are used to assess the state of the Covid outbreak for absolutely everybody and general, universal solutions are deployed in response to them. More lockdowns, more vaccines.
The German government is highly federalised, even more so than the United States. Much of the governing actually happens at the level of individual federal states, or Bundesländer. Each of the states could, in theory, manage its own response, according to local circumstances and sensibilities. You’d think this would be an advantage, because the instance of Sars2 infections varies vastly across Germany, and people in different states have different opinions about how to deal with it. If different states had gone their different ways, we would now have very direct insight into the effectiveness of competing containment policies. Of course, nobody in government sees it that way. Instead, Angela Merkel has spent every minute fighting against a federal approach and demanding a unified response. Newspapers have deplored our traditional federalism.
A final expression of Universal Covid lies in the universal mathematical formulae that were once widely held to predict its future progress. In March 2020, the population of the entire world received instruction in the basics of exponential functions. It was thought, as the first wave advanced, that Covid could be plotted on a graph, with time as the x axis and new cases as the y axis. Wherever Covid was spreading, this exercise yielded a curve sloping upwards to the right. Predicting the future course of Covid became a simple matter of plotting that same exponential function into future x-axis time. A lot of commentators, including many scientists, portrayed the resulting projections as mathematical certainties. This was important because raw infection numbers differed everywhere: Lombardy had the worst statistics, and so it was in the lead. Behind it were France and Spain, where Lombardy had been the previous week. Further back was Germany, which needed still three or four more weeks to reach a catastrophe of Lombardic scale. But the math assured all of us that the same thing would happen everywhere, eventually. I will confess that I found all of this powerfully convincing at the time. The flat edifice of Universal Covid seemed to brook no contradictions. But typing it all out now, it is easy to see how foolish it was. Covid did not work the same everywhere, and the curves themselves were never forever and always exponential. Germany never caught up to Lombardy. It never even came close.
Those graphs have receded from our conceptions of Covid. That is not only because they were wrong, but because they ended up drawing attention to how much all of the national outbreaks differed from each other. They were a direct shot across the bow of Universal Covid, and in April and May you could read very long essays by deeply mystified people, pondering how this was possible and what was going on. Many of the authors behind these think pieces were presumably familiar with things like seasonal flu epidemics, which in Europe often differ drastically across regions, even though a similar mixture of flu viruses are typically implicated every season. Influenza, however, isn’t constructed to be a universal affliction, so its various impacts have never bothered anybody.
We come to the fourth obtrusive feature of our socially-constructed Covid. By nautical miles, it is the most egregious and appalling one of all, and so I regret that I have the least to say about it. Stupid cruelty does not admit of much analysis.
Sars2 is no threat to the young, we said that already. What is more, disease bureaucracies have not been able to convince the young that they, personally, should worry about Sars2. The only way to enforce the one-size-fits-all measures that Universal Covid demands, is via an ugly moral blackmail.
What began as an appeal in early days to the conscience of the youth, to consider the health of their grandparents, has become an all-out war on everything that young, healthy and fit people do. Here is insight into the withered souls of many scientists and bureaucrats, who see in the casual joy, effortless strength and unthinking beauty of our youth a great indictment of themselves. Many of them have long disliked young people and what they get up to, and now they have been given the power to vent their spleens about it.
The social life of young people irks them most of all. Parties are scorned. Contact tracers routinely identify private celebrations as outbreak epicentres, and from the press reports, you’d think whole districts are rising up in rage against the kids who dared to gather in somebody’s friend’s garage. German police spent a lot of time the past few springs citing teenagers who, after weeks of isolation, dared to get a few beers with friends in the park. It was truly strange to behold: Patrol cars sporting loudspeakers driving slowly along footpaths, between the trees, past benches, reciting the corona distancing rules.
It’s safe to complain about parties, because some people stupidly assume they aren’t essential, or that they’re irresponsible or excessive. But behind the scenes, these ageing meddlers were busy attacking everything else. They have closed gyms for months. When they allowed them to reopen, the conditions were so onerous and counterproductive that it was hard to doubt malicious intent. A whole cloud of official opprobrium descended upon every sort of recreational travel, and remains there. Early disease clusters were traced to skiers, and a batch of young people who’d had the misfortune to visit Ischgl at the wrong time were handed responsibility for several national outbreaks. (Chinese travellers, responsible for the entire European pandemic, remained beyond criticism, even as Italy and Germany had a brief spat over who introduced the virus to whom.) In Bavaria, open-air playgrounds were closed for weeks and weeks, longer than hair salons, in case you thought any of this was about the risk of infection.
When anonymous bureaucrats of this sort are given their way, secure in the knowledge that nobody will hold them accountable for their egregious decisions, and that every mild critique of their policies will be suppressed, they spiral into extremism. In the midst of the lockdown, they began to complain that people were shopping for groceries too frequently and spending too much time in supermarkets. After mask requirements were issued for public transit and indoor spaces, newspapers ran very strange articles lecturing their readers about proper mask procedures. Readers were told never to put on a mask until they’d thoroughly washed and sanitised their hands. Then they were told never to touch the mask again at all. Should they touch it the mask would become hopelessly contaminated, and their hands too, so they'd need to sterilise them all over again and start over with a new mask. Runners and walkers were still allowed outside, for purposes of exercise, and this made the disease bureaucrats very nervous indeed. Pundits complained that parks were too full. Schoolmarms posing as experts began telling runners that their heavy breathing was a danger to everyone within three or four metres of them.
Covid the socially constructed virus-disease exploits the health and beauty of youth to reach the old, but this is not how Sars2 actually works. Sars2 prefers to do most of its killing in institutional settings. It is at base a disease of healthcare institutions, like MERS and SARS; it thrives in nursing homes and in hospital wings. This in Spring 2020 it was ironically the most alarmist regions, those that had imposed the strictest lockdowns nominally for the safety of the elderly, which ended up killing more elderly than anybody else, due to over-hospitalisation, criminal mistreatment of many Sars2 patients and poor, paranoid management of elderly cases.
Undeniably, Sars2—like many other viruses—exploits the social activity of humans. Until now, the Covid bureaucrats have responded with rolling seasonal embargoes on all human social activity that is not mediated by electronics. People who violate these restrictions are behaving irresponsibly and endangering all of society. Consider how much this stance differs from their approach to other viruses. Were gay men, at any point, ever exhorted to abstain from anal sex in the interests of defeating HIV? Was the gay community ever blamed for the AIDS epidemic and scolded by public health bureaucrats for worsening statistics? Were gay bars and bath houses ever targeted for closure or curfews or—imagine!—contact tracing, to flatten the curve? No, they weren’t; and if any of that had happened, we’d be reading to this day what a grave injustice all of it was. HIV is undeniably much harder on those it infects than Sars2, and I submit that, in the hierarchy of human needs, quotidian social interaction ranks well above anal sex.
The question of how we ended up with this miserable social construction of Covid, and not with some other more manageable social construction of Covid, is well worth pondering. The most obvious answer is simply this: Our disease bureaucrats, a bunch of socially promoted charlatans and degree connoisseurs who play scientists on television, got spooked by Sars2. They had a lot of credentials but no real ideas, and so they borrowed their public health response from China.
Before January 2020, lockdowns were totally foreign to the public health establishment. None of our governments or epidemiologists or disease-control agencies had ever before contemplated containing a pandemic by placing everybody under house arrest and freezing the better part of economic and social life. Lockdowns as a measure against Covid are, top to bottom, an invention not of a fabled “scientific consensus,” but of anonymous authoritarian Chinese bureaucrats whose motives and intent are largely opaque to us. Italian disease bureaucrats copied this measure from the Chinese bureaucrats, the rest of our disease bureaucrats copied from the Italians, and since then they have all continued the senseless copying of containment policies among themselves down to this very moment. If you are an incompetent pseudo-intellectual devoid of ideas, following others is your only option; and if you can get everyone else to follow in the same way, you might even escape blame.
Covid, the socially constructed virus-disease, was fashioned in the midst of the lockdowns, to justify them. This scary construct also works well as a justification for coercive, universal vaccination programs, and so it continues to be propagated. It is a monument to the cognitive dissonance of our intelligentsia, who lobbied hard for a catastrophic policy on the strength of dire predictions that, save in a few much publicised cases, were never realised. Almost everything that has become “scientific consensus” about Covid is a retroactive justification of our failed and plainly foolish containment measures: Covid lurks everywhere, and it is invisible, so we must hide from it in our homes. Covid is a totally novel disease, full of indeterminate properties and unknowable risks, so nobody can be exposed. Covid endangers everyone, and so everyone must stay inside. Even if young people are all but invulnerable to Covid, they too must lock down, to save the old. And of course, for all of these reasons, absolutely everyone must be vaccinated—however dangerous the vaccines, however low-risk the person.
That is the simplest, most straightforward answer to the question of how we got this Covid, and not some other Covid. It is equivalent to the wet-market theory of the origins of Sars2. We got Covid from the stupidity and incompetence of our elites, desperate to justify the economic destruction they wrought via their plagiarised containment measures. Relatedly, in the wet-market theory of Sars2, the virus found its way to humans via the unhygienic dietary practices of the Chinese, and was spread everywhere by the unrelenting globalism of our short-sighted elites.
But just as the vastly more plausible theory of Sars2 is that it represents the product of gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, so too there is another, much more compelling way of thinking about the deepest origins of our Covid construct. Cast your mind back to January, as the Chinese implemented their own lockdown of Hubei. Consider those bizarre videos that appeared on social media, showing Covid patients convulsing in streets, collapsing on stairs—succumbing, or so it seemed, to instant viral death. Some of this footage recalled scenes from Hollywood films, particularly Contagion. At the time, the framing was this: The Chinese were keeping a tight lid on the Wuhan outbreak, but here and there the magic of social media could defeat the evil communist censors and provide some glimpse of what was really going on. Clips of Chinese news coverage circulated, where the screen briefly flashed mortality figures orders of magnitude higher than the official numbers. This was the journalists trying to alert the rest of the world, or it was grim reality crying out from the ground, or something. All kinds of strange news items, about mass mobile account cancellations in China and industrial-scale cremation in Wuhan, were put about to show that the Chinese were dying in the millions. Everyone in the world watched blurry video of some Chinese guys welding a door shut. Online news outfits declared that the Chinese were literally sealing people in their apartments. That’s how bad Covid was. In the weeks before conditions deteriorated in Lombardy, a whole host of social media accounts began advocating lockdowns as a western containment measure. It has now emerged that many of these were operated by people in China.
Sophisticated propaganda and disinformation campaigns involve more than Russians buying Facebook ads. One tactic, is to take the idea you want to plant, cut it up into a bunch of different pieces, and release these to the world via various proxies and intermediaries. These little bits and piece might take the form of accidental leaks or hacked data or surreptitious photos or whatever. People gather these pieces and put them together, find that they all contribute to the same, ominous picture, and believe that they have discovered a hidden truth. This gives the lie an organic, authentic feel. It becomes a personal thesis and nobody realises that they have been led down the garden path. All of that early nonsense from China has entirely this feel about it. None of it was true, nobody really knows where it came from, but it all supported the same false hysteria.
So a deeper, more conspiratorial but also more plausible answer to the origins of our socially constructed disease, might be this: Covid is the ideological construct our disease bureaucrats used to justify their failed lockdowns; but at root, this construct was probably not of their making. They merely recycled the selfsame propaganda by which shadowy actors had sold them on lockdowns in the first place. It looks like some people very much wanted western governments to implement lockdowns. This led to a remarkable realignment of opinion, whereby the elite leftist establishment, which had sought to minimise the virus as much as possible, totally reversed their position by early March 2020 and began advocating a maximal approach. The Covid that we have now is all downstream from that, and there is no changing it.
*
How things started, of course, is no indication of how they will end. The optimistic scenario was that the vaccine roll-out in Spring 2021 would defeat Sars2 and that all of this would go away. That was never very plausible, and as it now becomes clear to everyone that the vaccines do not work very well, optimism is no longer on the menu. Perhaps it never was. Covid has given a lot of terrible, petty, mediocre people a great deal of power, and they won’t be willing to give that up, ever, however often they fail.
The most likely scenario, the one which is already playing out, is that Covid devolves into an eternal nuisance after the pattern of climate change, but more intrusive. The vaccines have come, but mass testing and various containment policies remain in place. There will be some attempt to maintain regular boosters, first for the elderly, then for everyone. But this path is one of diminishing returns. Each new round of injections will inspire less compliance, and will also prove less effective.
Over the next several years, most countries will probably fight their disease bureaucrats towards some minimally acceptable long-term compromise. Home office will be normalised. The media hysteria will never totally fade. Full lockdowns, contrary to the interests of many industries, will probably be phased out in the coming years, but in the meantime we will see increasingly inhumane restrictions on the unvaccinated. Other obnoxious interventions will likely return every year in time for Christmas, a holiday that will be increasingly celebrated with a few close relatives, in private. The campaigns against shaking hands, standing too close, or having too many people over for dinner will probably not end for a long time. Contact tracers will come to be loathed as much as city parking enforcers. In the longer run, Covid policy will probably be redirected towards pharmaceutical boondoggles and hygiene legislation that creates markets for a new world of garbage consumer products. The vaccines are probably an early preview of all of the false hope, graft and absurdity the coming world of market solutions will bring. Should Sars2 become especially rare, then other seasonal respiratory illnesses, like the flu, will likely be pressed into service. In many countries, it is likely that a whole generation of kids will grow up wearing crayola-branded dinosaur masks in school.
Still more pessimistic scenarios are possible, but they would probably resolve themselves sooner or later. It is hard to see how any western democracy could endure the economic destruction of biannual lockdowns, or other similarly drastic interventions, for many more years, without destabilising itself politically.
Campaigns to impose regular boosters on entire populations will stir up more and more opposition to mandatory vaccination regimes and, if the gods are merciful, make repression of the unvaccinated increasingly unworkable. We must also remember that the disease bureaucrats are not omnipotent. They have seized power, at first on temporary terms, from other political players, who will sooner or later try to get it back. Intemperate Covid policies have also inspired a wide array of opposition throughout academia and government, even if you don’t always see it. Now that the vaccines have failed and there is no obvious end, it is likely these people will begin to form opposition movements from within bureaucratic ranks. In some countries they might even win, and in the breakdown of international consensus there will be some small hope.
Everybody is vaccinated in Gibraltar; since October, increasingly large numbers of people are triple vaccinated there.
Here’s what their booster campaign looks like:
As if on cue, infections in Gibraltar skyrocketed directly afterwards:
This isn’t a seasonal or a regional effect. Neighbouring countries, where the booster campaign has yet to begin (Morocco) or kick into high gear (Portugal, Spain), see a slight upward, seasonal trend—nothing like the Gibraltar spike.
When Israel rolled out boosters in August, they also saw spikes in infections and deaths. It is the same phenomenon we observed after dose 1. Only the second dose does not enhance infections, presumably because it is administered in the protective shadow of the first one. As with everything involving this virus and our vaccines, there are probably multiple causes at work here. For about ten days following vaccination, the vaccinated are more susceptible to infection, and a subset of them probably become minimally symptomatic super-spreaders.
Millions of people across Europe and North America will become eligible for Dose 3 at the very height of coronavirus season, in December and January. Uptake will be highest among medical professionals and nursing home personnel. There is the potential for real catastrophe here. While the vaccines don’t work as advertised, they are powerful pharmaceutical products and they have strange, unexpected effects — not only on the bodies of people who take them, but also on the dynamics of transmission and infection. Deranged medical bureaucrats, who refuse to abandon their dreams of controlling a highly contagious seasonal respiratory virus, have whole populations popping these things like aspirin. They could very well succeed in making Corona into the unprecedented public health disaster that the virus itself never quite was.
UPDATE: Always-sharp commenter someothercat points to this further proof: Infection peaks in Gibraltar are cascading from the oldest age groups to the youngest, following the order in which they were boosted.
[
Simon @stevin2021
@orwell2022 @MConceptions What are the chances that the dates of the day with highest daily cases for each boosted age group in Gibraltar follow a perfect chronological order? Those vaccinated first peaked first and so on. Isn't that proof that the booster are causing the current 🌊?
](https://twitter.com/stevin2021/status/1459987142231404552?s=20)[
November 14th 2021
11 Retweets18 Likes
](https://twitter.com/stevin2021/status/1459987142231404552?s=20)
Similarly close correlations plagued Dose 1. As @kingotnik discovered in May, infections in Germany were always around 2–7% of vaccine doses administered 17 days prior. The effect disappeared only with improving spring weather.
The first principle of non-violent action is that of non-cooperation with everything humiliating.
– Mohandas K. Gandhi
I once read an account of bullying in rural America in the early 20th century. The narrator said, “If a victim did not stand up to them, there was no limit to how far the bullies would go.” He described them tying another child to the train tracks as a train approached (on the parallel track). There was no appeasing the bullies. Each capitulation only whetted their appetite for new and crueler humiliations.
The psychology of bullies is well understood: compensation for a loss of power, reenactment of trauma with roles reversed, and so forth. Beyond all that, though, the Bully archetype draws from another source. On some unconscious level, what the bully wants is for the victim to cease being a victim and to stand up to him. That is why submission does not appease a bully, but only invites further torment.
There is an initiatory possibility in the abuser-victim relationship. In that relationship and perhaps beyond it, the victim seeks to control the world through submissiveness. If I am submissive enough, pitiable enough, the abuser may finally relent. Other people might step in (the Rescuer archetype). There is nothing intrinsically wrong with submission or what improvisational theater pioneer Keith Johnstone called a low-status play. There are indeed some situations when doing that is necessary to survive. However, when the submissive posture becomes a habit and the victim loses touch with her capability and strength, the initiatory potential of the situation emerges. The bully or abuser intensifies the abuse until the victim reaches a point where the situation is so intolerable that she throws habit and caution to the wind. She discovers a capacity within her that she did not know she had. She becomes someone new and greater than she had been. That is a pretty good definition of an initiation.
When that happens, when the victim stands his ground and fights back, quite often the bully leaves him alone. On the soul level, his work is done. The initiation is complete. Of course, one might also say that the bully is a coward who wants only submissive victims. Or one might say that resistance spoils the sought-after psychodrama of dominance and submission. There is no guarantee that the resistance will be successful, but even if it is not, the dynamics of the relationship change when the victim decides she is through being a victim. She may discover that a lot of the power the bully had was in her fear and not in his actual physical control.
Until that shift happens, even if a rescuer intervenes, the situation is unlikely to change. Either the intervention will fail, or the rescuer will become a new abuser. The world will ask again and again whether the victim is ready to take a stand.
Please do not interpret this as a cavalier suggestion to someone in an abusive relationship to simply “take a stand.” That is easier said than done, and especially easy to say in ignorance of just what sort of courage would be required. In some situations, especially when children are involved, there is no way to resist without horrible risk to oneself or innocent others. Yet even in the most hopeless situations, the victim often learns a certain strength that she didn’t know she had. Because submission often leads to further, intensifying violation, eventually she will reach her breaking point where courage is born. In that moment, freedom from the abuser is more important than life itself.
The relationship between our governing authorities and the public today bears many similarities to the abuser-victim dynamic. Facing a bully, it is futile to hope that the bully will relent if you don’t resist. Acquiescence invites further humiliation. Similarly, it is wishful thinking to hope that the authorities will simply hand back the powers they have seized over the course of the pandemic. Indeed, if our rights and freedoms exist only by the whim of those authorities, conditional on their decision to grant them, then they are not rights and freedoms at all, but only privileges. By its nature, freedom is not something one can beg for; the posture of begging already grants the power relations of subjugation. The victim can beg the bully to relent, and maybe he will—temporarily—satisfied that the relation of dominance has been affirmed. The victim is still not free of the bully.
That is why I feel impatient when someone speaks of “When the pandemic is over” or “When we are able to travel again” or “When we are able to have festivals again.” None of these things will happen by themselves. Compared to past pandemics, Covid is more a social-political phenomenon than it is an actual deadly disease. Yes, people are dying, but even assuming that everyone in the official numbers died “of” and not “with” Covid, casualties number one-third to one-ninth those of the 1918 flu; per-capita it is one-twelfth to one-thirty-sixth.1 As a sociopolitical phenomenon, there is no guaranteed end to it. Nature will not end it, at any rate; it will end only through the agreement of human beings that it has ended.2 This has become abundantly clear with the Omicron Variant. Political leaders, public health officials, and the media are whipping up fear and reinstituting policies that would have been unthinkable a few years ago for a disease that, at the present writing, has killed one person globally. So, we cannot speak of the pandemic ever being over unless we the people declare it to be over.
Of course, I could be wrong here. Perhaps Omicron is, as World Medical Association chairman Frank Ulrich Montgomery has warned, as dangerous as Ebola. Regardless, the question remains: will we allow ourselves to be held forever hostage to the possibility of an epidemic disease? That possibility will never disappear.
Another thing I’ve been hearing a lot of recently is that “Covid tyranny is bound to end soon, because people just aren’t going to stand for it much longer.” It would be more accurate to say, “Covid tyranny will continue until people no longer stand for it.” That brings up the question, “Am I standing for it?” Or am I waiting for other people to end it for me, so that I don’t have to? In other words, am I waiting for the rescuer, so that I needn’t take the risk of standing up to the bully?
If you do put up with it, waiting for others to resist instead, then you affirm a general principle of “waiting for others to do it.” Having affirmed that principle, the forlorn hope that others will resist rings hollow. Why should I believe others will do what I’m unwilling to do? That is why pronouncements about the inevitability of a return to normalcy, though they seem hopeful, carry an aura of delusion and despair.
In fact, there is no obvious limit to what people will put up with, just as there is no limit to what an abusive power will do to them.
If the end of Covid bullying is not an inevitability, then what is it? It is a choice. It is precisely the initiatory moment in which the victim—that is, the public—discovers its power. At the very beginning of the pandemic I called it a coronation: an initiation into sovereignty. Covid has shown us a future toward which we have long been hurtling, a future of technologically mediated relationships, ubiquitous surveillance, big tech information control, obsession with safety, shrinking civil liberties, widening wealth inequality, and the medicalization of life. All these trends predate Covid. Now we see in sharp relief where we have been headed. Is this what we want? An automatic inertial trend has become conscious, available for choice. But to choose something else, we must wrest control away from the institutions administering the current system. That requires a restoration of real democracy; i.e., popular sovereignty, in which we no longer passively accept as inevitable the agendas of established authority, and in which we no longer beg for privileges disguised as freedoms.
Despite appearances, Covid has not been the end of democracy. It has merely revealed that we were already not in a democracy. It showed where the power really is and how easily the facade of freedom could be stripped from us. It showed that we were “free” only at the pleasure of elite institutions. By our ready acquiescence, it showed us something about ourselves.
We were already unfree. We were already conditioned to submission.
In Orwell’s 1984, Winston’s interrogator O’Brien states: “The more the Party is powerful, the less it will be tolerant: the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism.” The Covid era has seen endless indignities, humiliations, and abuse heaped upon the public, each more outrageous than the last. It is as if someone is performing a psychological experiment to see how much people are willing to take. Let’s tell them that masks don’t work, and then reverse it and require them to mask up. Let’s tell them they can’t shake hands. Let’s tell them they can’t go near each other. Let’s shut down their churches, choirs, businesses, and festivals. Let’s stop them from gathering for the holidays. Let’s make them inject poison into their bodies. Let’s make them do it again. Let’s make them do it to their children. Let’s censor their first-hand stories as “false information.” Let’s feed them obvious absurdities to see what they’ll swallow. Let’s make promises and break them. Let’s make the same promises again and break them again. Let’s require authorization for their every movement. Wow, they’re still going along with it? Let’s see how much more they will take.
I have written the above as if the bullying powers were a bunch of cackling sadists delighting in the humiliation of their victims. That is not accurate. Most people staffing our governing institution are normal, decent human beings. While it is also true that these institutions are hospitable environments for martinets, control freaks, and sadists, more often they turn people into martinets, control freaks, and sadists. These individuals are more symptom than cause of the generalized abuse of the public today. They are functionaries, playing the roles that a systemically abusive drama requires. Causing suffering is not their root motivation, it is to establish control. The quest for power doubtless finds justification in the idea that it is all for the greater good. Yes, they think, it would be bad if evil people were in charge of the surveillance, censorship, and coercive apparatus, but fortunately it is we, the rational, intelligent, far-seeing, science-based good guys who are at the helm.
Through the absolute conviction by those who hold power that they are the good guys, power transforms from a means to an end. As maybe it was to begin with—Orwell dispels the false justifications of power when he has O’Brien say:
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?'
The theme resumes on the next page:
He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: 'How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?'
Winston thought. 'By making him suffer,' he said.
'Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?
Thus it is that the privation, humiliation, and suffering of those they dominate is pleasing to the controllers. It isn’t suffering per se that pleases them. They may even consider it a regrettable necessity. It pleases them as a hallmark of submission.
Covid-era policies cannot be understood merely through the lens of public health. In an earlier series of essays I explored them from the perspective of sacrificial violence, mob morality, dehumanization, and the exploitation of these by fascistic forces. Equally important is the perspective of power. Seeing Covid through the lens of rational public health, of course we should expect the “end of the pandemic” quite soon. Seeing through the lens of power, we cannot be so sanguine, any more than the bullied child can hope the bully will stop because, after all, I’ve done everything he told me to.
The bully doesn’t want the victim to do X, Y, and Z for their own sake. He wants to establish the principle that the victim will do X, Y, Z, or A, B, or C, on demand. That’s why arbitrary, unreasonable, ever-shifting demands are characteristic of an abusive relationship. The more irrational the demand, the better. The controllers find it satisfying to see everyone dutifully wearing their masks. As with O’Brien, it is power, not actual public safety, that inspires them. That is why they roundly ignore science casting doubt on masks, lockdowns, and social distancing. Effectiveness was never the root motivation for those policies to begin with.
I learned about this too in school. In the senseless, degrading busy work and the arbitrary rules, I detected a hidden curriculum: a curriculum of submission.3 The principal issued a series of trivial rules under the pretext of “maintaining a positive learning environment.” Neither the students nor the administration actually believed that wearing hats or chewing gum impeded learning, but that didn’t matter. Punishments were not actually for the infraction itself; the real infraction was disobedience. That is the chief crime in a dominance/submission relationship. Thus, when German police patrol the square with meter sticks to enforce social distancing, no one need believe that the enforcement will actually stop anyone from getting sick. The offense they are patrolling against is disobedience. Disobedience is indeed offensive to the abusive party, and to anyone who fully accepts a submissive role in relation to it. When “Karens” report on their neighbors for having more than the permitted number of guests, is it a civic-minded desire to slow the spread that motivates them? Or are they offended that someone is breaking the rules?
It is uncomfortable for those who have knuckled under to a bully to see someone else stand up to him. It disrupts the idea of powerlessness and the role, which may have become perversely comfortable, of the victim. It invokes the initiatory moment by making an unconscious choice conscious: “I could do that too.” To resist the abuser asks others if they will resist too. It is far from inevitable that they will accept the invitation, yet the example of courage is more powerful than any exhortation.
Today a wave of resistance to Covid policies is surging across the globe. You’ll see little mention of it in mainstream media, but thousands and tens of thousands are protesting all across Europe, Thailand, Japan, Australia, North America… pretty much anywhere that lockdowns and vaccine mandates have been applied. People are risking arrest to defy lockdowns and curfews. They are walking out of jobs, losing licenses, enduring forced closures of their businesses, sometimes even losing custody of their children because they refuse to comply with vaccine mandates. They are getting kicked off social media for speaking out. They are sacrificing concerts, sports, skiing, travel, college, careers, and livelihoods. Under compulsory vaccination laws In Austria, they will soon risk prison.
Some people have much more to lose than others by speaking out, refusing vaccination, or engaging in civil disobedience. As someone who has relatively little to lose, it is not my job to demand other people be brave. It isn’t anyone’s job. We can, though, describe the reality of the situation. That fosters bravery, because it isn’t only external fear, force, and threat that breeds submission. In an abusive relationship the victim often adopts some of the abuser’s narrative: I am weak. I am contemptible. I am powerless. You are right. I am wrong. I need you. I deserve this. I am crazy. This is normal. This is OK.
When the victim internalizes the abuser, I say that the bandits have breached the castle walls. I know well what it is like to be a fugitive in my own castle, dodging the patrolling invaders to protect my secret sanity.
My understanding of the bullying victim comes from direct experience. I was among the youngest in my grade and reached puberty quite late. At age 12 I was a scrawny 4’10”, 90-pound weakling among the hulking adolescents of my former friend group. Their cruel jokes and torments were mostly not intended to cause physical pain, but rather to assert dominance and humiliate. Fighting back was not much of an option—the ringleader was literally twice my weight. When I tried to fight back, the gang looked at each other with amusement. “Uh oh,” they said, “Chucky’s getting mad! Did your daddy tell you to stand up to us, Chucky?” The next thing I knew, I was on the floor in a submission hold, surrounded by a chorus of mocking laughter. That was what happened when I resisted. Yet submission didn’t work either; it appeased them for a day or perhaps a few minutes or not at all. It was an invitation to further violence. In this difficult situation, I internalized the abusers by taking on their opinion of myself as pathetic and contemptible.4
In this case, literally fighting back was futile. My initiatory journey took the form of stepping into the unknown of finding new friends—a frightening prospect in the cacophony and chaos of the junior high cafeteria. Exiting the role of victim doesn’t usually mean physical combat or legal combat, though it might. Invariably, it means refusing to comply with violation or humiliation. In real life it could be blocking a caller, getting a restraining order, or simply running away. It cannot be a mere gesture. It must be determined and sustained until the old role no longer beckons.
It is worth noting that none of my abusers were particularly bad people. Nor were those who joined in the laughter, nor those who stood by in disapproving silence. They went on to become solid contributing members of society, good fathers and husbands. There was something in the confluence of our biographies that called them to the role of abuser, enabler, or bystander at that moment. The abuser-victim drama issues a powerful casting call. An abusive spouse may no longer occupy that role in a subsequent marriage. The roles allow each actor to discover—and possibly integrate and transcend—something in themselves. So it is society-wide as well. What will the functionaries of our abusive, degrading, oppressive system become when the drama ends? Already a lot of them are getting sick of their roles. The victim does the abuser no favor by prolonging the drama.
Earlier I wrote that often, the point of courage comes when the pain of submission grows intolerable. The erstwhile victim reaches a breaking point and throws caution to the wind. The abuser may still wield the outward apparatus of power, but no longer does that power have an ally within the victim, who becomes ungovernable. A lot of people are reaching that breaking point now. Powering the aforementioned wave of resistance is a hurricane of fury brewing just offshore of official reality. If you want to get a sense of it, subscribe to the Telegram channel “They Say Its Rare.” It displays without comment Tweets from vaccine-harmed individuals and their friends and families. Thousands upon thousands of Tweets, raw, outraged, and indignant. Most of these people will never comply with vaccination again no matter what the pressure, nor will many of their friends. Perhaps this partly explains low public uptake of boosters. (That and the fact that the first two shots did not deliver the promised rewards of immunity or freedom.)
The drama continues. The bully does not relent at the first sign of resistance. On the soul level, the bully serves his purpose only when he provokes real, sustained courage. As resistance grows, so grows the coercion. We are very nearly at a tipping point. The scale is evenly balanced—so finely, perhaps, that the weight of one person may tip it. Could that person be you? Whatever reasons you have to comply, to stay silent, to keep your head down—and they may be very good reasons indeed—please do not accept the insidious false hope that someone else will take the risk if you do not.
What can one person do? Will it matter if I resist, if too many others do not? Five percent of the population can be locked up, locked in, or locked out of society. Forty percent cannot. Will you resist and risk being one of the five percent? Safer to wait and see, isn’t it. Safer to wait until after critical mass has been reached, and join the winning side.
Of all the lies of a controlling power, the key lie is the powerlessness of its victim. That lie is a form of sorcery, coming true to the extent it is believed. All modern people live within a pervasive metaphysical version of that lie. In a Newtonian universe of deterministic forces, indeed it matters little what one person does. It is wholly irrational for the discrete and separate self to be brave, to defy the mob, or to stand up to power. Sure, if lots of people do it, things will change, but you aren’t lots of people, you are just one person. So why not let other people do it? Your choice won’t much affect theirs.
To refute that logic with logic would require a metaphysical treatise that reclaims self and causality from their Cartesian prison. So I won’t use logic. Instead I’ll appeal to Logos—the fiery logic of the heart. Something in you knows that your private struggles and the choices of just-one-person are significant. Furthermore, something in you knows when the time has come to make the choice, to be brave. You can feel the approach of the breaking point. It may feel like, “I’ve had enough. Enough!” It may be a calm clarity. It may be a leap in the dark. Probably you recognize the moment I’m describing; most of us have gone through some life initiation of this kind, bursting out of a cocoon of fear. In that moment you know something significant has happened. The world looks different. That is because it is different.
An abuser, whether a person or a system, offers an opportunity to graduate to a new degree of sovereignty. We claim by example what a human being is. When made at risk, such a claim issues forth as a prayer. An intelligence beyond rational understanding responds to that prayer, and reorganizes the world around it. We may experience this as synchronicity, which seems to happen with uncanny frequency just at those moments where one takes a leap in the dark. She leaves the abusive spouse in the dead of night with nowhere to go. Yet she is not reckless, because she knows It is time. She steps out into nothingness and Lo! Something meets her foot. A path invisible from the starting point opens with each step along it.
So it shall be. The world will rearrange itself around the brave choices millions of people are making as they trust the knowledge, It is time. If you join us, you will be witness to a most marvelous paradox. The transition to a more beautiful world is a mass awakening into sovereignty, far beyond the doing of any hero, any leader, any individual. Yet you will know that it was you—your choice!—that was the fulcrum of the turning of the age.
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.
Another week, another Vaccine Surveillance report (now published by the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA), the successor to Public Health England), and with it more worrying news on the vaccine front.
Infection rates in the double-vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated continue to rise, meaning unadjusted vaccine effectiveness continues to decline. Infection rates are now higher in the double-vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated by 124% in those in their 40s, 103% in those in their 50s and 60s and 101% in those in their 70s, corresponding to unadjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates of minus-124%, minus-103% and minus-101% respectively. For those over 80 the unadjusted vaccine effectiveness is minus-34% while for those in their 30s it is minus-27%. For 18-29 year-olds it is 25%, so still positive but low, while for under-18s it is 90%, the only age group showing high efficacy. Vaccine effectiveness against emergency hospital admission and death continues to hold up, though with some indication of gradual slide, particularly in older age groups (see below). (For definitions and limitations, see here.)
The UKHSA has continued to receive criticism for publishing this data, with claims that the figures used for the unvaccinated population are unreliable and likely too high, artificially suppressing the infection rate and vaccine effectiveness. Cambridge statistician Professor David Spiegelhalter put out a scathing tweet on these lines on Friday, but he didn’t elaborate on his claim or link to an article explaining it further.
Completely unacceptable that UKHSA put out absurd statistics showing case-rates higher in vaxxed than non-vaxxed (Fig 2), when just an artefact of using hopelessly biased NIMS popn estimates. Feeding conspiracy theorists worldwide. https://t.co/DjyhxnSm2z
— David Spiegelhalter (@d_spiegel) October 22, 2021
Professors Norman Fenton and Martin Neil have argued that in fact the PHE/UKHSA data may underestimate the number of unvaccinated rather than overestimate them, which would have the reverse effect.
Either way though, what wouldn’t change is the fact of the large and fast decline in effectiveness against infection. This is now generally acknowledged among many scientists (likely caused by waning over time or new variants or both), though has not had the logical impact on Government policy one might have expected and hoped for of eliminating the rationale for vaccine passports and mandates.
A further point revealed for the first time in this week’s surveillance report is that the vaccines may actually hobble the body’s ability to develop the strongest immunity once infected. As noted by Alex Berenson, the report mentions (in passing) that “recent observations from U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data” show that “N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination”.
The report does not elaborate on this, but on the face of it it is a startling admission. It is basically saying that a certain kind of antibody which is not produced by the vaccines but is usually produced by infection (and hence is used by PHE/UKHSA to identify those with antibodies-from-infection) is not produced so well by those who are infected post-vaccination. Insofar as this is true it means the vaccines may actually prevent the immune system from developing the strongest form of protection against reinfection. This phenomenon of the immune system being in some way hobbled by the way it first encounters a pathogen is well-known and is referred to as original antigenic sin.
There would be a number of implications of this. It would mean that since the vaccine rollout got going the prevalence of N antibodies in the population has ceased to be a reliable measure of how many people are previously infected (which might explain why it has been rising so slowly during the Delta surge). It would also mean the vaccines may make reinfections and serious illness upon reinfection more likely. Plus likely other things as well.
This is something that should be investigated fully and the results published so that its impact can be properly assessed and understood.
Note: Kaiser Permanente study done for CDC. Data is unavailable. Suggests Vaccinated persons have up to 70% lower mortality (excluding Covid-19) than unvaccinated. Speculates on on why. Leaves impression that Covid Vaccines are elixirs of life.
On October 22, 2021, this report was posted online as an MMWR Early Release.
Stanley Xu, PhD1; Runxin Huang, MS1; Lina S. Sy, MPH1; Sungching C. Glenn, MS1; Denison S. Ryan, MPH1; Kerresa Morrissette, MPH1; David K. Shay, MD2; Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez, PhD3; Jason M. Glanz, PhD4; Nicola P. Klein, MD, PhD5; David McClure, PhD6; Elizabeth G. Liles, MD7; Eric S. Weintraub, MPH8; Hung-Fu Tseng, MPH, PhD1; Lei Qian, PhD1 (View author affiliations)
What is already known about this topic?
Although deaths after COVID-19 vaccination have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, few studies have been conducted to evaluate mortality not associated with COVID-19 among vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.
What is added by this report?
During December 2020–July 2021, COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower rates of non–COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons after adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and study site.
What are the implications for public health practice?
There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. All persons aged ≥12 years should receive a COVID-19 vaccine.
Related Materials
By September 21, 2021, an estimated 182 million persons in the United States were fully vaccinated against COVID-19.* Clinical trials indicate that Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson; Ad.26.COV2.S) vaccines are effective and generally well tolerated (1–3). However, daily vaccination rates have declined approximately 78% since April 13, 2021†; vaccine safety concerns have contributed to vaccine hesitancy (4). A cohort study of 19,625 nursing home residents found that those who received an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) had lower all-cause mortality than did unvaccinated residents (5), but no studies comparing mortality rates within the general population of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons have been conducted. To assess mortality not associated with COVID-19 (non–COVID-19 mortality) after COVID-19 vaccination in a general population setting, a cohort study was conducted during December 2020–July 2021 among approximately 11 million persons enrolled in seven Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) sites.§ After standardizing mortality rates by age and sex, this study found that COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower non–COVID-19 mortality than did unvaccinated persons. After adjusting for demographic characteristics and VSD site, this study found that adjusted relative risk (aRR) of non–COVID-19 mortality for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38–0.44) after dose 1 and 0.34 (95% CI = 0.33–0.36) after dose 2. The aRRs of non–COVID-19 mortality for the Moderna vaccine were 0.34 (95% CI = 0.32–0.37) after dose 1 and 0.31 (95% CI = 0.30–0.33) after dose 2. The aRR after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 0.54 (95% CI = 0.49–0.59). There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States.
VSD, a collaborative project between CDC’s Immunization Safety Office and nine health care organizations, collects electronic health data, including information on vaccines, for specific studies. In this cohort study of VSD members aged ≥12 years, vaccination status through May 31, 2021 was determined. Index dates were assigned to all persons on the basis of the distribution of vaccination dates among vaccinated persons.¶ Person-time for unvaccinated persons included unvaccinated person-time before COVID-19 vaccination among COVID-19 vaccinees, and unvaccinated person-time of persons who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine by May 31, 2021. To ensure comparable health care–seeking behavior among persons who received a COVID-19 vaccine and those who did not (unvaccinated persons), eligible unvaccinated persons were selected from among those who received ≥1 dose of influenza vaccine in the last 2 years. Separate unvaccinated groups were selected for mRNA and Janssen vaccines.** Deaths were identified through VSD, which captures hospital deaths and deaths reported to health plans. In this study, non–COVID-19 deaths were assessed because a protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination for COVID-19–related deaths was expected. Non–COVID-19 deaths were those that did not occur within 30 days of an incident COVID-19 diagnosis or receipt of a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) via reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction or rapid test.
Standardized mortality rates (SMRs) (deaths per 100 person-years) were calculated and compared with a rate ratio test between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups (6); a population of VSD members who were enrolled in December 2020 was used as the standard population. Overall SMRs were reported separately for Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen vaccines. Poisson models were used to calculate overall aRRs and 95% CIs adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and VSD site. SMRs and aRRs by age, sex, and race and ethnicity were also calculated, adjusting for other demographic characteristics. Analytical units were aggregated counts of deaths and person-years by vaccination status, age, sex, race and ethnicity, and VSD site. All analyses were conducted using SAS statistical software (version 9.4; SAS Institute).†† This work was reviewed by CDC and VSD sites§§ and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy.¶¶
The cohort consisted of 6.4 million COVID-19 vaccinees and 4.6 million unvaccinated persons with similar characteristics as the comparison groups. Among 3.5 million Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients, 9.2% were aged 12–17 years, 69.4% were aged 18–64 years, 54.0% were female, 42.7% were White persons, 21.4% were Hispanic persons, 16.6% were Asian persons, and 5.1% were Black persons (Table 1). Among 2.6 million Moderna vaccine recipients, 71.7% were aged 18–64 years, 54.5% were female, 44.2% were White persons, 23.1% were Hispanic persons, 14.2% were Asian persons, and 5.6% were Black persons. Among 342,169 Janssen vaccine recipients, 87.5% were aged 18–64 years, 4.1% were aged ≥75 years, 48.0% were female, 45.1% were White persons, 20.3% were Hispanic persons, 13.4% were Asian persons, and 6.1% were Black persons.
After excluding COVID-19–associated deaths, overall SMRs after dose 1 were 0.42 and 0.37 per 100 person-years for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, respectively, and were 0.35 and 0.34, respectively, after dose 2 (Table 2). These rates were lower than the rate of 1.11 per 100 person-years among the unvaccinated mRNA vaccine comparison group (p <0.001). Among Janssen vaccine recipients, the overall SMR was 0.84 per 100 person-years, lower than the rate of 1.47 per 100 person-years among the unvaccinated comparison group (p <0.001). Among persons aged 12–17 years, SMRs were similar among the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients and unvaccinated comparison groups (p = 0.68 after dose 1 and 0.89 after dose 2). SMRs were also similar between Janssen vaccine recipients and unvaccinated comparison groups among Asian persons (p = 0.11). Among other subgroups defined by vaccine received, age, sex, and race and ethnicity, COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower SMRs than did their unvaccinated counterparts (p <0.05).
The overall aRR among Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients compared with the unvaccinated comparison group was 0.41 (95% CI = 0.38–0.44) after dose 1 and 0.34 (95% CI = 0.33–0.36) after dose 2 (Table 3). Among Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients aged 12–17 years, mortality risk among vaccinated and unvaccinated persons was similar after dose 1 (aRR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.38–1.90) and after dose 2 (aRR = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.33–1.64). Among other age groups, aRRs ranged from 0.35 (95% CI = 0.29–0.42) among persons aged 45–64 years to 0.46 (95% CI = 0.39–0.54) among persons aged ≥85 years after dose 1, and from 0.28 (95% CI = 0.25–0.31) among persons aged 45–64 years to 0.39 (95% CI = 0.36–0.43) among those aged ≥85 years after dose 2. Similar aRRs among vaccinated persons compared with the unvaccinated comparison group were observed for recipients of the Moderna vaccine, ranging from 0.31 (95% CI = 0.26–0.37) among persons aged 45–64 years to 0.46 (95% CI = 0.31–0.69) among persons aged 18–44 years after dose 1, and 0.28 (95% CI = 0.26–0.32) among persons aged 65–74 years to 0.38 (95% CI = 0.29–0.50) among those aged 18–44 years after dose 2. The overall aRR for Janssen was 0.54 (95% CI = 0.49–0.59), and age-stratified aRRs ranged from 0.40 (95% CI = 0.34–0.49) among persons aged 45–64 years to 0.68 (95% CI = 0.56–0.82) among persons aged ≥85 years. Across vaccine type and dose, males and females had comparable aRRs. All vaccinated racial and ethnic groups had lower mortality risks than did unvaccinated comparison groups.
In a cohort of 6.4 million COVID-19 vaccinees and 4.6 million demographically similar unvaccinated persons, recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Janssen vaccines had lower non–COVID-19 mortality risk than did the unvaccinated comparison groups. There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. The lower mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination suggests substantial healthy vaccinee effects (i.e., vaccinated persons tend to be healthier than unvaccinated persons) (7,8), which will be explored in future analyses. Mortality rates among Janssen vaccine recipients were not as low as those among mRNA vaccine recipients. This finding might be because of differences in risk factors, such as underlying health status and risk behaviors among recipients of mRNA and Janssen vaccines that might also be associated with mortality risk.
Among persons aged 12–17 years, mortality risk did not differ between Pfizer-BioNTech vaccinees and unvaccinated persons; only 12 deaths occurred in this age group during the study period. The unvaccinated group might be more similar to the vaccinated group in risk factors than are vaccinated and unvaccinated adults. Stratified analyses by age, sex, and race and ethnicity showed that vaccinated adults had lower mortality than did unvaccinated adults across subgroups.
The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, the study was observational, and individual-level confounders that were not adjusted for might affect mortality risk, including baseline health status, underlying conditions, health care utilization, and socioeconomic status. Second, healthy vaccinee effects were found in all but the youngest age group. Such effects were also found in a cohort study conducted in a nursing home population, which reported substantially lower aRRs for 7-day mortality among vaccinated residents after dose 1 (0.34) and dose 2 (0.49) as compared with unvaccinated residents (5). Lower rates of non–COVID-19 mortality in vaccinated groups suggest that COVID-19 vaccinees are inherently healthier or engage in fewer risk behaviors (7,8); future analyses will address these issues. Third, although deaths associated with COVID-19 were excluded, causes of death were not assessed. It is possible that the algorithm used might have misclassified some deaths associated with COVID-19 because of lack of testing or because individual mortality reviews were not conducted. Finally, the findings might not be applicable to the general population. The VSD includes approximately 3% of the U.S. population, and is representative of the general population with regard to several demographic and socioeconomic characteristics (9). Other studies have already demonstrated the safety of COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States.
Despite these limitations, this study had several strengths. First, this was a cohort study with a large, sociodemographically diverse population, and it encompassed a study period of >7 months. Second, VSD sites were able to capture COVID-19 vaccines administered not just within but also outside their health care systems, including COVID-19 vaccine doses recorded in state immunization registries, allowing for more complete ascertainment of vaccination status. Third, the assignment of index dates allowed COVID-19 vaccinees to contribute unvaccinated person-time before vaccination, thus avoiding immortal time bias (10), which can confer a spurious survival advantage to the treatment group in cohort studies. Index date assignments made the follow-up period comparable between COVID-19 vaccinees and their comparators and helped control for seasonality and general trends in mortality.
CDC recommends that everyone aged ≥12 years should receive a COVID-19 vaccine to help protect against COVID-19.*** This cohort study found lower rates of non–COVID-19 mortality among vaccinated persons compared with unvaccinated persons in a large, sociodemographically diverse population during December 2020–July 2021. There is no increased risk for mortality among COVID-19 vaccine recipients. This finding reinforces the safety profile of currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States.
Corresponding author: Stanley Xu, Stan.Xu@kp.org.
1) Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California; 2) CDC COVID-19 Response Team;
3) Health Partners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota;
4) Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, Colorado;
5) Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California;
6) Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, Marshfield, Wisconsin;
7) Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon;
8) Immunization Safety Office, CDC.
All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Runxin Huang reports support for attending meetings or travel from Dynavax Technologies. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur to support vaccine studies). Elizabeth G. Liles reports research contracts from the National Human Genome Research Institute and Pfizer. Kerresa Morrissette reports research contracts from the National Institutes of Health, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
* https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations
† https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirusexternal icon (Accessed September 21, 2021).
§ Among nine VSD sites, (all health care organizations), data is included from seven sites: Kaiser Permanente (KP) Southern California, Pasadena, California; KP Northern California, Oakland, California; KP Colorado, Denver, Colorado; KP Northwest, Portland, Oregon; KP Washington, Seattle, Washington; HealthPartners, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Marshfield Clinic, Marshfield, Wisconsin. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, did not participate in this study because it is not a data-contributing site; Denver Health, Denver, Colorado, did not participate in this study because of limited resources.
¶ Persons who were vaccinated during December 14, 2020–May 31, 2021 were included in the vaccinated group. In each VSD site, age group, and sex stratum, the distribution of vaccination dates of dose 1 were obtained and used to assign index dates to all persons. Among vaccinated persons, if the index date was before the vaccination date of dose 1, follow-up started on the index date, and persons in this group contributed both unvaccinated person-time (from index date to the day before vaccination date) and vaccinated person-time (from vaccination date); if the index date was on or after the vaccination date of dose 1, follow-up started on the vaccination date, and persons in this group only contributed person-time after vaccination. Follow-up ended upon death, disenrollment from health plans, receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine for unvaccinated persons during June 1, 2021–July 31, 2021, or end of follow-up (July 31, 2021), whichever occurred first.
** All available eligible comparators were used for analysis of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Because the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine was authorized months after the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and demographic characteristics of Janssen versus mRNA COVID-19 vaccine recipients might differ, a separate group of comparators was selected for Janssen vaccine recipients on the basis of calendar time and demographic characteristics of Janssen vaccine recipients. Because the number of Janssen vaccine recipients was smaller, four eligible comparators were randomly selected for each vaccinated individual to achieve optimal statistical power.
†† The procedure STDRATE was used to conduct rate ratio tests, and the procedure GENMOD was used to fit Poisson models.
§§ All activities were approved by the institutional review boards at some participating institutions or as public health surveillance activities at other participating institutions.
¶¶ 45 C.F.R. part 46.102(l)(2), 21 C.F.R. part 56; 42 U.S.C. Sect. 241(d); 5 U.S.C. Sect. 552a; 44 U.S.C. Sect. 3501 et seq.
*** https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/adolescents.html (Accessed October 13, 2021).
Characteristic
No. (%)
mRNA vaccine*
Janssen vaccine
Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients
Moderna vaccine recipients
Unvaccinated comparison group†,§
Janssen vaccine recipients
Unvaccinated comparison group†
Total
3,452,126 (100.0)
2,604,066 (100.0)
3,243,112 (100.0)
342,169 (100.0)
1,346,445 (100.0)
Age group, yrs
12–17
316,587 (9.2)
NA
311,445 (9.6)
NA
NA
18–44
1,322,147 (38.3)
951,899 (36.6)
1,153,735 (35.6)
141,317 (41.3)
558,996 (41.5)
45–64
1,072,819 (31.1)
913,075 (35.1)
987,703 (30.5)
158,157 (46.2)
624,106 (46.4)
65–74
440,879 (12.8)
454,391 (17.4)
468,679 (14.5)
28,721 (8.4)
109,143 (8.1)
75–84
219,888 (6.4)
216,968 (8.3)
233,870 (7.2)
9,835 (2.9)
37,745 (2.8)
≥85
79,806 (2.3)
67,733 (2.6)
87,680 (2.7)
4,139 (1.2)
16,455 (1.2)
Sex
Male
1,586,867 (46.0)
1,185,265 (45.5)
1,395,196 (43.0)
177,867 (52.0)
696,190 (51.7)
Female
1,865,259 (54.0)
1,418,801 (54.5)
1,847,916 (57.0)
164,302 (48.0)
650,255 (48.3)
Race/Ethnicity
Hispanic
738,931 (21.4)
600,654 (23.1)
871,863 (26.9)
69,602 (20.3)
329,921 (24.5)
White, non-Hispanic
1,472,716 (42.7)
1,151,826 (44.2)
1,397,345 (43.1)
154,188 (45.1)
585,489 (43.5)
Asian, non-Hispanic
573,754 (16.6)
369,069 (14.2)
432,782 (13.3)
45,909 (13.4)
200,430 (14.9)
Black, non-Hispanic
175,066 (5.1)
145,127 (5.6)
189,592 (5.8)
20,996 (6.1)
73,174 (5.4)
Multiple races/Other/Unknown
491,659 (14.2)
337,390 (13.0)
351,530 (10.8)
51,474 (15.0)
157,431 (11.7)
Abbreviations: Janssen = Johnson & Johnson; NA = not applicable.
* Among Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine recipients, 2,980,152 received the second dose by May 31, 2021; among Moderna COVID-19 vaccine recipients, 2,362,157 received the second dose by May 31, 2021.
† Unvaccinated comparison group included unvaccinated persons and COVID-19 vaccine recipients before COVID-19 vaccination. The assignment of index dates allowed COVID-19 vaccinees to contribute unvaccinated person-time before vaccination, thus avoiding immortal time bias.
§ mRNA vaccines included Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.
Characteristic
No. of deaths* (standardized mortality rate per 100 person-years)
mRNA vaccine
Janssen vaccine
Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients†
Moderna vaccine recipients†
Unvaccinated comparison group§
Vaccine recipients¶
Unvaccinated comparison group§
After dose 1
After dose 2
After dose 1
After dose 2
Overall**
1,157 (0.42)
5,143 (0.35)
1,202 (0.37)
4,434 (0.34)
6,660 (1.11)
671 (0.84)
2,219 (1.47)
Age group,†† yrs
12–17
2 (0.01)
3 (0.01)
NA
NA
7 (0.01)
NA
NA
18–44
20 (0.02)
73 (0.02)
24 (0.03)
57 (0.02)
161 (0.07)
19 (0.04)
63 (0.08)
45–64
117 (0.16)
409 (0.13)
123 (0.16)
421 (0.17)
910 (0.51)
130 (0.25)
497 (0.66)
65–74
235 (0.79)
994 (0.62)
249 (0.63)
920 (0.58)
1,407 (2.13)
144 (1.49)
466 (2.77)
75–84
338 (2.32)
1,591 (1.89)
376 (2.00)
1,425 (1.77)
1,861 (6.34)
176 (5.59)
549 (9.13)
≥85
445 (7.90)
2,073 (6.85)
430 (7.16)
1,611 (6.57)
2,314 (18.76)
202 (15.35)
644 (23.76)
Sex§§
Male
587 (0.49)
2,584 (0.41)
640 (0.45)
2,352 (0.42)
3,265 (1.30)
326 (0.96)
1,102 (1.68)
Female
570 (0.35)
2,559 (0.29)
562 (0.30)
2,082 (0.28)
3,395 (0.96)
345 (0.75)
1,117 (1.31)
Race/Ethnicity**
Hispanic
144 (0.36)
584 (0.29)
197 (0.35)
701 (0.33)
1,230 (1.07)
92 (0.91)
365 (1.24)
White, non-Hispanic
781 (0.47)
3,560 (0.39)
732 (0.39)
2,804 (0.37)
3,993 (1.17)
416 (0.85)
1,364 (1.58)
Asian, non-Hispanic
72 (0.23)
408 (0.23)
67 (0.18)
317 (0.21)
460 (0.78)
56 (0.83)
157 (1.09)
Black, non-Hispanic
84 (0.54)
300 (0.37)
130 (0.65)
340 (0.44)
623 (1.53)
65 (0.99)
187 (1.97)
Multiple races/Other/Unknown
76 (0.38)
291 (0.28)
76 (0.32)
272 (0.29)
354 (0.82)
42 (0.68)
146 (1.22)
Abbreviations: Janssen = Johnson & Johnson; NA = not applicable.
* Number of deaths as of July 31, 2021; deaths that occurred ≤30 days after an incident COVID-19 diagnosis or receipt of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result were excluded.
† Vaccinated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines during December 14, 2020–May 31, 2021.
§ Unvaccinated comparison group included unvaccinated persons and COVID-19 vaccine recipients before COVID-19 vaccination. The assignment of index dates allowed COVID-19 vaccinees to contribute unvaccinated person-time before vaccination, thus avoiding immortal time bias.
¶ Vaccinated with Janssen COVID-19 vaccine during February 27, 2021–May 31, 2021.
** Overall mortality rates and race- and ethnicity-specific mortality rates were age- and sex-standardized.
†† Age-specific mortality rates were sex-standardized.
§§ Sex-specific mortality rates were age-standardized.
Characteristic
Vaccine type, aRR, (95% CI)
Pfizer-BioNTech
Moderna
Janssen
After dose 1
After dose 2
After dose 1
After dose 2
After dose 1
Overall†
0.41 (0.38–0.44)
0.34 (0.33–0.36)
0.34 (0.32–0.37)
0.31(0.30–0.33)
0.54 (0.49–0.59)
Age group,§ yrs
12–17
0.85 (0.38–1.90)
0.73 (0.33–1.64)
NA
NA
NA
18–44
0.37 (0.24–0.57)
0.36 (0.28–0.46)
0.46 (0.31–0.69)
0.38 (0.29–0.50)
0.55 (0.36–0.82)
45–64
0.35 (0.29–0.42)
0.28 (0.25–0.31)
0.31 (0.26–0.37)
0.33 (0.29–0.37)
0.40 (0.34–0.49)
65–74
0.39 (0.33–0.47)
0.32 (0.29–0.35)
0.32 (0.27–0.37)
0.28 (0.26–0.32)
0.50 (0.39–0.63)
75–84
0.38 (0.33–0.46)
0.32 (0.29–0.35)
0.32 (0.27–0.38)
0.29 (0.26–0.32)
0.58 (0.48–0.71)
≥85
0.46 (0.39–0.54)
0.39 (0.36–0.43)
0.38 (0.32–0.45)
0.35 (0.31–0.39)
0.68 (0.56–0.82)
Sex¶
Male
0.41 (0.37–0.46)
0.35 (0.33–0.38)
0.36 (0.32–0.40)
0.33 (0.31–0.35)
0.52 (0.46–0.60)
Female
0.41 (0.36–0.45)
0.33 (0.31–0.36)
0.33 (0.29–0.37)
0.30 (0.28–0.32)
0.56 (0.49–0.64)
**Race/Ethnicity****
Hispanic
0.36 (0.30–0.42)
0.29 (0.26–0.32)
0.33 (0.29–0.39)
0.31 (0.28–0.34)
0.58 (0.46–0.73)
White, non-Hispanic
0.44 (0.38–0.50)
0.37 (0.34–0.40)
0.35 (0.30–0.40)
0.32 (0.30–0.35)
0.53 (0.46–0.61)
Asian, non-Hispanic
0.31 (0.25–0.39)
0.32 (0.28–0.36)
0.23 (0.18–0.30)
0.27 (0.23–0.30)
0.68 (0.52–0.88)
Black, non-Hispanic
0.38 (0.31–0.47)
0.27 (0.24–0.31)
0.42 (0.35–0.49)
0.29 (0.25–0.32)
0.47 (0.36–0.63)
Multiple races/Other/Unknown
0.46 (0.36–0.60)
0.35 (0.30–0.41)
0.40 (0.30–0.51)
0.36 (0.30–0.42)
0.52 (0.38–0.71)
Abbreviations: aRR = adjusted relative risk; CI = confidence interval; Janssen = Johnson & Johnson; NA = not applicable; VSD = Vaccine Safety Datalink.
* Unvaccinated comparison groups included unvaccinated persons and COVID-19 vaccine recipients before COVID-19 vaccination. The assignment of index dates allowed COVID-19 vaccinees to contribute unvaccinated person-time before vaccination, thus avoiding immortal time bias.
† Overall relative risks were adjusted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and VSD site.
§ Relative risks by age were adjusted for sex, race and ethnicity, and VSD site.
¶ Relative risks by sex were adjusted for age, race and ethnicity, and VSD site.
** Relative risks by race and ethnicity were adjusted for age, sex, and VSD site.
Suggested citation for this article: Xu S, Huang R, Sy LS, et al. COVID-19 Vaccination and Non–COVID-19 Mortality Risk — Seven Integrated Health Care Organizations, United States, December 14, 2020–July 31, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:1520–1524. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7043e2external icon.
Vaccines currently are the primary mitigation strategy to combat COVID-19 around the world. For instance, the narrative related to the ongoing surge of new cases in the United States (US) is argued to be driven by areas with low vaccination rates [1]. A similar narrative also has been observed in countries, such as Germany and the United Kingdom [2]. At the same time, Israel that was hailed for its swift and high rates of vaccination has also seen a substantial resurgence in COVID-19 cases [3]. We investigate the relationship between the percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases across 68 countries and across 2947 counties in the US.
We used COVID-19 data provided by the Our World in Data for cross-country analysis, available as of September 3, 2021 (Supplementary Table 1) [4]. We included 68 countries that met the following criteria: had second dose vaccine data available; had COVID-19 case data available; had population data available; and the last update of data was within 3 days prior to or on September 3, 2021. For the 7 days preceding September 3, 2021 we computed the COVID-19 cases per 1 million people for each country as well as the percentage of population that is fully vaccinated.
For the county-level analysis in the US, we utilized the White House COVID-19 Team data [5], available as of September 2, 2021 (Supplementary Table 2). We excluded counties that did not report fully vaccinated population percentage data yielding 2947 counties for the analysis. We computed the number and percentages of counties that experienced an increase in COVID-19 cases by levels of the percentage of people fully vaccinated in each county. The percentage increase in COVID-19 cases was calculated based on the difference in cases from the last 7 days and the 7 days preceding them. For example, Los Angeles county in California had 18,171 cases in the last 7 days (August 26 to September 1) and 31,616 cases in the previous 7 days (August 19–25), so this county did not experience an increase of cases in our dataset. We provide a dashboard of the metrics used in this analysis that is updated automatically as new data is made available by the White House COVID-19 Team (https://tiny.cc/USDashboard).
At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days (Fig. 1). In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people. Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days. The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplified, for instance, by comparison of Iceland and Portugal. Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that have around 10% of their population fully vaccinated.
Fig. 1
Relationship between cases per 1 million people (last 7 days) and percentage of population fully vaccinated across 68 countries as of September 3, 2021 (See Table S1 for the underlying data)
Across the US counties too, the median new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people in the last 7 days is largely similar across the categories of percent population fully vaccinated (Fig. 2). Notably there is also substantial county variation in new COVID-19 cases within categories of percentage population fully vaccinated. There also appears to be no significant signaling of COVID-19 cases decreasing with higher percentages of population fully vaccinated (Fig. 3).
Fig. 2
Median, interquartile range and variation in cases per 100,000 people in the last 7 days across percentage of population fully vaccinated as of September 2, 2021
Fig. 3
Percentage of counties that experienced an increase of cases between two consecutive 7-day time periods by percentage of population fully vaccinated across 2947 counties as of September 2, 2021
Of the top 5 counties that have the highest percentage of population fully vaccinated (99.9–84.3%), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identifies 4 of them as “High” Transmission counties. Chattahoochee (Georgia), McKinley (New Mexico), and Arecibo (Puerto Rico) counties have above 90% of their population fully vaccinated with all three being classified as “High” transmission. Conversely, of the 57 counties that have been classified as “low” transmission counties by the CDC, 26.3% (15) have percentage of population fully vaccinated below 20%.
Since full immunity from the vaccine is believed to take about 2 weeks after the second dose, we conducted sensitivity analyses by using a 1-month lag on the percentage population fully vaccinated for countries and US counties. The above findings of no discernable association between COVID-19 cases and levels of fully vaccinated was also observed when we considered a 1-month lag on the levels of fully vaccinated (Supplementary Figure 1, Supplementary Figure 2).
We should note that the COVID-19 case data is of confirmed cases, which is a function of both supply (e.g., variation in testing capacities or reporting practices) and demand-side (e.g., variation in people’s decision on when to get tested) factors.
The sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences needs to be re-examined, especially considering the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant and the likelihood of future variants. Other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions may need to be put in place alongside increasing vaccination rates. Such course correction, especially with regards to the policy narrative, becomes paramount with emerging scientific evidence on real world effectiveness of the vaccines.
For instance, in a report released from the Ministry of Health in Israel, the effectiveness of 2 doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine against preventing COVID-19 infection was reported to be 39% [6], substantially lower than the trial efficacy of 96% [7]. It is also emerging that immunity derived from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may not be as strong as immunity acquired through recovery from the COVID-19 virus [8]. A substantial decline in immunity from mRNA vaccines 6-months post immunization has also been reported [9]. Even though vaccinations offers protection to individuals against severe hospitalization and death, the CDC reported an increase from 0.01 to 9% and 0 to 15.1% (between January to May 2021) in the rates of hospitalizations and deaths, respectively, amongst the fully vaccinated [10].
In summary, even as efforts should be made to encourage populations to get vaccinated it should be done so with humility and respect. Stigmatizing populations can do more harm than good. Importantly, other non-pharmacological prevention efforts (e.g., the importance of basic public health hygiene with regards to maintaining safe distance or handwashing, promoting better frequent and cheaper forms of testing) needs to be renewed in order to strike the balance of learning to live with COVID-19 in the same manner we continue to live a 100 years later with various seasonal alterations of the 1918 Influenza virus.
Pfizer/BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID shot was approved (licensed) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in late August 2021, but only for adults, and only when carrying the Comirnaty label. No other COVID shot has been FDA approved. However, Comirnaty is currently not available, and while the experimental, emergency use authorized (EUA) Pfizer shot is substituted for Comirnaty, the two products are clearly legally distinct and not the same
A licensed vaccine is not shielded from liability until or unless it’s added to the recommended childhood vaccination schedule by the CDC. So, if you were injured by Comirnaty, you could sue Pfizer. You cannot sue if injured by the EUA Pfizer shot (or any of the other EUA COVID injections)
Even though several hundred claims have been filed with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) for injuries resulting from the COVID shots — which is the only possible avenue to obtain damages — not a single claim has been paid out
Natural immunity is much stronger than what you can achieve from the injection, which only provides antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and wanes within a few months. The shots may in fact permanently limit the kind of immune response you would make were you to later be exposed or infected with COVID
Children’s Health Defense has filed a lawsuit arguing you cannot have a vaccine that is both an emergency use product and a licensed product at the same time. That’s against the law, but the government has done it anyway. Remarkably, the request for an injunction was initially thrown out, but the CHD has not given up and is still pursuing the case
In this interview, Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist specializing in toxicology, vaccine-induced illnesses and Gulf War illness, shares her insights into the dangers of the COVID jab, which received an emergency use authorization October 26, 2021, for children as young as 5.
We also discuss the conflicts of interest within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that seem to be behind this reckless decision, and how the agency pulled the wool over our eyes with its approval of Pfizer/BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID injection.
Is the COVID Jab Approved or Not?
As explained by Nass:
“All of the COVID ‘vaccines,’ and most of the COVID treatment products, have not been [FDA] approved. Approved means licensed. All except one, which is the Pfizer vaccine for adults, age 16 and up, which got approved, i.e., licensed on August 23 [2021].
But every other vaccine, and for every other age group, including the boosters, have only been authorized under emergency use authorizations (EUAs). There’s a critical difference [between licensing and EUA]. Once a drug is fully licensed, it is subject to liability.
If the company injures you with that product, you can sue them, unless it later gets put on the CDC’s childhood schedule or is recommended by the CDC [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] [during] pregnancy, in which case it obtains a different liability shield.
It then becomes part of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP, established under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act), and 75 cents from every dose of vaccine that is sold in the United States goes into a fund to pay for injuries that way.”
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act removed liability for all vaccines recommended by the CDC for children. Since 2016, they’ve also removed liability for vaccines given to pregnant women, a category that has become the latest “gold rush” for vaccines. Naturally, once a company is no longer liable for injuries, the profitability of the product in question increases dramatically.
Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program Is Nearly Useless
Products under emergency use have their own special government program for liability called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). “It is a terrible program,” Nass says. CICP is an offshoot of the 2005 PREP Act.
“The PREP act enabled the CICP to be created by Congress,” Nass explains. “Congress has to allocate money for it. If you are injured by an emergency use product, you don’t get any legal process. The companies have had all their liability waived. There is a single process that is administered through HHS [Health and Human Services].
Some employees there decide whether you deserve to be compensated or not. The maximum in damages you can obtain is about $370,000 if you’re totally disabled or die, and the money is only to compensate you for lost wages or unpaid medical bills.”
So far, even though several hundred CICP claims have been filed for injuries resulting from the COVID shots, not a single claim has been paid out. This is important, because the statute of limitations is one year. “It’s getting close to running out for people who were vaccinated early,” Nass says.
If you fail to apply in time, you lose the opportunity to get any compensation entirely. “Of course, in fact, it’s really ‘an opportunity’ to apply and get nothing because almost nobody gets paid,” she says. At that point, you have no further recourse. There’s no appeals process to the judicial system.
“You can ask the HHS twice to compensate you, and if they say no, that’s it,” Nass explains. “You can attempt to sue the company that made the product, if you’re convinced it was improperly made, but the secretary of HHS has to give you the permission to sue.
You have to prove that there was willful misconduct and no one has ever reached that bar. So, there has never been a lawsuit under this. Anyway, that’s what you’re looking at. If you get the vaccine under EUA and are injured, you’re on your own. People have no idea about this when they vaccinate themselves or their children.”
Why Were the Shots Mandated?
As you know by now, president Biden decided to mandate the COVID jab for most federal employees (but not all) and private companies with 100 employees or more. “We don’t know why that is,” Nass says. It doesn’t make sense, as large numbers of Americans have already recovered from COVID-19 and have durable, long-lasting immunity already.
As correctly noted by Nass, natural immunity is much stronger than what you can achieve from the injection, which only provides antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and wears off within a few months. The shots “may in fact permanently limit the kind of immune response you would make were you to be infected with COVID later,” Nass says.
For these reasons, there’s absolutely no good reason to vaccinate people who have recovered from the infection and several bad reasons. There’s evidence showing the shot can be more harmful for those with existing immunity.
“But for reasons best known to itself, the Biden administration feels so certain it needs to vaccinate everybody that it has used illegal means to tell employers they will lose federal contracts if they don’t force their employees to be vaccinated immediately, and must fire them — if they’re health care workers, for example, or government employees, or military — if they have not been vaccinated.
Obviously that is creating a great deal of chaos, particularly within the health care industry, particularly in my state, Maine, where these draconian rules have gone into effect and many fire department, police, EMTs, nurses and doctors can no longer work.
The one thing that was necessary to push mandates forward was for the government to be able to say it had a licensed product. Before the emergency use authorization was created in 2005, you had licensed drugs and you had experimental drugs and nothing else.
There was no gray area between them. Any use of a medication or vaccine that is not fully licensed is still experimental, despite the fact that a new category of drugs has been created with emergency use authorizations.
These are still experimental drugs, so under emergency use, you can’t force people [to take them]. You have to offer them options and they have the right to refuse. Since that is part of the statute, the federal government can’t get around it.
Therefore, attorneys in the Biden administration knew they could not legally impose mandates under an EUA, and so they demanded that FDA provide a COVID vaccine full approval, aka, an unrestricted license. This was believed to enable them to impose mandates.
They must have put pressure on the FDA, and FDA gave them what they wanted, which was a license for the Pfizer vaccine called Comirnaty on August 23 [2021].”
Comirnaty Approval Includes Important Caveats
In the documents released August 23, 2021, by the FDA, there were some interesting caveats. They said the Comirnaty vaccine is essentially equivalent to the EUA vaccine and the two vaccines may be used interchangeably. However, they pointed out that the two are legally distinct. Curiously, FDA didn’t specify what these legal distinctions are.
“I concluded that the legal distinctions were the fact that under EUA, there was essentially no manufacturer liability, but once the vaccine got licensed, the manufacturer would be subject to liability claims unless and until the vaccine was placed on the childhood schedule or recommended in pregnancy, in which case it would then fall … under the NVICP,” Nass says.
“Right now, Comirnaty is still not in that injury compensation program, and it’s licensed, so it no longer falls under the CICP. So, it is in fact subject to liability if you get injured with a bottle that says Comirnaty on it. Of course, if you’re Pfizer, what do you want to do?
You don’t want to make that licensed product available until several months have gone by and Comirnaty has been put into the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. So, Pfizer and FDA have not made the licensed product available yet.
What has happened instead, in the military, is the FDA has made a secret deal with the military and said, certain emergency use lots can be considered equivalent to the licensed vaccine, and [told military medical staff] which QR codes — which lots can be used. [These specific lots] can then be given to soldiers as if they’re licensed.
Subsequently, we’re told that military clinics are actually putting Comirnaty labels onto bottles that are under EUA. Now, that probably can happen in the military, but only in the military, because there are likely to be memoranda of understanding within the military that we haven’t seen yet that say soldiers cannot sue Pfizer for injuries …
In the military, the government and Pfizer feel like they have set up a situation where nobody can sue, but in the civilian world, that has not happened, and so there is no Comirnaty available.
Yet, on the basis that FDA licensed this product, the federal government is still telling employers that they can mandate it and that they must fire employees that have not taken the vaccine, or they will lose government contracts. We’re in a very interesting situation that is ripe for litigation, and Children’s Health Defense, which is an organization I represent, is litigating some of this.
However, the litigation situation has been very difficult since the pandemic began. Cases that normally would’ve been easy wins are being thrown out by the courts, both in the U.S. and in Europe. Something strange has happened and the judges are looking for any way out, so they don’t have to rule on the merits of these cases.”
The organization Children’s Health Defense has filed a lawsuit arguing you cannot have a vaccine that is both an emergency use product and a licensed product at the same time. That’s against the law, but the federal government did it anyway. Remarkably, the request for an injunction was initially thrown out, but Children’s Health Defense hasn’t given up and is still pursuing that case.
COVID Jab Is Authorized for 5- to 11-Year-Olds in the US
As mentioned, the FDA recently authorized the EUA COVID jab for children between the ages of 5 and 11, which is simply appalling, considering they are at virtually no risk from COVID-19. I’ve not seen a single recorded case in the entire world of anyone in that age group dying of COVID that didn’t have a serious preexisting comorbidity, such as cancer.
If you have a healthy child, they are at no risk from the infection, so there’s only danger associated with this shot, which in this age group would be one-third the adult dose. Typically, when you’re giving a drug to a child, the dose is calculated based on the child’s weight. Here, they’re giving the same dose to a 5-year-old as an 11-year-old, despite there being a significant difference in weight. So, it’s pure guesswork.
Worse yet, the mRNA vaccines produce an unpredictable amount of spike protein, and even if they produce much too much, there is no way to turn off the process once you have been injected.
Despite clear safety signals, the FDA’s advisory committee authorized the Pfizer jab for 5- to 11-year-olds unanimously, 17-to-0 (with one abstaining vote). However, when you look at the roster of the FDA’s committee members1 who reviewed and voted to authorize the Pfizer shot for children as young as 5, the unanimous “yes” vote becomes less of a mystery.
Abhorrent Conflicts of Interest
As reported by National File2 and The Defender,3 the membership of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) has had staggering conflicts of interest. Members have included:
In addition to that, former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb is currently on Pfizer’s board of directors. As noted by Nass, two of the members, one permanent and one temporary, are also CDC career employees whose job it is to push vaccines at the CDC.
“If they voted against authorizing a vaccine, they would be out of a job,” Nass says. “They have no business on that committee … It’s a very unethical stew of advisory committee members …
What happened is Pfizer delivered a large package of information to the FDA on October 6, 2021. FDA staff had to go through this large packet of information on the 5- to 11-year-olds and produce their own report, which was about 40 pages long, and create talks to give to the advisory committee, and they did all of this in 17 days.
There was apparently very little critical thought that went into their presentations. Before the meeting, Children’s Health Defense, and I was one of the authors, wrote to the committee and to FDA officials saying, ‘Look, there’s all these reasons that don’t make logical or medical sense for vaccinating kids in this age group, because they almost never get very ill or die, and the side effects of the vaccine are essentially unknown.
We know there are a lot of side effects, but the federal government has concealed from us the rate at which these side effects occur. But we know that the rate from myocarditis is very high, probably at least 1 in 5,000 young males … which is a very serious side effect. It can lead, probably always leads, to some scarring. It can lead to sudden death, to heart failure.”
Trials in Young Children Were Insufficient
As explained by Nass, in the clinical trial, there were two groups of children. The first group was enrolled for two to three months, while the second group was enrolled for just 17 days after receiving the second dose. (Pfizer added the second group because FDA claimed there weren’t enough volunteers in the first group.)
These two groups comprised over 3,000 children who got the jab and 1,500 or 2,000 who got a placebo. None suffered serious side effects. This was then translated into the claim that the injection was safe. However, as noted by Nass:
“They didn’t look at safety in all these kids. Even though FDA had said, ‘Add kids to your clinical trial,’ Pfizer created a ‘safety subset’ of one-tenth of the vaccinated subjects.
It was this small number of kids from whom they drew blood to show they had adequate levels of neutralizing antibodies, which was a surrogate for efficacy, because they didn’t have enough cases of COVID in this abbreviated trial to show that the vaccine actually works in this age group.”
Even though the advisory committee acknowledged that the blood test done for efficacy had not been validated, and wasn’t reliable evidence of effectiveness, they still decided that all children, regardless of health status, would benefit from the injection.
They also ignored the fact that at least half the children are already immune, and giving them the injection will provide no additional benefit in terms of immunity, while putting them at increased risk for serious side effects.
“Nobody said, ‘Look, the parents of healthy kids may be dying for a vaccine, but that’s because we haven’t told them the truth about the vaccine. We haven’t told them their kids don’t need it. We haven’t told them it’s going to potentially damage future immunity.
We haven’t told them they’re at higher risk of side effects than if they never had COVID. We’re not allowing them to go get antibody tests to establish that they’re already immune and therefore should be waved from being vaccinated.’
The committee members were aware of all this stuff, but in the end [they voted yes] … apart from one very smart member of the committee who works for the National Institutes of Health. He abstained. He didn’t have the guts to vote no, but he knew this was a bad idea.”
Children Are Being Injected Without Parental Consent
While all of that is bad enough, parents of young children now face the possibility of their children being injected against their will and without their knowledge. Nass comments:
“As I said, we don’t know why the government wants everybody vaccinated, but there’s probably a reason that goes beyond protecting us from COVID.
The government got the FDA to authorize the vaccine for 12- to 15-year-olds on May 10 [2021], and subsequently that group, which is about 6 million kids, has been getting vaccinated across the country. That’s under emergency use so, again, you can’t sue.
But something kind of evil happened, which was many cities began vaccinating 12- to 15-year-olds in the absence of parental permission. So, a child could show up with their friends or a friend’s mother at a vaccine center and get vaccinated with no one asking about their medical history, nobody calling the parents. No notation got entered into the child’s medical record that they were vaccinated.
Vaccinators were told to make their own assessment. If they thought this child could give consent, go ahead and vaccinate. Now, that is a gross violation of our laws, and yet it was happening in Boston, in Philadelphia, in Seattle, in San Francisco, and we have good documentation of it.
The government currently is planning for mobile vaccination clinics for kids and vaccinations in schools, and they may take this program of vaccinating without parental consent down to the 5- to 11-year-olds …
In fact, we may see clinics popping up that don’t require informed consent in the 5- to 11-year-old group. Let me just mention that the chief medical officer in Canada’s British Columbia said they have brought laws that allow children of any age to consent for themselves. Think about that. A baby can consent for vaccinations for itself. It would be funny if it wasn’t so diabolical.”
All of this goes against the most basic concept of medical ethics, which is informed consent. No one has the right to perform a medical procedure on you without your consent, or the consent of a legal guardian. The government, again, without establishing any new laws, is simply bypassing the legal system.
Will Young Children Be at Risk for Myocarditis?
Based on her review of the scientific literature, Nass suspects younger children in the now COVID jab-approved, 5- to 11-year-old age group will be at exponentially higher risk of myocarditis and other side effects compared to the 12- to 15-year group, where we’ve already seen a documented increase.
“In the letter that Children’s Health Defense wrote to the advisory committee for the FDA, we created a graph based on the reporting rate of myocarditis versus age, and we showed there was an exponential curve.
Men aged 65 and up had a rate that was 1/100th the rate of boys aged 12 to 17. If that exponential curve keeps going up, the rate in the 5- to 11-year-olds could be even dramatically higher. In those young men, a 1 in 5,000 rate was reported to VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System]. That’s not a real rate.
That just tells us how many people got diagnosed with myocarditis, and then went to the trouble of reporting it to the FDA. The FDA and CDC have a large number of other databases from which they can gather rates of illness.
VAERS is considered passive reporting. It is not considered fit for purpose to establish illness rates because we don’t know how many people report. Do 1 in 10 report, 1 in 100, 1 in 50? Nobody knows.
However, again, because everything is crazy since the pandemic came in, the CDC has tried to pull the wool over our eyes and has claimed that the rate of anaphylaxis in the population from COVID vaccines is identical to their reporting rate to VAERS. We know that’s not true.
On the CDC’s website, that’s what they have. Elsewhere on the website, they say you can’t take a VAERS rate and call it an actual rate of reactions, but they’ve done that [for anaphylaxis]. And they’re trying to obfuscate the fact that they’re not giving you real rates, and sort of pretending that the myocarditis rate is probably the VAERS reporting rate of myocarditis, although they’re not saying so directly.”
Nass goes on to recount an example from the smallpox vaccine, which also caused myocarditis. A military study that just looked at cases sent to specialists found roughly 1 in 15,000 developed myocarditis. A military immunologist then dug deeper, and drew blood on soldiers before and after vaccination, and found a myocarditis rate of 1 in 220 after receiving the smallpox vaccine.
However, 1 soldier in 30 developed subclinical myocarditis where troponin rose from normal to more than two times the upper limits of normal. While asymptomatic, 1 in 30 had measurable inflammation of the heart. “Right now, in terms of what the rate is for COVID, nobody is looking, no federal agency wants to find out the real rate,” Nass says.
You Can’t Find Problems You Refuse to Look For
A simple study that measures troponin levels — a marker for heart inflammation and damage — before and after each dose, could easily determine what the real rate of myocarditis is, yet that is not being done.
“This is what we’re dealing with,” Nass says. “All these databases, which is about a dozen different databases, that CDC and FDA said they could access to determine the rates of side effects after vaccination with COVID vaccines, they’re either not being used or being used improperly,” Nass says.
“It was discovered that a new algorithm was being used to study the VAERS database that only came into use in January 2021, immediately after the vaccines were authorized, and the algorithm was developed such that you compare two vaccines to each other.
If the pattern of side effects was similar between the two vaccines — which is often the case because there’s a limited number of general vaccine adverse reactions — even if one vaccine has a thousand times more side effects as the one it is being compared to, by using this flawed algorithm, if the pattern of reactions was the same, even though the rates were 1,000 times higher for one, the algorithm would fail to detect a problem.
That is the algorithm they’re using to analyze VAERS [data]. They’re also using bad methods … to analyze the vaccine safety database, which encompasses 12 million Americans who enrolled in HMOs around the country. The CDC pays for access to their electronic medical records and their data.
Somehow when these databases have been looked at carefully, they’re finding very low rates of myocarditis in boys, approximately equal to the VAERS reporting. It was said months ago, ‘We can’t find a safety signal for myocarditis. We’re not finding an anaphylaxis signal. we’re not finding a Bell’s palsy signal.’
The FDA’s and CDC’s algorithms couldn’t pick up for most known side effects. So, there’s something wrong with the analytic methods that are being used, but the agencies haven’t told us precisely what they are. What we do know is that the rates of side effects that are being reported to VAERS are phenomenal.
They’re orders of magnitude higher than for any previous vaccines used in the United States. An order of magnitude is 10-fold, so rates of reported adverse reactions are 10 to 100 times higher than what has been reported for any other vaccine. Reported deaths after COVID in the United States are 17,000+. It’s off the charts.
Other side effects reported after COVID vaccinations total over 800,000. Again, more deaths and more side effects than have ever been reported for every vaccine combined in use in the U.S. cumulatively over 30 years.”
Despite all this shocking data, our federal agencies look the other way, pretending as if nothing is happening, and no matter how many people approach them — with lawsuits, with public comments, reaching out to politicians — they refuse to address blatantly obvious concerns. This is clear evidence that they’re acting with intentional malice.
FDA has become Clown World, and what they do now is to perform a charade of all the normal regulatory processes that they are expected to perform … You’re the guinea pigs, but they’re not collecting the data. Nobody should get these shots. ~ Dr. Meryl Nass
The FDA and CDC are supposed to protect the public. They’re supposed to identify safety concerns. They’re not supposed to act as marketing firms for drug companies, but that’s precisely what they’ve been converted to.
New Formulations Have Never Been Tested
Another truly egregious fact is that Pfizer has altered its formulation, allegedly to make it more stable, but this new formulation has never been included in any of the trials. Nass explains:
“During the October 26, 2021, VRBPAC [Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee] meeting, Pfizer said, ‘Look, we want to give the vaccines in doctor’s offices and we’ve found a way to stabilize the vaccine so we don’t need those ultra-cold fridges anymore. We can put these vials in a doctor’s office and, once defrosted, they can sit in a regular fridge 10 weeks and they’ll be fine.’
Some committee members asked, ‘OK, what’d you do? How did you make this marvelous discovery?’ And they said, ‘We went from the phosphate buffered saline buffer to a Tris buffer, and we slightly changed some electrolytes.’ A committee member asked, ‘OK, how did that make it so much more stable?’ And everybody in the meeting from FDA and Pfizer looked at each other and said, ‘We don’t know.’
An hour later, Pfizer had one of their chemists get on the line, but he couldn’t explain how the change in buffer led to a huge increase in stability, either. Then, later in the meeting, one of the members of the committee asked, ‘Did you use this new formulation in the clinical trial?’
And Dr. Bill Gruber, the lead Pfizer representative, said, ‘No, we didn’t.’ In other words, Pfizer plans, with FDA connivance, to use an entirely new vaccine formulation in children, after their clinical trials used the old formulation. This is grossly illegal. They’ve got a new formulation of vaccine. It wasn’t tested in humans. And they’re about to use it on 28 million American kids.”
It’s nothing short of a dystopian nightmare. Completely surreal. You can’t make this stuff up. Yet as shocking as all this is, earlier this year, Dr. Anthony Fauci projected that these COVID jabs would be available for everyone, from infants to the elderly. Now they’ve got the 5-year-olds, and there’s every reason to suspect they’ll go after newborns and infants next.
Whose Babies Will Be Offered Up as Sacrificial Lambs?
According to Nass, Pfizer and the FDA have struck a deal that will allow Pfizer to test on babies even younger than 6 months old, even if there’s no intention to inject infants that young. Those trials may begin as early as the end of January 2022.
“This arrangement between FDA and Pfizer will give Pfizer its extra six months of patent protection, whether or not these vaccines are intended to be used in those age groups. So, you can look at these trials as a way of almost sacrificing little children, because when you start a trial, you don’t know what the dangers are going to be.
I could be wrong, but I doubt we’re going to give these to newborn babies the way we give the hepatitis B vaccine on the date of birth, yet they will be tested in very young babies. The question is, whose babies get tested? In the past, sometimes the babies that got tested were foster children, wards of the state. Sometimes parents offer up their children. But there will be clinical trials.”
When will we get the data from those trials? It turns out that in the agreements reached between Pfizer and the FDA, some of those trials won’t conclude until 2024, 2025 and 2027. The goal here is to vaccinate all Americans, children and adults, within the coming few months or a year, yet it’ll be five years before we actually know from clinical trials what the side effects may be.
We’re Living in Clown World
As noted by Nass, this is yet another crime. It may fulfill the letter of the law, but it doesn’t fulfill the meaning of the law. It makes no sense to run clinical trials that won’t be completed until five years after your mass vaccination program has been completed and the entire population is injected.
“It’s just a joke to do that,” Nass says. “But FDA has become Clown World, and what they do now is to perform a charade of all the normal regulatory processes that they are expected to do, but they’re only doing them in an abbreviated or peculiar manner so that they don’t really collect the important data.
For example, the control group has been vaccinated two months into the Pfizer trials, which effectively obscures side effects that develop after two months. Blood is not tested for evidence of myocarditis or blood clots using simple tests (troponin and D-dimer levels).
For all the Americans out there who haven’t spent 20 years examining the FDA procedures like I have, these FDA advisory committee meetings are it’s designed to make you think a real regulatory process is going on, when it’s not. Instead we are all guinea pigs, but no one is collecting the data that would normally be required to authorize or approve a vaccine. Therefore, in my opinion, nobody should get these shots.“
To make matters even worse, it’s actually illegal to grant EUAs for these vaccines, because there are drugs that can prevent the condition (COVID), as well as treat it. EUAs can only be granted if there are no existing approved, available alternatives to prevent or treat the infection.
The effective drugs most have already heard of are ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, but there are a number of other drugs that also have profound effects on COVID, Nass says, including TriCor and cyproheptadine (Periactin).
TriCor, or fenofibrate, emulsifies lipid nanoparticles and fatty conglomerations that contain viruses and inflammatory substances. The drug essentially allows your body to break down the viral and inflammatory debris better. As such, it might also help combat complications caused by the nanoliposomes in the COVID shot.
According to Nass, Pepcid at high doses of up to 80 milligrams three times a day is also useful for treatment. Dr. Robert Malone is starting a clinical trial using a combination of Pepcid and celecoxib (brand name Celebrex). Many are also recommending aspirin to prevent platelet activation and clotting.
I believe a far better alternative to aspirin is lumbrokinase, and/or serapeptase. Both are fibrinolytic enzymes that address blood clotting. You can develop sensitivity to them, so I recommend alternating the two on alternate days for about three months if you’ve had COVID.
You could rule out blood clotting by doing a D-dimer test. If your D-dimer is normal, you don’t need an anticlotting agent. If clotting is a concern, you could also use NAC in addition to these fibrinolytic enzymes. It too helps break up clots and prevent clot formation.
A funny thing happened this afternoon. Not funny as in “haha”. More like funny as in, “ohhhhh that’s how the FDA rigs the process.”
I was reading the CDC’s “Guidance for Health Economics Studies Presented to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2019 Update” and I realized that the FDA’s woeful risk-benefit analysis in connection with Pfizer’s EUA application to jab children ages 5 to 11 violates many of the principles of the CDC’s Guidance document. The CDC “Guidance” document describes 21 things that every health economics study in connection with vaccines must do and the FDA risk-benefit analysis violated at least half of them.
Today I want to focus on a single factor: the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV). In four separate places the CDC Guidance document mentions the importance of coming up with a Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV). I did not recall seeing an NNTV in the FDA risk-benefit document. So I checked the FDA’s risk-benefit analysis again and sure enough, there was no mention of an NNTV.
Because the FDA failed to provide an NNTV, I will attempt to provide it here.
First a little background. The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) in order to prevent a single case, hospitalization, ICU admission, or death, is a standard way to measure the effectiveness of any drug. It’s an important tool because it enables policymakers to evaluate tradeoffs between a new drug, a different existing drug, or doing nothing. In vaccine research the equivalent term is Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV, sometimes also written as NNV) in order to prevent a single case, hospitalization, ICU admission, or death (those are 4 different NNTVs that one could calculate).
Pharma HATES talking about NNTV and they hate talking about NNTV even more when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines because the NNTV is so ridiculously high that this vaccine could not pass any honest risk-benefit analysis.
Indeed about a year ago I innocently asked on Twitter what the NNTV is for coronavirus vaccines.
Pharma sent a swarm of trolls in to attack me and Pharma goons published hits pieces on me outside of Twitter to punish me for even asking the question. Of course none of the Pharma trolls provided an estimate of the NNTV for COVID-19 shots. That tells us that we are exactly over the target.
Various health economists have calculated a NNTV for COVID-19 vaccines.
Ronald Brown, a health economist in Canada, estimated that the NNTV to prevent a single case of coronavirus is from 88 to 142.
Others have calculated the NNTV to prevent a single case at 256.
German and Dutch researchers, using a large (500k) data set from a field study in Israel calculated an NNTV between 200 and 700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA shot marketed by Pfizer. They went further and figured out that the “NNTV to prevent one death is between 9,000 and 100,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate.”
You can see why Pharma hates this number so much (I can picture Pharma’s various PR firms sending out an “All hands on deck!” message right now to tell their trolls to attack this article). One would have to inject a lot of people to see any benefit and the more people who are injected the more the potential benefits are offset by the considerable side-effects from the shots.
Furthermore, the NNTV to prevent a single case is not a very meaningful measure because most people, particularly children, recover on their own (or even more quickly with ivermectin if treated early). The numbers that health policy makers should really want to know are the NNTV to prevent a single hospitalization, ICU admission, or death. But with the NNTV to prevent a single case already so high, and with significant adverse events from coronavirus vaccines averaging about 15% nationwide, Pharma and the FDA dare not calculate an NNTV for hospitalizations, ICU, and deaths, because then no one would ever take this product (bye bye $93 billion in annual revenue).
As Bobby Kennedy explains, Pfizer’s clinical trial in adults showed alarming increases in all cause mortality in the vaccinated:
In Pfizer’s 6 month clinical trial in adults — there was 1 covid death out of 22,000 in the vaccine (“treatment”) group and 2 Covid deaths out of 22,000 in the placebo group (see Table s4). So NNTV = 22,000. The catch is there were 5 heart attack deaths in the vaccine group and only 1 in placebo group. So for every 1 life saved from Covid, the Pfizer vaccine kills 4 from heart attacks. All cause mortality in the 6 month study was 20 in vaccine group and 14 in placebo group. So a 42% all cause mortality increase among the vaccinated. The vaccine loses practically all efficacy after 6 months so they had to curtail the study. They unblinded and offered the vaccine to the placebo group. At that point the rising harm line had long ago intersected the sinking efficacy line.
Former NY Times investigative reporter Alex Berenson also wrote about the bad outcomes for the vaccinated in the Pfizer clinical trial in adults (here). Berenson received a lifetime ban from Twitter for posting Pfizer’s own clinical trial data.
Pfizer learned their lesson with the adult trial and so when they conducted a trial of their mRNA vaccine in children ages 5 to 11 they intentionally made it too small (only 2,300 participants) and too short (only followed up for 2 months) in order to hide harms.
All of the NNTV estimates above are based on data from adults. In kids the NNTV will be even higher (the lower the risk, the higher the NNTV to prevent a single bad outcome). Children ages 5 to 11 are at extremely low risk of death from coronavirus. In a meta-analysis combining data from 5 studies, Stanford researchers Cathrine Axfors and John Ioannidis found a median infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.0027% in children ages 0-19. In children ages 5 to 11 the IFR is even lower. Depending on the study one looks at, COVID-19 is slightly less dangerous or roughly equivalent to the flu in children.
So how many children would need to be injected with Pharma’s mRNA shot in order to prevent a single hospitalization, ICU admission, or death?
Let’s examine Pfizer’s EUA application and the FDA’s risk-benefit analysis. By Pfizer’s own admission, there were zero hospitalization, ICU admissions, or deaths, in the treatment or control group in their study of 2,300 children ages 5 to 11.
So the Number Needed to Vaccinate in order to prevent a single hospitalization, ICU admission, or death, according to Pfizer’s own data, is infinity. ∞. Not the good kind of infinity as in God or love or time or the universe. This is the bad kind of infinity as in you could vaccinate every child age 5 to 11 in the U.S. and not prevent a single hospitalization, ICU admission, or death from coronavirus according to Pfizer’s own clinical trial data as submitted to the FDA. Of course Pfizer likes this kind of infinity because it means infinite profits. [Technically speaking the result is “undefined” because mathematically one cannot divide by zero, but you get my point.]
Everyone knows that Pfizer was not even trying to conduct a responsible clinical trial of their mRNA shot in kids ages 5 to 11. Pfizer could have submitted to the FDA a paper napkin with the words “Iz Gud!” written in crayon and the VRBPAC would have approved the shot. They are all in the cartel together and they are all looking forward to their massive payoff/payday.
But let’s not be like Pharma. Instead, let’s attempt to come up with a best guess estimate based on real world data. Over time, others will develop a much more sophisticated estimate (for example, Walach, Klement, & Aukema, 2021 estimated an NNTV for 3 different populations based on “days post dose”). But for our purposes here I think there is a much easier way to come up with a ballpark NNTV estimate for children ages 5 to 11.
Here’s the benefits model:
As of October 30, 2021, the CDC stated that 170 children ages 5 to 11 have died of COVID-19-related illness since the start of the pandemic. (That represents less than 0.1% of all coronavirus-related deaths nationwide even though children that age make up 8.7% of the U.S. population).
The Pfizer mRNA shot only “works” for about 6 months (it increases risk in the first month, provides moderate protection in months 2 through 4 and then effectiveness begins to wane, which is why all of the FDA modeling only used a 6 month time-frame). So any modeling would have to be based on vaccine effectiveness in connection with the 57 (170/3) children who might otherwise have died of COVID-related illness during a 6-month period.
At best, the Pfizer mRNA shot might be 80% effective against hospitalizations and death. That number comes directly from the FDA modeling (p. 32). I am bending over backwards to give Pfizer the benefit of considerable doubt because again, the Pfizer clinical trial showed NO reduction in hospitalizations or death in this age group. So injecting all 28,384,878 children ages 5 to 11 with two doses of Pfizer (which is what the Biden administration wants to do) would save, at most, 45 lives (0.8 effectiveness x 57 fatalities that otherwise would have occurred during that time period = 45).
So then the NNTV to prevent a single fatality in this age group is 630,775 (28,384,878 / 45). But it’s a two dose regimen so if one wants to calculate the NNTV per injection the number doubles to 1,261,550. It’s literally the worst NNTV in the history of vaccination.
If you inject that many children, you certainly will have lots and lots of serious side effects including disability and death. So let’s look at the risk side of the equation.
Here’s the risk model:
Because the Pfizer clinical trial has no useable data, I have to immuno-bridge from the nearest age group.
31,761,099 people (so just about 10% more people than in the 5 to 11 age bracket) ages 12 to 24 have gotten at least one coronavirus shot.
The COVID-19 vaccine program has only existed for 10 months and younger people have only had access more recently (children 12 to 15 have had access for five months; since May 10) — so we’re looking at roughly the same observational time period as modeled above.
During that time, there are 128 reports of fatal side effects following coronavirus mRNA injections in people 12 to 24. (That’s through October 22, 2021. There is a reporting lag though so the actual number of reports that have been filed is surely higher).
Kirsch, Rose, and Crawford (2021) estimate that VAERS undercounts fatal reactions by a factor of 41 which would put the total fatal side effects in this age-range at 5,248. (Kirsch et al. represents a conservative estimate because others have put the underreporting factor at 100.)
With potentially deadly side effects including myo- and pericarditis disproportionately impacting youth it is reasonable to think that over time the rate of fatal side effects from mRNA shots in children ages 5 to 11 might be similar to those in ages 12 to 24.
So, to put it simply, the Biden administration plan would kill 5,248 children via Pfizer mRNA shots in order to save 45 children from dying of coronavirus.
For every one child saved by the shot, another 117 would be killed by the shot.
The Pfizer mRNA shot fails any honest risk-benefit analysis in children ages 5 to 11.
Even under the best circumstances, estimating NNTV and modeling risk vs. benefits is fraught. In the current situation, with a new and novel bioengineered virus, where Pfizer’s data are intentionally underpowered to hide harms, and the FDA, CDC, & Biden Administration are doing everything in their power to push dangerous drugs on kids, making good policy decisions is even more difficult.
If the FDA or CDC want to calculate a different NNTV (and explain how they arrived at that number) I’m all ears. But we all know that the FDA refused to calculate an NNTV not because they forgot, but because they knew the number was so high that it would destroy the case for mRNA vaccines in children this age. Your move CDC — your own Guidance document states that you must provide this number.
Update: CDC finally mentions NNTV, but . . .
Toward the end of the six-hour CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Nov. 2 meeting where the committee voted to recommend Pfizer’s EUA vaccine for children 5 - 11, there was finally a mention of NNTV. It was on slide 36 of a presentation by CDC official D.r Sara Oliver. Unfortunately the CDC estimate was untethered from reality. I’ll explain:
Oliver claimed the NNTV to prevent a single case is 10, even though the best lower bound estimate is 88 and other estimates are 200 or higher (see calculations here and here).
Then she claimed the NNTV to prevent a single hospitalization is between 2,213 and 8,187. This is dishonest and a violation of scientific norms.
NNTV is calculated by dividing 1 by the Absolute Risk Reduction. There was no Absolute Risk Reduction in hospitalizations in the Pfizer clinical trial in kids 5 to 11, because no one was hospitalized in either the treatment or control group. 1/0 is “undefined” not 8,187.
Oliver made no estimate of NNTV to prevent a single COVID-19-related death because that is also undefined (again, there were no COVID-related deaths in the treatment or placebo group in the trial so the absolute risk reduction was zero).
Oliver also did not model injuries or deaths from the vaccine (she immuno-bridged from an older age group to show benefits but ignored the reported harms from the vaccine in the older age group).
I should also note that my estimates of NNTV were based on CDC data showing 170 deaths from COVID-19-related illness in kids ages 5 to 11 over the last 18 months (I got the number directly from the CDC COVID tracking website).
However at the ACIP meeting, the CDC said the number of children in this age group who have died of COVID-19-related illness is 94.
If 94 is the correct number to use, then the NNTV to prevent a single death from COVID-19 related illness in this age group would be 28,384,878 / 31 = 915,641. But it’s a two-dose regimen, so if one wants to calculate the NNTV-per-injection the number doubles to 1,831,282.
I imagine that at most, half of American parents will be foolish enough to inject this toxic product into their kids. At a 50% uptake rate, the ACIP decision to approve the Pfizer shot will likely kill 2,624 children via adverse reactions in order to potentially save 12 from COVID-19-related illness.
Now you know why the CDC did not release the meeting materials prior to the ACIP meeting — they could not stand up to any public scrutiny.
Update 11/05/21:
I see that El Gato Malo engaged in a similar set of calculations back in September when Pfizer first released its “results.” He faced the same challenges as I did — namely, there is no usable data from Pfizer and so one has to pull from others sources. He builds a steel man case (the most generous possible defense of the Pfizer product) and yet his results are still in line with mine (my numbers are higher though because I use a lower estimate of vaccine effectiveness and correct for VAERS underreporting). So again, even under the most generous assumptions, the Pfizer mRNA shot fails any honest risk benefit assessment in connection with children 5 to 11.
This letter from Marc Wathelet, PhD, Expert in Molecular Biology and Immunology, is addressed to the Belgian Minister of Health, Frank Vandenbroucke, and analyzes not only the mandates imposed on health care workers but also the vaccination of children and the “Safe Ticket” vaccination passport intended for the general population. The content of the letter is relevant not only to the Belgian situation but also to that of other countries adopting this kind of coercive measures, that are particularly questionable as for their public health benefits.
(The letter is available in French at this LINK)
Dear Mr. Vandenbroucke , Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Social Affairs and Public Health
Thank you for your response to our letter concerning the compulsory vaccination of health care workers, which you justify based on a certain number of assertions which are however not supported by documentation of scientifically established facts.
On the contrary,
the scientific data available to date contradict all of your arguments and, as detailed below, we can only conclude that the compulsory vaccination of health care workers is not only useless, but also counterproductive from a public health perspective. Such compulsory vaccination also violates the principles of bio-ethics and medical ethics as well as our human rights.
1) Compulsory Vaccination of Health Care Workers is Unnecessary
Mandatory vaccination of health care workers is unnecessary because studies show beyond a reasonable doubt that it does not prevent the contamination of an individual, nor does it reduce the viral load of infected people, and therefore their ability to transmit the virus to others.
In appendix A you will find a long list of facts, scientific publications and official statements from qualified agencies and individuals, such as Dr. Fauci, who confirms our assertion that vaccination does not prevent the disease. the contamination of an individual and his ability to transmit the delta variant circulating today to others.
We will only take a recent example here: on September 23, the Irish Examiner announced that in the city of Waterford, 99.7% of those over 18 were fully vaccinated, which is the highest total in the entire European Union . On October 11, Waterford News & Star reported that the city had the highest incidence rate in Ireland.
There is only one conclusion to be drawn, which cannot be disputed in good faith: beyond studies, in the real world, in practice: vaccination does not make it possible to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the community.
2) Mandatory Vaccination of Health Care Workers is Counterproductive from a Public Health Point of View
The message that COVID vaccines would be “safe and effective,” an unsupported claim if only for the lack of the necessary hindsight, was hammered out constantly for months in all the media. One of the negative effects of this campaign is the acceptance of this assertion as an established fact, not only by the population but also by its leaders.
As a result, vaccinated people respect less behaviors such as social distancing or wearing a mask. And since they are more likely to be asymptomatic when infected, which makes them less aware of the risk they pose to others, they are actually more likely to spread the virus than non-vaccinated people.
In practice, this means that the COVID Safe Ticket (Belgian vaccination passport) is not only useless but also counterproductive. It is a license for vaccinated people to infect others, whether they are vaccinated or not.
The same reasoning applies to health care workers, even if they observe social distancing more scrupulously: vaccinating all health care workers will not prevent the contamination of “sick or vulnerable people because of their great age” which you are rightly concerned about.
We agree with you that “people taken care of have the right to maximum safety”. We offer two non-exclusive alternatives to the compulsory vaccination of health care workers, which will be much more effective in preventing nosocomial infections:
1) Have all nursing staff, vaccinated or not, tested at high frequency. In this regard, note that nasopharyngeal tests are not without risk, as reported by the Academy of Medicine in France. Two other safer methods can be considered: an oro-pharyngeal antigen test or an oral PCR test.
2) Establish a voluntary ivermectin prophylaxis program: There are 14 studies that support the effectiveness of this approach.
Finally, the compulsory vaccination of health care workers is counterproductive from a public health point of view because those who still refuse to be vaccinated will no longer be able to work, and therefore the number of health care workers, already in short supply, will be even smaller, with a negative impact on public health.
In France, there are ~ 300,000 unvaccinated health care workers (~10%), and 15,000 of them are already suspended from their job. In Belgian hospitals, 9.4% of health care workers are not vaccinated and in elderly / nursing homes, 13.1% are not.
3) The Illusion of Herd Immunity
You say: “Scientists say that 70% of the total population (including children) would need to be fully vaccinated for everyone to be protected. With the Delta variant, which is more contagious than the first variants, we continue to aim for that 70%, but we are striving to achieve the highest percentage possible.”
This opinion seems to be shared above all by the experts appointed by the government. On the contrary, many scientists had anticipated that vaccinating during a pandemic was not a sufficient approach to control the virus, and events proved them right (see Appendix A for a list of citations).
You say that “Vaccination reduces the circulation of the virus”. This is contradicted by the articles cited above about the delta variant (Appendix A), the example of the City of Waterford, and now a large study shows that the increases in COVID-19 are indeed not linked to the levels of vaccination worldwide (cf the comparative study of 68 countries, as well as 2,947 counties in the United States).
4) The Dangers of COVID vs. the Dangers of Vaccination
You say, “If we’re afraid of variants, we certainly need to vaccinate more today.” Since hard data indicates that vaccination does not work in practice, even when everyone is vaccinated, the solution cannot be to vaccinate more!
There is no reason to be afraid of variants: on the one hand the lethality of the Delta variant is one tenth of the Alpha according to Public Health England, and on the other hand the lethality of COVID is intrinsically weak. It is mainly linked to the presence of comorbidities (99% of deaths occur in people with comorbidity, 96% in people with multiple comorbidities, Appendix B ).
Importantly, this lethality is comparable to that caused by other respiratory infections. Therefore, neither the COVID Safe Ticket nor the compulsory vaccination are justifiable from a public health point of view!
Those at risk have had the opportunity to be vaccinated or can take prophylactic treatment if they choose not to be vaccinated. The situation of these individuals cannot therefore justify putting other healthy individuals at unnecessary risk.
The risks inherent in COVID vaccinations, in the medium and long term, simply remain unknown, due to the lack of the necessary hindsight (we note, however, the prolonged post-vaccination syndrome, similar to long COVID). The short-term risk is evident despite the intense efforts of the health authorities, mainstream media and big tech to suppress all information on this subject.
For example, the Israeli Ministry of Health published an article on its Facebook page about severe adverse reactions, that it described as very rare only, to find itself inundated by a deluge of contrary opinions from its citizens (14,000 in a few hours), opinions that were swiftly deleted. Denying this reality is not a solution to the problem.
Facebook is routinely removing any group that identifies adverse reactions to vaccines, groups with tens of thousands of users in the United States and elsewhere. By what right? In French speaking countries alone, the (non-exhaustive) collection of screenshots of these individual reports testifies to the catastrophic scale of the phenomenon.
Pharmacovigilance databases around the world are all reporting an increase in severe adverse reactions and deaths from COVID vaccines (WHO; United States - VAERS; United Kingdom - Yellow Card; European Union - Eudravigilance).
Analysis of VAERS data, for example, shows a much higher incidence for COVID vaccines than for influenza severe adverse events (28 times more) and deaths (57 times more, see Appendix B). What’s the use of these pharmacovigilance sites if such data are brushed aside as irrelevant, when on the contrary, they should call for the suspension of the vaccination campaign?
The fact-checking sites, financed by the pharmaceutical industry, come to the rescue of the official narrative by affirming that there is no proof that these deaths are attributable to the vaccines. This is to reverse the burden of proof!
According to a report from the French medications agency ANSM (January 28, 2021), the official pharmacovigilance rule is this: “The analysis of reported cases takes into account clinical, chronological, semiological and pharmacological data. It may lead to the vaccine’s responsibility for the occurrence of an observed adverse event being dismissed only when another, certain, cause is identified.”
In fact, an audit of data reported to VAERS shows that only 14% of deaths following vaccination can be attributed to another cause, and it is not just anyone filling such reports, as 67% of the reports have been made by a doctor. Similarly, in Eudravigilance, 79% of the reports regarding a death were filed by a health care professional.
In reality, all of the Bradford Hill criteria are mostly observed, which means that these vaccines are the cause of most of the reported adverse reactions. When autopsies, which are too rarely done, are performed, between 30 and 100% of deaths are attributable to vaccination (see annex B).
These databases are poorly designed, leading to erroneous reports on both sides of the debate. For example, we see circulating for Eudravigilance a figure greater than 25,000 deaths following vaccination against COVID. A more rigorous analysis indicates 7,174 deaths as of October 9, 2021. VAERS analysis gives a number of deaths of the same order of magnitude (7,680, as of October 8, 2021).
These pharmacovigilance systems are passive, leading to a very significant underreporting of the real number of cases. A factor of 5 seems conservative, but regardless of the exact number, what is indisputable is that people in good health, without co-morbidities, young people, die from vaccination or are seriously injured.
A rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn from the market in 1999 because of only 15 cases of intussusception. The swine flu vaccination campaign in 1976 was halted after 25 deaths. We are at about 3,000 times more at the minimum (appendix B). How many more deaths will it take before we realize the obvious?
Data shows that those who are cautious about vaccines are more educated on average than those who favour vaccination, contrary to how they are portrayed in the media.
And the reality of serious adverse effects due to vaccination is confirmed by the fact that it is precisely health care workers who do not want to be vaccinated, despite their education and the fact that they are generally in favour of vaccination (they are not anti-vaxxers!), because they are on the front line and can see the damage these vaccines cause.
It is therefore deeply immoral to make vaccination compulsory, whether it concerns health care workers or any category of citizens. Likewise, it is unethical to encourage the vaccination of groups of individuals who were excluded from the Phase 3 of the clinical trials, in particular pregnant women and those under the age of 18.
Children deaths due to COVID are extremely rare and observed exclusively in individuals suffering from severe co-morbidities. Therefore the deaths of healthy children already recorded following vaccination should lead to an immediate moratorium on the vaccination of children. This should also apply to pregnant women, especially given the absence of information on the long-term effects of these injections.
Compulsory vaccination violates not only ethics, but also fundamental concepts of rights, as demonstrated by Alessandro Negroni, professor of philosophy of law at the University of Genoa.
In light of European and international law, genetic anti-covid vaccines constitute a medical experiment on human beings. From an ethical as well as a legal point of view, no one can be obliged to submit to a form of medical experimentation in the absence of free and informed consent.
We hope that you will take this analysis into account and that you will realize that we must abandon the idea of compulsory vaccination with experimental products for anyone, as well as the implementation of a COVID Safe Ticket based on anything else than a recent test.
Let us also abandon therapeutic nihilism, and treat infected individuals early, as medicine had always done before the start of this crisis.
Yours faithfully,
By ReinfoCovid Belgium and the non-profit “Notre Bon Droit”
Analysis by Marc G. Wathelet, Ph.D. (Molecular Biology)
APPENDIX A – Data on the Effects of Vaccination on Infection and Transmission
The effect of vaccination on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its transmission to others was modest in the initial studies, but the rapid decline in immunity in vaccinated individuals and the appearance of more contagious variants makes this effect negligible today, as discussed in detail in this document https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/questions-sur-limmunisation-et-la-transmission-de-marc-wathelet/?published=t , drafted as part of a legal action by the non-profit organization “Notre Bon Droit” in opposition to the “COVID Safe Ticket” — the Belgian Government’s vaccination passport.
This document dates from July 28, 2021, and contains 50 references and the studies that have appeared since that date only confirm this analysis:
Data from Public Health England up to the 40th week of 2021
The most recent data from Public Health England indicate that in all cohorts the rate of infection is higher in vaccinated than in unvaccinated people from the age of 30. In these conditions, the obligation of vaccination is simply absurd.
The CDC and Dr. Fauci recognized the impact of the greater contagiousness of the Delta variant and did reinstate the wearing of the mask for the vaccinated.
In addition, the document cited above also [compares immunity against SARS-CoV-2 acquired following vaccination and that following natural infection and shows that the latter is more robust, wider and more balanced regarding the production of antibodies and T cells. It also lasts longer than the vaccine-induced immunity, which translates into better and longer lasting protection against infection for individuals having recovered from COVID compared to vaccinees.
Health care workers are among those who have been most exposed to the virus so far, so it would be absurd to impose a vaccination on them when, for many of them, their natural immunity is more effective. Here too, the studies that have appeared since only confirm this analysis:
The #Covidrationnel collective in Belgium, which includes around thirty university professors, researchers and doctors, carried out a similar analysis and reached the same conclusions
These studies are confirmed by observations in the real world, in the jurisdictions with the highest vaccination rates such as the Seychelles, Gibraltar and Iceland. The high rate of vaccination does not prevent significant waves of infections that follow shortly the vaccination campaign.
More recently, in the city of Waterford in Ireland where 99.7% of the people over 18s are fully vaccinated, one observes the highest incidence rate in Ireland (618.9 infected per 100,000 over the last 2 weeks).
A recent global study shows increases in COVID-19 cases are indeed unrelated to immunization levels across the world (68 countries and 2,947 counties in the United States).
APPENDIX B – The Dangers of COVID vs. the Dangers of COVID Vaccination
From a public health point of view, it is not helpful to consider the general case fatality rate. Rather, it’s a question of identifying populations at risk.
a. The Dangers of COVID
The dangers of COVID are related to age and the presence of comorbidities. 99% of deaths occur in people with comorbidity, 96% in people with multiple comorbidities according to the US CDC
COVID survival rates by age group according to Dr. Ioannidis’ team:
Age | Survival rate |
---|---|
0-19 | 99.9973% |
20-29 | 99.986% |
30-39 | 99.969% |
40-49 | 99.918% |
50-59 | 99.73% |
60-69 | 99.41% |
70+ | 94.5% |
These figures do not distinguish COVID from other respiratory infections in terms of lethality, and therefore do not justify a different approach to manage this disease from a public health perspective. Therefore, neither the COVID Safe Ticket nor compulsory vaccination are justified from a public health point of view!
b. The Dangers of COVID Vaccination
There are excellent vaccines, with a very favorable risk-benefit ratio, against severe diseases, such as tetanus or yellow fever, for example. However, the benefit-risk ratio sometimes turns out to be unfavorable, and the vaccine in question is then withdrawn from the market.
For example, a rotavirus vaccine was taken off the market in 1999 due to only 15 cases of intussusception .
The swine flu vaccination campaign in 1976 was interrupted after 25 deaths . It also caused 532 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
What about the COVID Vaccines?
A simple correlation is not synonymous with causation. We rely on the Bradford Hill criteria, which are widely verified for these vaccines as shown below. They are:
1) Strength of the association (the larger the magnitude of the effects associated with the association, the more likely a causal link is, even if a small effect does not imply no causal link);
2) Stability of the association (its repetition in time and space)
3) Consistency (the same observations are made in different populations);
4) Specificity (a cause produces a particular effect in a particular population in the absence of other explanations);
5) Temporal relationship (temporality). The causes must precede the consequences;
6) Dose-effect relationship (a larger dose leads to a larger effect);
7) Plausibility (biological plausibility, possibility of explaining the mechanisms involved);
8) Experimental evidence (in animals or in humans);
9) Analogy (possibility of alternative explanations).
For example, temporality ( # 5 ) shows a very high incidence of death in the days following vaccination, before falling back to the normal level
The same profile of adverse reactions is observed in Europe and the United States ( # 3 ), listed below, in decreasing order of frequency compared to their respective norm:
pulmonary embolism, stroke, deep vein thrombosis, thrombosis, increased fibrin D dimers, appendicitis, tinnitus, cardiac arrest, death, Parkinson’s disease, slow speech, aphasia (inability to speak), fatigue, pericardial effusion, headache head, chills, pericarditis, deafness, myocarditis, intracranial hemorrhage, spontaneous abortion, cough, Bell’s palsy, paresthesia, blindness, dyspnea (difficulty breathing), myalgia, dysstasia (difficulty standing), convulsions, anaphylactic reaction, suicide , speech disorder, thrombocytopenic thrombotic purpura, paralysis, swelling, diarrhea, neuropathy, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, depression.
Their number increases with the level of vaccination, and there is specificity ( # 4 ), the adverse effect profile shown above is different from that observed for influenza vaccines but is similar to the effects of COVID; also, some populations are affected differently, for example myocarditis and pericarditis affect more young men.
Biological plausibility ( # 7 ): COVID vaccines produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in our cells just as infection with the virus does, and the side effects mimic those seen in disease; the Spike protein shows in vitro intrinsic toxicity towards endothelial cells and cardiac pericytes:
Experimental evidence (animal or human, # 8 ), mouse experiments reproduce myopericarditis.
Strength of association ( # 1 ) and stability ( # 2 ):
Report of serious adverse reactions and deaths for all COVID vaccines per million doses compared to annual influenza vaccines from 2016 to 2021, to the H1N1 strain of influenza vaccine in 2009-2010, and to all vaccines except those against COVID from 2006 to 2021 in the US VAERS system.
Analysis of VAERS data shows a much higher incidence for COVID vaccines than for influenza severe side effects (28X plus) and death (57X plus).
Absolute numbers of serious adverse reactions and deaths in VAERS for the 3 vaccines in the United States against COVID, and their ratio by number of injections
An audit of VAERS data shows that only 14% of deaths following vaccination can be attributed to another cause; at least 67% of reports were initiated by a physician
As the VAERS system is passive, only a small proportion of real cases are recorded there. This proportion can be estimated on the basis of a study of 64,900 employees of a Massachusetts hospital measuring the serious reactions compatible with anaphylaxis that can occur immediately after vaccination: they occurred at a rate of 2.47 per cent. 10,000 vaccinations. The incidence rate of anaphylaxis confirmed in this study is higher than that reported by the CDC on the basis of passive methods (VAERS) of spontaneous notification (0.025-0.11 per 10,000 vaccinations).
These data suggest that the under-reporting in VAERS is by a factor of between 22.5 and 98.8!
This indicates that the number of deaths exceeds 150,000 and the number of severe side effects exceeds one million in the United States:
Absolute figures of serious adverse reactions and deaths in the European Economic Area for the 4 vaccines against COVID, and their ratio by number of injections. 79% of death reports were initiated by healthcare personnel.
The official rule in pharmacovigilance:
The analysis of reported cases takes into account clinical, chronological, semiological and pharmacological data. It may lead to the vaccine’s responsibility for the occurrence of an observed adverse event being dismissed as soon as another, certain cause is identified.
When autopsies, which are too rarely done, are performed, between 30 and 100% of deaths are attributable to vaccination. Peter Schirmacher, chief pathologist at Heidelberg University, determined that autopsy reports indicate that, conservatively, at least 30-40% of a sample of 40 people who died within two weeks of vaccination actually died from the vaccine. .
Professors Arne Burkhardt and Walter Lang, forensic pathologists, presented the results of ten autopsies in Reutlingen on Monday, September 20. Of the ten deaths, seven are “probably” related to the injections, of which five are “very likely”. For the last three cases, one of them remains to be evaluated, another seems to be “a coincidence”, and for the last, the link “is possible but not certain”.
In Norway, when 23 deaths following vaccination occurred in an EHPAD, the authorities carried out 13 autopsies and these 13 deaths were found to be linked to vaccination .
A French drug assessment center concluded that COVID vaccination should be discontinued, for all 4 products. And the Moderna vaccine is abandoned by some countries for the youngest (Norway, Sweden, Denmark; France for the second dose).
Finally, in an article titled “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID?, the authors conclude that not only is their vaccination contraindicated, but that even for the most vulnerable subjects over 65 years of age, the risk-benefit analysis shows that there are 5 times more deaths attributable to vaccination than to disease.
It is against bioethics and the law to vaccinate groups of individuals who were excluded from phase 3 clinical trials, especially those under the age of 18.
Society, by vaccinating children, puts them at risk in order to protect adults without considering their well-being, while it is the responsibility of adults to protect themselves.
It is also not only incorrect that the delta variant would be more dangerous for children, but data from the British National Statistics Office (ONS) indicates a 46% increase in deaths in the 15-19 age group since their vaccination was authorized (+ 63% in young men, + 16% in young women # 4 ), compared to the same period in 2020.
This letter, dated October 17, is translated from French and reproduced with permission from a post on LinkedIn. Please refer to the original version in French for any formal reference.
Author: MOS Medical Group – Eglise Bell
Since Tokyo summer Olympic Game ended on August 8, 2021, the urgent status of the pandemic as Japan is now in its worst surge of the COVID-19 pandemic since the onset of the crisis in such a megacity of 14 million. Most recently, a record number of new cases were reported at 20,140 on August 14. Deaths aren’t as high as successive waves of the pandemic from February 2021 to the end of May, but nerves are frayed with record numbers of infections. Dr. Ozaki, The chairman of the Tokyo Metropolitan Medical Association, recently led an emergency press conference on August 13, Dr. Haruo Ozaki shared those 18,000 new infections are reported daily. However, the death count has eased as compared to previous surges.
Image Credit: Novikov Aleksey / Shutterstock
How to deal with the current dilemma is a huge challenge to Japanese government and medical agencies? Fortunately, India has an excellent testimonial. Since April 28, India medical officials started providing Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to its massive population. As India is the major pharmaceutical manufacture in the world, they were ready for this massive drug distribution. Miraculously, COVID cases were plummeting quickly since then thanks to the new rules.
Much like what was successfully accomplished in India, parts of Bangladesh, and places like Argentina and Mexico, Chairman Ozaki calls for the immediate use of ivermectin as cases surge in Japan.
Dr. Ozaki declared that ivermectin has demonstrated significant benefits in reducing infections and deaths where the regimen is prophylactically administered for another indication. With the encouraging medical data from ivermectin clinical trials’ reports worldwide, especially the one from FLCCC of US and BIRD of UK, the head of the Metropolitan Medical Association declared that while clinical trials were important, it was time to greenlight doctors to prescribe ivermectin in association with giving the patient informed consent.
Finally,greenlight for Ivermectin is on in the first developing country since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic,giving hope to all countries and regions. Perhaps this time because Japan did not have the big Pharm entering the COVID vaccine market, the government did not get much pressure, so the Japanese government’s anti-epidemic policy basically reflects a normal democratic regime should do, that is, to protect the health of the people. Expect the miracle of ivermectin in India to happen again.
References: