Confidential Pfizer and Government Documents confirm ADE, VAED, and AIDS due to COVID-19 Vaccination leading to Millions “Dying Suddenly” & still counting

BY THE EXPOSÉ ON DECEMBER 30, 2022

Confidential documents reveal that within months of receiving the initial doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, some individuals are developing Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED).

And as if that weren’t alarming enough, official documents also prove that a mysterious form of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome is also appearing in a disturbing number of recipients just five months after their initial injections.

This may explain why, tragically, official Government records confirm that millions of people have mysteriously died suddenly in countries around the globe, including the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Europe, in the wake of the widespread distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED). are serious adverse events that can occur after vaccination.

ADE and VAED can occur when an individual is exposed to a pathogen, such as the alleged Covid-19 virus, after receiving a vaccine that does not provide full immunity.

In these cases, the vaccine-induced antibodies may actually enhance the ability of the pathogen to infect cells, leading to more severe illness than if the individual had not received the vaccine.

When a vaccine causes ADE or VAED, it can have significant public health implications.

First and foremost, individuals who receive the vaccine and develop ADE or VAE may suffer from severe illness, and in some cases, even death.

One example of a previous vaccine that has been associated with ADE is the dengue vaccine. In many cases, individuals who received the dengue vaccine and were subsequently infected with the dengue virus experienced more severe illness and an increased risk of hospitalization and death.

Similarly, ADE has been reported in individuals who received vaccines for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and HIV.

One example of a bacterial infection that could potentially be worsened by ADE or VAE is streptococcus A (strep A) infection. Strep A is a type of bacteria that can cause a wide range of illnesses, including sore throat, pneumonia, and sepsis. You will have most likely seen in the mainstream news that Strep A infection is killing children left, right and centre this winter.

Covid-19 vaccination is the most likely reason for this, and the most important piece of evidence to support this fact is official Government reports that prove Covid-19 vaccination damages the immune system and has the potential to cause some new form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

It is entirely possible that ADE and VAED can lead to immense immune system damage similar to that seen in acquired immune deficiency disorder (AIDS).

In individuals with AIDS, the immune system is severely compromised, making them more susceptible to infections and other diseases. Similarly, the occurrence of ADE or VAED can lead to damage to the immune system, potentially leading to a higher risk of infections and other diseases.

In addition to the risk of severe illness comparable to AIDS, ADE and VAED may also increase the risk of developing certain cancers. For example, some studies have suggested that ADE may increase the risk of developing certain types of lymphoma.

The occurrence of these adverse events has had devastating consequences for the individuals who develop them and confidential and official documents prove that ADE and VAED have occurred due to COVID-19 vaccines, leading to a new form of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and millions of excess deaths around the world.

Pfizer, the company hit with the largest healthcare fraud settlement and criminal fine to date in 2009; which also happens to be the same company behind the first ever mRNA gene therapy injection administered to the general public under emergency use authorisation in the name of Covid-19, has admitted in confidential documents, that it desperately tried to keep from going public, that its Covid-19 mRNA gene therapy may cause Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to delay the release of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine safety data for 75 years despite approving the injection after only 108 days of safety review on December 11th, 2020.

The FDA originally said that they were prepared to release 500 pages per month in a response to the Freedom of Information (FOI) request filed on behalf of Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) requesting the safety data.

Instead, in early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered them to release 55,000 pages per month. They released 12,000 pages by the end of January.

Since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents to its website.

One of the documents contained in the latest data dump is ‘reissue_5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf’. Table 5, found on page 11 of the document shows an ‘Important Potential Risk’, and that risk is listed as ‘Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED), including Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Reporatory Disease (VAERD)’.

Pfizer claimed in their confidential document that up to 28th Feb 2021, they had received 138 cases reporting 317 potentially relevant events indicative of Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease. Of these 71 were medically significant resulting in 8 disabilities, 13 were life-threatening events, and 38 of the 138 people died.

Of the 317 relevant events reported by 138 people, 135 were labelled as ‘drug ineffective’, 53 were labelled as dyspnoea (struggling to breathe), 23 were labelled as Covid-19 pneumonia, 8 were labelled as respiratory failure, and 7 were labelled as seizure.

Pfizer also admitted that 75 of the 101 subjects with confirmed Covid-19 following vaccination, had severe disease resulting in hospitalisation, disability, life-threatening consequences or death.

But Pfizer still definitively concluded, for the purposes of their submitted safety data to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the very data that was needed to gain emergency use authorisation and make them billions and billions of dollars, that ‘None of the 75 cases could be definitively considered as VAED’.

But Pfizer then went on to confirm that based on the current evidence, VAED remains a theoretical risk.

This confidential data proves that the Covid-19 injections should never have been granted emergency use authorisation, and should have been pulled from distribution by the FDA as soon as they sighted the figures.

And here’s how we know the ADE and VADE caused by Covid-19 vaccination have led to immune system damage comparable to AIDS.

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) used to publish a weekly Vaccine Surveillance Report, with each report containing four weeks worth of data on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths by vaccination status.

We analysed 5 of these published Vaccine Surveillance Reports containing data from August 16th 2021 to January 2nd 2022, in order to get a clear picture of the effect the Covid-19 vaccines were having on the immune systems of the vaccinated population, and this is what we found…

The UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Reports used for our investigation can all be found here –

• ‘Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 37’ (Published by PHE)
• ‘Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 41’ (Published by UKHSA)
• ‘Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 45’ (Published by UKHSA)
• ‘Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 49’ (Published by UKHSA)
• ‘Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 1 – 2022’ (Published by UKHSA)

You were told that the Pfizer Covid-19 mRNA injection had a vaccine effectiveness of 95%.

The following graph illustrates the increase/decrease in vaccine effectiveness by the month among each age group over a period of 5 months from 16th Aug 21 to 2nd Jan 22.

The first booster shots were administered in week 37 of 2021, and this graph illustrates clearly how they provided a boost in vaccine effectiveness in the following two months. But unfortunately, it also shows how short-lived this boost was with the effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccines falling to frightening levels between weeks 49 and 52.

Real-world vaccine effectiveness dropped to the lowest levels yet across all age groups except for the over 70’s between December 6th and January 2nd, but the over 70’s still dropped into negative effectiveness.

The expected further boost to 40 to 69-year-olds did not materialise and instead, a huge tumble in vaccine effectiveness was recorded, dropping to -151% in 40-49-year-olds.

Vaccine effectiveness also tumbled in the 30-39-year-old age group to minus-123%, despite the booster jab being administered to millions in week 49.

That’s a far cry from the alleged 95% effectiveness you were told about.

But what does a positive/negative vaccine effectiveness actually mean?

Vaccines work by simulating a viral attack and provoking the immune system into responding as if you have had the virus. They are supposed to train the immune system to the point where you develop natural immunity to the virus.

Therefore, vaccine effectiveness is really a measure of the immune system performance of the vaccinated compared to the immune system performance of the unvaccinated.

The data published by the UKHSA confirms that the real-world effectiveness of the Covid-19 injections (really a measure of immune system performance) wains significantly in a short amount of time.

But, unfortunately for the vaccinated population, rather than the immune system returning to the same state it was prior to vaccination, the immune system performance begins to rapidly decline, making 3it inferior to that of the unvaccinated.

However, the UK Government data does prove that a booster dose of the vaccine can give a short-term boost to the immune system.

But, unfortunately, this same data shows that the immune system performance then begins to decline even faster than it has been prior to the booster dose being given.

This data, therefore, suggests that the vaccinated population will now require an endless cycle of booster shots to boost their immune systems to a point where it does not fail but is inferior to that of the unvaccinated population.

ADE or VAED can also lead to increased excess deaths, which are deaths that occur above and beyond the expected number of deaths in a population.

This is because ADE and VAED may cause more severe illness and an increased risk of death, leading to a higher number of deaths than would be expected in a population that has not been exposed to the vaccine.

This may explain why, tragically, official Government records confirm that millions of people have mysteriously died suddenly in countries around the globe in the wake of the widespread distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Official reports published by the Governments of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK & most of Europe, confirm 1.8 million excess deaths have been recorded since the mass roll-out of the Covid-19 injections.

Some countries have been quite transparent in publishing data on deaths, such as the UK and Europe for example. However, they have refused to actively publicise the figures because of what they reveal.

But other countries, such as the USA, have done their utmost to conceal data on deaths as much as possible.

However, we have finally managed to find the data for 15% of the world’s countries hidden deep within the website of an organisation known as the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).

The OECD is an intergovernmental organisation with 38 member countries founded in 1961 to stimulate economic progress and world trade. And for some reason, they host a wealth of data on excess deaths. You can find that data for yourself here.

The following chart reveals what we found in terms of excess deaths across the ‘Five Eyes’; which is an intelligence alliance comprising of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and a further 27 countries across Europe.

In conclusion, antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) are serious adverse events that can occur after Covid-19vaccination.

When a Covid-19 vaccinated individual is exposed to a pathogen all hell can break loose. In these cases, the vaccine-induced antibodies may actually enhance the ability of the pathogen to infect cells, leading to more severe illness than if the individual had not received the vaccine.

The occurrence of ADE or VAED is having significant consequences for both individual and public health.

It has led to severe illness and an increased risk of death for individuals who develop ADE or VAED, as well as an increased risk of developing certain cancers.

The occurrence of ADE or VAED has also led to increased excess deaths, with over 1.8 million in the ‘Five Eyes’ countries alone.

Vaccine manufacturers and Public Health agencies should have carefully monitored the public for any adverse events following vaccination and should have taken appropriate action to address the issues that have arisen.

This could have included revising vaccine recommendations, issuing warnings or alerts, and in some cases, withdrawing the vaccine from the market.

But they have done none of these things.

Which leaves us with the gnawing question of, why?

CDC Finally Releases VAERS Safety Monitoring Analyses For COVID Vaccines

MONDAY, JAN 09, 2023 - 03:00 AM

Authored by Professor Josh Guetzkow via Jackanapes Junction (some emphasis ours),

SUMMARY

• CDC’s VAERS safety signal analysis based on reports from Dec. 14, 2020 – July 29, 2022 for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines shows clear safety signals for death and a range of highly concerning thrombo-embolic, cardiac, neurological, hemorrhagic, hematological, immune-system and menstrual adverse events (AEs) among U.S. adults.
• There were 770 different types of adverse events that showed safety signals in ages 18+, of which over 500 (or 2/3) had a larger safety signal than myocarditis/pericarditis.
• The CDC analysis shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000).
• Twice as many mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reports were classified as serious compared to all other vaccines given to adults (11% vs. 5.5%). This meets the CDC definition of a safety signal.
• There are 96 safety signals for 12-17 year-olds, which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell’s Palsy, genital ulcerations, high blood pressure and heartrate, menstrual irregularities, cardiac valve incompetencies, pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrhythmias, thromboses, pericardial and pleural effusion, appendicitis and perforated appendix, immune thrombocytopenia, chest pain, increased troponin levels, being in intensive care, and having anticoagulant therapy.
• There are 66 safety signals for 5-11 year-olds, which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, ventricular dysfunction and cardiac valve incompetencies, pericardial and pleural effusion, chest pain, appendicitis & appendectomies, Kawasaki’s disease, menstrual irregularities, vitiligo, and vaccine breakthrough infection.
• The safety signals cannot be dismissed as due to “stimulated,” exaggerated, fraudulent or otherwise artificially inflated reporting, nor can they be dismissed due to the huge number of COVID vaccines administered. There are several reasons why, but the simplest one is this: the safety signal analysis does not depend on the number of reports, but whether or not some AEs are reported at a higher rate for these vaccines than for other non-COVID vaccines. Other reasons are discussed in the full post below.
• In August, 2022, the CDC told the Epoch Times that the results of their safety signal analysis “were generally consistent with EB [Empirical Bayesian] data mining [conducted by the FDA], revealing no additional unexpected safety signals.” So either the FDA’s data mining was consistent with the CDC’s method—meaning they "generally" found the same large number of highly alarming safety signals—or the signals they did find were expected. Or they were lying. We may never know because the FDA has refused to release their data mining results.

INTRODUCTION

Finally! Zachary Stieber at the Epoch Times managed to get the CDC to release the results of its VAERS safety signal monitoring for COVID-19 vaccines, and they paint a very alarming picture (see his reporting and the data files here, or if that is behind a paywall then here). The analyses cover VAERS reports for mRNA COVID vaccines from the period from the vaccine rollout on December 14, 2020 through to the end of July, 2022. The CDC admitted to only having started its safety signal analysis on March 25, 2022 (coincidentally 3 days after a lawyer at Children’s Health Defense wrote to them reminding them about our FOIA request for it).

Like me, you might be wondering why the CDC waited over 15 months before doing its first safety signal analysis of VAERS, despite having said in a document posted to its website that it would begin in early 2021—especially since VAERS is touted as our early warning vaccine safety system. You might also wonder how they could insist all the while that the COVID-19 vaccines are being subjected to the most rigorous safety monitoring the world has ever known. I’ll come back to that later. First I’m going to give a little background information on the analysis they did (which you can skip if you’re up to speed) and then describe what they found.

BACKGROUND ON SAFETY SIGNAL ANALYSIS

Back in June 2022, the CDC replied to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the safety signal monitoring of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)—the one it had said it was going to do weekly beginning in early 2021. Their response was: we never did it. Then a little later they said they had been doing it from early on. But by August, 2022, they had finally gotten their story straight, saying that they actually did do it, but only from March 25, 2022 through end of July. You can get up to speed on that here.

The analysis they were supposed to do uses what’s called proportional reporting ratios (PRRs). This is a type of disproportionality analysis commonly used in pharmacovigilance (meaning the monitoring of adverse events after drugs/vaccines go to market). The basic idea of disproportionality analysis is to take a new drug and compare it to one or more existing drugs generally considered safe. We look for disproportionality in the number of adverse events (AEs) reported for a specific AE out of the total number of AEs reported (since we generally don't know how many people take a given drug). We then compare to existing drugs considered safe to see if there is a higher proportion of particular adverse events reported for the new drug compared to existing ones. (In this case they are looking at vaccines, but they still use PRR even though they generally have a much better sense of how many vaccines were administered.)

There are many ways to do disproportionality analysis. The PRR is one of the oldest. Empirical Bayesian data mining, which was supposed to be done on VAERS by the FDA, is another. The PRR is calculated by taking the number of reports for a given adverse event divided by the total number of events reported for the new vaccine or the total number of reports. It then divides that by the same ratio for one or more existing drugs/vaccines considered safe. Here is a simple formula:

So for example, if half of all adverse events reported for COVID-19 vaccines and the comparator vaccine(s) are for myocarditis, then the PRR is 0.5/0.5 = 1. If one quarter of all AEs for the comparator vaccine are for myocarditis, then the PRR is 0.5/0.25 = 2.

Traditionally, for a PRR to count as a safety signal, the PRR has to be 2 or greater, have a Chi-square value of 4 or greater (meaning it is statistically significant) and there has to be at least 3 events reported for a given AE. (This also means that if there are tons of different AEs reported for COVID vaccines that have never been reported for any other vaccine, it will not count as a safety signal. I found over 6,000 of those in my safety signal analysis from 2021.

Of course a safety signal does not necessarily mean there is a problem or that the vaccine caused the adverse event. But it is supposed to set off alarm bells to prompt closer inspection, as in this CDC pamphlet:

Ah yes, shared with the public — after first refusing to share the results and months of foot-dragging following repeated FOIA requests! We will see that the CDC has not done a more focused study on almost any of adverse events with “new patterns” (AKA safety signals).

SO WHAT DID THE CDC ACTUALLY DO?

The Epoch Times obtained 3 weeks of safety signal analyses from the CDC for VAERS data updated on July 15, 22 and 29, 2022. Here I will focus on the last one, since there is very little difference between them and it is more complete. The safety signal analysis compares adverse events1 reported to VAERS for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Dec. 14, 2020 through July 29, 2022 to reports for all non-COVID vaccines from Jan 1, 2009 through July 29, 2022.

PRRs are calculated separately for 5-11 year-olds, 12-15 year-olds and 18+ separately. For each age group, there are separate tables for AEs from all reports, AEs from reports marked serious and AEs from reports not marked as serious.2 Recall that a serious report is one that involves death, a life-threatening event, new or prolonged hospitalization, disability or permanent damage, or a congenital anomaly. I will focus on the reports for all AE’s.

They also have a table that calculates PRRs by comparing reports for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to reports for the Moderna vaccine and vice versa, again for all reports, serious reports only and non-serious reports. There were no remarkable findings in those tables, so I will not discuss them. [Edit: I forgot what Norman Fenton noted in his analysis: the overall proportion of reports with serious adverse events is 9.6% for Modern compared to 12.6% for Pfizer.] This isn’t that surprising since both vaccines are very similar and so should present relatively similar adverse events when compared to each other, and any differences are likely not large enough to be picked up by a PRR analysis. [Though the difference in the overall rate of serious adverse events, which are not specific to a particular type of event only how serious it is, was significant.]

The CDC seems to have calculated PRRs for every different type of adverse event reported for all the COVID vaccines examined - though it’s possible they only analyzed a subset. What seems clear is that, among the AEs they examined, the only ones included in the tables satisfy at least one of two conditions: a PRR value of at least 2 and a Chi-square value of at least 4 (Chi is the Greek letter χ and is pronounced like ‘kai’). When both conditions were met, they highlighted the adverse event in yellow, which appears to indicate a safety signal. There were no COVID vaccine AEs listed with fewer than 3 reported events, though for non-COVID vaccines there were many AEs listed that had only 1 or 2 reported since 2009. The CDC tables still include these and highlight them in yellow when the PRR is greater than 2 and the Chi-square value is great than 4, indicating these events are counted as safety signals.

WHAT SAFETY SIGNALS DID THE CDC FIND?

I’m going to divide this up by age groups and the Pfizer v. Moderna comparison. Let’s start with the 18+ group.

There are 772 AEs that appear on the list. Of these, 770 are marked in yellow and have PRR and Chi-square values that qualify them as safety signals. Some of these are new COVID-19 related codes, and we would expect those to trigger a signal since they didn’t exist in prior years to be reported by other vaccines. So if we take those off, we are left with 758 different types of non-COVID adverse events that showed safety signals.

I grouped these 758 safety signals into different categories. The figure below shows the total number of AEs reported for each of the major categories of safety signals:

Let’s dig into some of these categories to look at what types of AEs generated the most number of reports:3

You can peruse the adverse events using the Excel tables provided by the CDC, which were posted by The Epoch Times and Children’s Health Defense at the links at the top of this post.

What about The Children?

If there is anything that looks remotely like a bright spot in all of this is that the list of safety signals for 12-17 and 5-11 year-olds is much shorter than for 18+. There are 96 AEs that qualify as a safety signal for the 12-17 group and 67 for the 5-11. When we take out the new COVID-era AEs, there are 92 safety signals for 12-17 year-olds and 65 for 5-11 year-olds. Here are the most alarming ones:

I don’t know why the list of AE’s is so much shorter for these age groups. It could be that the list of AE’s for other vaccines for these age groups is much shorter, so in a case where AEs have been reported for the mRNA COVID vaccines but not for other vaccines, it will not be counted as a safety signal by definition.

COMPARISONS TO MYOCARDITIS & PERICARDITIS

We are told that the existence of a safety signal doesn’t necessarily mean the AE is caused by the vaccine, and I accept that premise. But the current practice seems to be to ignore safety signals, dismiss them as noise without any evidence, and stall any investigation into them as long as possible. The precautionary principle, however, dictates we should presume that a safety signal indicates causality, until proven otherwise. Since, it has been acknowledged that the mRNA COVID vaccines can cause myocarditis and pericarditis (often referred to as myo-pericarditis), we can take those AEs as a kind of benchmark, and propose that, at minimum, any AE with a signal of equal or greater size should be considered potentially causal and investigated more thoroughly.4

After dropping the new COVID-era AEs, there are 503 AEs with PRRs larger than myocarditis (PRR=3.09) and 552 with PRRs larger than pericarditis (PRR=2.82).5 This means that 66.4% of the AEs had a bigger safety signal than myocarditis and 77.3% were larger than pericarditis. You can see what those were by use this Excel file provided by the CDC and sorting the 18+ tab by the 12/14-07/29 PRR column (Column E). Then just look at which AEs have PRRs larger than the ones for pericarditis and myocarditis.

For 12-17 year-olds, there is 1 safety signal larger than myocarditis (it’s ‘troponin increased’) and 14 safety signals larger than pericarditis (excluding myocarditis), which include: mitral valve incompetence, bell’s palsy, heavy menstrual bleeding, genital ulceration, vaccine breakthrough infection, and a range of indicators of cardiac abnormalities.

For 5-11 year-olds, the comparison to myo/pericarditis is less germane, as they seem to suffer less from this side effect. But we can still make the comparison: there are 7 safety signals larger than pericarditis, including bell’s palsy, left ventricular dysfunction, mitral valve incompetence, and ‘drug ineffective’ (presumably meaning they still got COVID). There are 16 safety signals larger than myocarditis (excluding pericarditis), which in addition to those listed above also include: pericardial effusion, diastolic blood pressure increase, tricuspid valve incompetence, and vitiligo. Sinus tachycardia (high heart rate), appendicitis, and menstrual disorder come in just below myocarditis.

Now if we think of a safety signal as having both strength and clarity, then the PRR can be thought of as an indicator of how strong the signal is, while the Chi-square is a measure of how clear or unambiguous the signal is, because it gives us a sense of how likely the signal is due to chance alone: the larger the Chi-square value, the less likely the signal is due to chance. A Chi-square of 4 means there is only a 5% chance the observed signal is due to chance. A Chi-square of 8 means there is only a 0.5% chance of it being due to chance.6

For the 18+ group, there are 57 AEs with a Chi-square larger than myocarditis (Chi-square=303.8) and 68 with a Chi-square larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=229.5). Again, you can see what these are by going the Excel file linked above and sorting on Column D.

For the 12-17 group, there are 4 AEs with a larger Chi-square than myocarditis (Chi-square=681.5) and 6 larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=175.4).

For the 5-11 group, there are 22 AEs with a Chi-square larger than myocarditis (Chi-square=30.42) and 34 AEs with a Chi-square larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=18.86).

RESPONDING TO OBJECTIONS

Let’s dispense with some of the criticisms used to dismiss VAERS data, which will undoubtedly be raised if you try to bring the CDC’s analysis to people’s attention.

1. Objection: Anybody can report to VAERS. The reports are unreliable. Anti-vaxxers made lots of fraudulent reports. Nobody was aware of VAERS in the past, but now they are. So many people were afraid of the vaccine so they blamed all their health problems on it. Health workers were required by law to report certain adverse events, like deaths and anaphylaxis. Etc. Etc.

All of these objections ultimately rely on the notion that VAERS reports for COVID-19 vaccines have been artificially inflated over previous years for one reason or another. The thing of it is, though, that the CDC has a method for distinguishing between artificial inflation and real signal. The idea is simple: if adverse events are artificially inflated, they should be artificially inflated to the same degree. Meaning, the PRRs for all of these safety signals should be about the same. But even a casual glance at the PRRs in the Excel file show they vary widely, from as low at 2 to as high as 105 for vaccine breakthrough infection or 74 for cerebral thrombosis. This method does not on the number of reports, but the rate of reporting for certain events out of all events reported. If anything, this method would tend to hide safety signals in a situation where a new vaccine generates a very large number of reports.

The CDC has even done us the favor of calculating upper and lower confidence intervals, meaning that we can be at least 95% confident that two PRRs are truly different if their confidence intervals don’t overlap. So for example the lower confidence interval for pulmonary thrombosis is 19.7, which is higher than the upper confidence interval for 543 other signals. Artificially inflated reporting cannot explain why so many different adverse events have large PRRs that are statistically distinct from one another.

1. Objection: The safety signals are due to the huge number of COVID vaccines given out. Never before have we given out so many vaccine doses. By the end of July, the US had administered something like 600 million vaccine doses to people aged 18+. But the CDC analysis compares VAERS reports for these doses to all doses for all other vaccines for this age group since Jan. 1, 2009. But from 2015-2020 there were over 100 million flu doses administered annually to this age group alone. In previous work, I estimated 538 million doses of flu given to people 18+ from July 2015-June 2020. The number of flu and other non-COVID vaccines for this age group administered from Jan 1., 2009 through July 29, 2022 must be well over double this number, meaning VAERS reports for COVID vaccines are being compared to reports for at least double the number of doses for other vaccines. In addition to this, as already noted, the PRR methodology does not depend, strictly speaking, on the number of doses, but rather the rate of reporting of a specific AE out of all AEs for that vaccine.
2. Objection: the vaccines are mainly being given to older people who tend to have health problems, whereas other vaccines are given to younger people. This objection is dealt with, since the analyses are stratified by age groups. It might be still be somewhat valid for the 18+ group, except that in the safety signal analysis I did in the fall of 2021, I stratified by smaller age bands and still found safety signals. In any case, this objection is not enough to dismiss the safety signal analysis out of hand, but rather calls for better and more refined research.
3. Objection: The VAERS data is not verified and cannot be trusted. I’ll be the first person to agree that VAERS is not high quality data, but if it is completely untrustworthy, then how is it that the CDC uses these data to publish in the best medical journals such as JAMA and The Lancet? If the data were worthless, then these journals shouldn’t accept these papers. In that JAMA paper, they reported that 80% of the myocarditis reports met their definition of myocarditis and were included in the analysis. Many other reports simply needed more details for validation. Furthermore, the CDC has the ability and budget to follow-up on every report VAERS receives to get more details and even medical records to verify the report.

So if myocarditis shows a clear signal in the CDC’s analysis, and 80% of those reports were apparently high quality enough to be included in a paper published in one of the world’s top medical journals, how is it possible that all the rest of the reports are junk? That all of the other safety signals are meaningless? Answer: it isn’t.

And since we’re on the topic of safety signals that turned out to be real, it’s instructive to find appendicitis turn up as a safety signal in all 3 age groups, since a study published in NEJM based on medical records of over a million adult Israelis found an increased risk of appendicitis in the 42 days following Pfizer vaccination (but not following a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test). That study also found an increase in lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes) after vaccination, but not after positive COVID test. Lymphadenopathy was another safety signal.

1. And that brings us to our last objection to be dispensed with: all of these AEs were due to COVID. There was an epidemic and so people were falling ill due to COVID and having all of these problems that were then blamed on the vaccine. Well to begin with, as we just saw, at least two of them (appendicitis and lymphadenopathy) do not appear to have increased risk ratios following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and we know that the mRNA vaccines increase risk of myo/pericarditis independent of infections. So how can we assume the rest of these are and dismiss them with the wave of a hand? We can’t. At minimum, they need further investigation. Furthermore, in the safety signal analysis I did in 2021, I dropped all VAERS reports where any sign of a SARS-CoV-2 exposure or infection was indicated on the report, and I still found large, significant safety signals.

PUTTING IT ALL INTO PERSPECTIVE

The Epoch Times article quotes my esteemed colleague and friend, Norman Fenton, Professor of Risk Management and an world renowned expert in Bayesian statistical analysis: “from a Bayesian perspective, the probability that the true rate of the AE of the COVID-19 vaccines is not higher than that of the non-COVID-19 vaccines is essentially zero…. The onus is on the regulators to come up with some other causal explanation for this difference if they wish to claim that the probability a COVID vaccine AE results in death is not significantly higher than that of other vaccines.” (See his post on the CDC analysis here.) The same is true for all the safety signals they found.

The CDC’s VAERS SOP analysis document lists 18 Adverse Events of Special Interest says they are going to pay close attention to. In their 2021 JAMA paper (and similar presentations to ACIP), the researchers responsible for analyzing the millions of medical records in the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) using the ‘Rapid Cycle Analysis’ only studied 23 outcomes. A Similar analysis in NEJM from Israeli researchers focused on only 25 outcomes. Compare this to over 700 safety signals found by the CDC when they finally decided to look—and that’s not even counting all the adverse events that have never been reported for other vaccines so cannot ever show a safety signal by definition. How can the CDC say that these safety signals are meaningless if almost none of them have been studied any further? And yet we are assured that these vaccines have undergone the most intensive safety monitoring effort in history. It’s complete and utter hogwash!

*  *  *

Josh Guetzkow is a senior lecturer at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Subscribe to his Substack here.

1) To be precise, the 'adverse events' are for 'preferred terms' (PTs) which is a type/level of classification used in the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), which is the classification system used by VAERS and in other pharmacovigilance systems and clinical research for coding reported adverse events. Not all preferred terms are a symptom or adverse event per se. Some refer to a specific diagnostic test that was done or a treatment that was given.

2) It's not entirely clear how they divided these up, since there are clearly AEs that should be considered serious that don't show up in the serious Excel table — though maybe they don’t come up simply because they are looking within serious reports. I believe that they just filtered the reports to include only serious reports or non-serious reports, then did the safety signal analysis on all the AE's coded in those reports. The reason I think this is that I used the MedAlerts Wayback Machine, selected just the serious COVID-19 vaccine reports, and the numbers of total reports was very close to the one in the table provided by the CDC (MedAlerts actually had a bit less). The files obtained by the Epoch Times do not include much in the way of a description as to how the analyses were done, so I had to infer some details, which might be incorrect. I will try to note when I am drawing an inference about how the analysis was done.

3) Generally speaking, these figures show the top ten AEs in each category. In some cases I combined AEs that indicated the same thing, such as combining ‘heart rate irregular’ with ‘arrythmia.’ [UPDATE: Note that the charts of all categories, cardiac and thrombo-embolic events were updated on Jan 7, 2023. The reason is that I had previously categorized acute myocardial infarction as a cardiac issue and myocardial infarction as thrombo-embolic. To be consistent, I have now combined myocardial infarction and acute myocardial infarction into one AE category in the thrombo-embolic events (which made the total AEs reported for that category larger than for pulmonary ones) and then added a different cardiac AE to the cardiovascular AE category, ventricular extrasystoles, AKA premature ventricular contraction (PVC), which dependent on frequency and the presence of other cardiomyopathies is associated with sudden cardiac arrest.]

4) Note that using the myo-pericarditis signal as a yardstick doesn’t mean that these are the only signals that matter. To give one example, anaphylactic reactions don’t even show up in the list of safety signals, even though that was one of the very first risk of the vaccine that became apparent from day one of the vaccine rollout.

One potential objection to this benchmark is that it is too low of a bar, since myo-pericarditis appears to disproportionately affect younger men and so a proper safety signal should be stratified by age and gender then compared with myocarditis similarly stratified. I agree, and it is the CDC’s job to do that. But the fact is that any adverse reaction might disproportionately affect some subgroup of people, in which case the safety signal for that group would be similarly faint or diluted when we look at everyone together. So objection overruled.

5) In their Standard Operation Procedures document, the CDC said they would combine these and related codes together to assess a safety signal, but never mind – at least they finally got around to doing something.

6) In this context, the Chi-square is largely driven by the sheer number of adverse events: the more adverse events reported, including for the comparator vaccine, the larger the Chi-square. For example, the PRR for pericarditis and subdural haematoma is the same (2.82), but there were 1,701 incidents of pericarditis reported for mRNA COVID vaccines versus 221for the comparator vaccines, with Chi-square of 229.5. For subdural haematoma, these numbers are 162 verus 21, for a Chi-square of 21.2.

The Question That Terrifies Branch Covidians: Why Has Covid Spared Africa Where Only 6% Are Vaxxed?

by Dr. Joseph Mercola

January 12, 2023

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• There are clear contradictions between the World Health Organization’s directives regarding the need for COVID shots in Africa and the actual situation on the ground
• The WHO is still calling on all countries to get the COVID jab into at least 70% of their populations, and warns that developing countries are at grave risk due to low jab rates. Meanwhile, Africa, where less than 6% of the population is jabbed, has fared far better than countries with high injection rates. A large-scale survey in Uganda also shows COVID is no longer a clinical issue
• Variants have also gotten milder (less pathogenic) with each iteration, yet the WHO warns that new variants may create “large waves of serious disease and death in populations with low vaccination coverage”
• The explanation for the disconnect between the WHO’s priorities and what’s happening in Africa can be explained when you look at the focus of the WHO’s Catastrophic Contagion exercise. It focused on getting African leadership trained in following the pandemic script. The WHO needs additional pandemics in order to justify its pandemic treaty, which will give it sole power to dictate countermeasures, and it needs to eliminate the African control group, which shows the COVID “vaccines” do more harm than good
• The WHO also has every intention of implementing climate lockdowns once it has the power to do so. To that aim, the WHO’s director of Environment and Health has suggested combining health and climate issues into one

In the video above, John Campbell, Ph.D., a retired nurse educator, compares the contradictions between the World Health Organization’s directives regarding the need for COVID shots in Africa and the actual situation on the ground.

As of December 12, 2022, the WHO was still calling on all countries to get the COVID jab into at least 70% of their populations.1 Its original deadline for meeting this 70% threshold was mid-2022, but by June 2022, only 58 of 194 member states had reached this target.2

According to the WHO, jab supplies, technical support and financial support were lacking during the early days of the injection campaign but, now, those obstacles have been resolved. As a result, all countries now have the ability to meet the global target of 70%.

Low Jab Rates Threaten Low-Income Countries, WHO Claims

The “overarching challenge” right now is the administration of the shots, actually “getting shots into arms.”3 To address that, the WHO suggests integrating COVID-19 injection services “with other immunization services and alongside other health and social interventions.” This, they say, will maximize impact and “build long-term capacity.”

The WHO also stresses that “As people’s risk perception of the virus wanes, careful risk communication and community engagement plans need to be adapted to enhance demand for vaccination.” To ensure low-income countries get onboard to meet the 70% target, the WHO also launched The COVID-19 Vaccine Delivery Partnership in January 2022.

This is an international effort “to intensify country readiness and delivery support” in 34 countries with low COVID jab uptake. Partners include UNICEF, Gavi and the World Bank. According to the WHO:4

“Despite incremental success since its launch in January 2022, low and lower-middle income countries are facing difficulties to get a step change in vaccination rates.

This represents a serious threat to the fragile economic recovery, including due to the risk of new variants creating large waves of serious disease and death in populations with low vaccination coverage.

It also means accelerating the delivery of other COVID-19 tools and treatments is a crucial priority to help the world build up multiple layers of protection against the virus. Concerted and urgent action from countries, international partners and agencies, along with G20 Finance Ministers is required to increase vaccination levels and expedite access.”

In short, the WHO is really concerned that countries with low COVID jab rates will suffer lest they meet or exceed the target goal of jabbing 70% of their populations. But what is that concern based on? Certainly not the real world.

WHO’s Statements Contradict Real-World Situations

The statements made by the WHO contradict a number of real-world situations. For starters, while developed nations with high jab rates struggled with COVID-19 throughout much of 2021 and 2022, Africa avoided this fate, despite its single-digit jab rate.

Scientists are said to be “mystified” as to how Africa fared so well, completely ignoring data showing that the more COVID shots you get, the higher your risk of contracting COVID and ending up in the hospital.

Over the past year, researchers have been warning that the COVID jabs appear to be dysregulating and actually destroying people’s immune systems, leaving them vulnerable not only to COVID but also other infections.5 It stands to reason, then, that Africa with its low injection rate would not be burdened with COVID cases brought on by dysfunctional immune systems.

Secondly, variants have gotten milder (less pathogenic) with each iteration, albeit more infectious (i.e., they spread easier). So why is the WHO worried about “the risk of new variants creating large waves of serious disease and death in populations with low vaccination coverage”? What is that “risk” based on?

And, since COVID infection keeps getting milder, and has had a lethality on par with or lower than influenza6^,7^,8^,9^,10 ever since mid-2020 at the latest, why is it still a “crucial priority” to accelerate delivery of COVID treatments?

As a reminder, according to a September 2, 2020 study in Annals of Internal Medicine, the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio for COVID was a mere 0.26%. Below 40 years of age, the infection fatality ratio was just 0.01%. Meanwhile, the estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza is 0.8%.11

Report From Uganda

Campbell goes on to cite a large-scale survey by a community health partner in Uganda, which surveyed doctors, nurses and medical officers across the country, and “basically, they don’t see any COVID anymore,” he says.

They’re not getting the jab and they’re not getting tested for COVID either. There’s no need, because no one is getting sick with COVID — at least not to the point they need medical attention.

The Ugandan government has even stopped publishing COVID guidelines. From their perspective, the pandemic is over. The same sentiment appears common in other African countries as well. Given the situation on the ground, is it really a pressing need to jab 30 million people in Uganda against a disease they’re not getting sick from?

What Uganda does need is malaria treatments, mosquito nets, clean drinking water and antibiotics. “That is what the priorities on the ground seem to be,” Campbell says. So, what’s with the apparent disconnect between the WHO’s priorities and what’s actually happening in areas with low COVID jab rates? The WHO’s Catastrophic Contagion exercise12^,13 clues us in.

The Disconnect Reveals the WHO’s True Intentions

October 23, 2022, the WHO, Bill Gates and Johns Hopkins cohosted a global challenge exercise dubbed “Catastrophic Contagion,”14^,15 involving the outbreak of a novel pathogen called “severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” (SEERS-25).

Tellingly, this tabletop exercise was focused on getting African leadership involved and trained in following the pandemic script. Participants included 10 current and former health ministers and senior public health officials from Senegal, Rwanda, Nigeria, Angola and Liberia. (Representatives from Singapore, India and Germany, as well as Gates himself, were also in attendance.)

African nations just so happened to go “off script” more often than others during the COVID pandemic and didn’t follow in the footsteps of developed nations when it came to pushing the jabs. As a result, vaccine makers now face the problem of having a huge control group, as the COVID jab uptake on the African continent was only 6%.16

They cannot reasonably explain how or why Africa ended up faring so better than developed nations with high COVID jab rates in terms of COVID-19 infections and related deaths.17

The WHO’s pandemic treaty is the gateway to a global, top-down totalitarian regime. But to secure that power, they will need more pandemics.

The WHO desperately needs to get rid of this control group, so they’re enlisting and training African leaders how to push for widespread vaccination using the WHO’s talking points. This, I believe, is the only reason the WHO is still speaking about COVID-19 in catastrophic terms.

The WHO Needs Additional Pandemics to Secure Its Power Grab

At this point, it’s quite clear that “biosecurity” is the chosen means by which the globalist cabal intends to usher in its one world government. The WHO is working on securing sole power over pandemic response globally through its international pandemic treaty which, if implemented, will eradicate the sovereignty of member nations.

The WHO’s pandemic treaty is basically the gateway to a global, top-down totalitarian regime. But to secure that power, they will need more pandemics. COVID-19 alone was not enough to get everyone onboard with a centralized pandemic response unit, and they probably knew that from the start.

So, the reason we can be sure there will be additional pandemics, whether manufactured using fear and hype alone or an actual bioweapon created for this very purpose, is because the takeover plan, aka The Great Reset, is based on the premise that we need global biosecurity surveillance and a centralized response.

The Biden-McCarthy-Schumer era has begun, which means your wealth or retirement is in jeopardy. The smart money is getting physical precious metals sent straight to their door and rolling over their retirement to self-directed IRAs.

Biosecurity, in turn, is the justification for an international vaccine passport, which the G20 just signed on to, and that passport will also be your digital identification. That digital ID, then, will be tied to your social credit score, personal carbon footprint tracker, medical records, educational records, work records, social media presence, purchase records, your bank accounts and a programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC).

Once all these pieces are fully connected, you’ll be in a digital prison, and the ruling cabal — whether officially a one world government by then or not — will have total control over your life from cradle to grave.

The WHO’s pandemic treaty is what sets this chain of events off, as it will have the power to implement vaccine passports globally once the treaty is signed. The WHO will also have the power to mandate vaccines, standardize medical care and issue travel restrictions.

This treaty will likely pass this year, which means the WHO will either need to ramp up the COVID narrative again, or switch to another pandemic in order to justify these kinds of actions.

With 90% of ingredients in pharmaceuticals coming from Communist China, the risk of a medical supply chain crisis has never been greater. Secure five types of antibiotics to have ready when you need. Use promo code “Rucker10” for $10 off.

The Pandemic Treaty Is the Death Knell to Freedom Worldwide

It’s important to realize that the WHO’s pandemic treaty will radically alter the global power structure and strip you of some of your most basic rights and freedoms. It’s a direct attack on the sovereignty of its member states, as well as a direct attack on your bodily autonomy.

Once signed, all member nations will be subject to the WHO’s dictates. If the WHO says every person on the planet needs to have a vaccine passport and digital identity to ensure vaccination compliance, then that’s what every country will be forced to implement, even if the people have rejected such plans using local democratic processes.

There’s also reason to suspect the WHO intends to extend its sovereign leadership into the health care systems of every nation, eventually implementing a universal or “socialist-like” health care system as part of The Great Reset. WHO Director-General Tedros has previously stated that his “central priority” as director-general of the WHO is to push the world toward universal health coverage.18

Prediction: Climate Lockdowns Are Next

Considering the WHO changed its definition of “pandemic” to “a worldwide epidemic of a disease,”19 without the original specificity of severe illness that causes high morbidity,20^,21 just about anything could be made to fit the pandemic criterion. This means that once they’re in power, they won’t need to rely exclusively on pathogenic threats.

They could also declare a global pandemic for a noninfectious threat, like global warming, for example. Such a declaration would then allow the WHO to circumvent laws that are in place to preserve our freedom, and allow for the implementation of tyrannical measures such as lockdowns and travel restrictions.

Indeed, the notion of “climate lockdowns” has already been publicly flouted on multiple occasions.22 As reported by The Pulse:23

“Climate lockdowns and other restrictions will be framed as saving the people of the world from themselves. Who would ever disagree with such measures when it is framed under the guise of good will?

Like we saw with COVID mandates, if climate mandates ever take place they will be promoted as an extremely noble and necessary action. Those who disagree and present evidence that such actions are not useful or impactful, and instead cause more harm, will most likely be silenced, censored and ridiculed …

What would a climate lockdown look like? Well, if such an initiative were to take place, governments would limit or ban the consumption of many foods. They would ban or limit private-vehicle use, or limit the distance one can travel in a gas powered car or perhaps even by plane.

Working from home could eventually become the permanent norm if special carbon taxes are put in place. Such taxes could be imposed on companies, limiting driving or air miles, and extend to individual employees … Schools, especially those heavily influenced by teachers’ unions, could impose permanent online-only days.”

Officials Around the World Have Suggested Climate Lockdowns

As noted by The Pulse, a number of officials around the world have voiced support for climate lockdowns, completely ignoring the devastating effects the COVID lockdowns have already had. This just goes to show lockdowns were never about public health and never will be.

Among the climate lockdown enthusiasts we have Germany’s health minister Karl Lauterbach, who in December 2020 proclaimed that addressing climate change would require restrictions on personal freedom, similar to those implemented to “flatten the curve” of COVID.24

British economics professor Mariana Mazzucato is another advocate for climate lockdowns, who in September 2020 warned that “In the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again — this time to tackle a climate emergency.”25

We also have the statements of Bill Gates26 and the Red Cross,27 both of which in 2020 claimed that climate change poses a greater threat to mankind than COVID, and must be confronted with the same urgency and resolve. The World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations and the WHO have also published articles stating their intent to “fight climate change” by shutting down society.28

Notably, in “How to Fight the Next Threat to Our World: Air Pollution,” published by the WEF29 and co-written by the director of WHO’s Environment and Health Department, it’s suggested that health and climate issues be combined into one. As noted in that article:

“We can confront these crises more effectively and fairly if we address them as one — and foster support across all sectors of the economy … COVID-19 has proven humanity’s inbuilt ability to rise up and act to protect the health of our most vulnerable people. We need to do the same with air pollution.”

Recall, as I mentioned above, if the WHO has sole power over global health, combining health and climate issues will automatically give the WHO the de facto power to issue climate lockdowns. Some claim climate lockdowns have already begun,30 with the random shutting off of people’s power even though there’s no actual outage — sort of slow-walking people into accepting that the lights won’t always turn on.

That the WHO will jump at the opportunity to implement climate lockdowns can also be seen in the WHO Manifesto for a Healthy Recovery From COVID-19, which states:31

“The ‘lockdown’ measures that have been necessary to control the spread of COVID-19 have slowed economic activity, and disrupted lives — but have also given some glimpses of a possible brighter future.

In some places, pollution levels have dropped to such an extent that people have breathed clean air, or have seen blue skies and clear waters, or have been able to walk and cycle safely with their children — for the first times in their lives.

The use of digital technology has accelerated new ways of working and connecting with each other, from reducing time spent commuting, to more flexible ways of studying, to carrying out medical consultations remotely, to spending more time with our families.

Opinion polls from around the world show that people want to protect the environment, and preserve the positives that have emerged from the crisis, as we recover …

Decisions made in the coming months can either “lock in” economic development patterns that will do permanent and escalating damage to the ecological systems that sustain all human health and livelihoods, or, if wisely taken, can promote a healthier, fairer, and greener world.”

This manifesto also lays out many other aspects of The Great Reset agenda, including smart cities, travel restrictions, new food systems, a complete transition to green energy and more. But again, the thing that will really facilitate all of these changes is to have a centralized powerbase, and that is the WHO.

What Can You Do?

Stopping the WHO pandemic treaty will be difficult, as the World Health Assembly may or may not even accept public comment before making a decision. Your best bet right now is to sign up for the World Council for Health’s (WCH) newsletter.

The last time the World Health Assembly met to discuss the treaty, the WCH issued links and instructions on how to submit your comment. You can subscribe at the bottom of this page, or on the WCH’s home page. I and the CHD will also share details if they become available, so subscribing to our newsletters can give you a heads-up as well.

In the absence of instructions, you could reach out to your respective delegation and request that they oppose the treaty. A list of U.S. delegates can be found in James Roguski’s Substack article, “Speaking Truth to Power.”

For contact information for other nations’ delegates, I would suggest contacting the regional office and ask for a list (see “Regions” in the blue section at the bottom of the World Health Assembly’s webpage).

• 1 WHO COVID-19 Vaccines
• 2, 3, 4 WHO Vaccine Equity
• 5 medRxiv May 6, 2021
• 6 The Mercury News May 20, 2020 (Archived)
• 7, 11 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352
• 8 Breitbart May 7, 2020
• 9 Scott Atlas US Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)
• 10 John Ioannidis US Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)
• 12, 14 Catastrophic Contagion
• 13, 15 Catastrophic Contagion Videos
• 16 First Post November 19, 2021
• 17 Yahoo News November 19, 2021
• 18 National Review June 14, 2017
• 19 Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness captured September 2, 2009 (PDF)
• 20 The BMJ 2010;340:c2912
• 21 Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness captured May 1, 2009 (PDF)
• 22 The Hill February 2, 2022
• 23 The Pulse November 25, 2022
• 24 Welt December 27, 2020
• 25 Project-syndicate.org September 22, 2020
• 26 Gates Notes August 4, 2020
• 27 Aljazeera November 17, 2020
• 28, 30 Center for the Preservation of Humanity September 8, 2022
• 29 WEF September 7, 2022
• 31 WHO Manifesto for a Healthy Recovery From COVID-19

COVID Vaccines Are "Obviously Dangerous" And Should Be Halted Immediately, Say Senior Swedish Doctors

SATURDAY, JAN 14, 2023 - 06:10 AM

Authored by Dr. Johan Eddebo via The Daily Sceptic,,

There follows a public statement by a group of five senior Swedish doctors who, in collaboration with Dr. Johan Eddebo, a researcher in digitalisation and human rights, are raising the alert about the Covid vaccines, which they describe as “obviously dangerous”. They say there should be an “immediate halt” to the mass vaccination pending “thorough investigations” of the true incidence and severity of adverse effects.

The true character and scope of the harm caused by the unprecedented mass vaccinations for COVID-19 is just now beginning to become clear. Leading scientific journals have finally begun publishing data corroborating what the underground research community has observed over the last two years, especially in relation to complex problems of immune suppression.

Truly concerning numbers pertaining to both births and mortality are also emerging.

At this moment in time, a new, allegedly super-infectious Omicron variant is all over the headlines. A sub-variant of XXB, this strain is said to possess immune escape capabilities of precisely the type that some independent researchers predicted would follow on the heels of the mass vaccinations’ narrow antigenic fixation.

The WHO maintains that worldwide, 10,000 people still die due to Covid every single day, an implausible death toll more than ten times that of an average flu. It reiterates the urgent need for vaccinations, especially in light of China’s reopening and allegedly falsified data on mortality and infections.

The EU has even called an emergency summit in light of the purported Chinese “Covid chaos” that “calls to mind how everything began in Wuhan, three years ago”.

In Sweden, the Minister for Health and Social Affairs has said he cannot rule out new restrictions, and states that everyone must take “their three doses”, since “only” 85% of the population is ‘fully inoculated’.

That such an extensive vaccine coverage has not yielded better results after nearly two years is a remarkable fact. Even more so in light of some individuals receiving four or more repeated exposures to the same vaccine antigen, yet still contracting the disease they are supposedly immunised against.

At the same time, even more ominous warning signs abound.

One such warning sign is the fact that average mortality in many Western states is still at a remarkably high level, in spite of the direct effects of the coronavirus being marginal for more than a year. Data from EuroMOMO indicate a marked excess mortality in the EU for all of 2022, and the German Bureau of Statistics reports that the country’s mortality in October was more than 19% over the median value of the preceding years.

Is this due to Covid, as the WHO’s ’10 000 per day’ figure would seem to indicate?

Blame is placed at the feet of ‘Long Covid‘ as well as the regular acute infections, but according to the EuroMOMO and Our World in Data stats, the bulk of the excess deaths in Europe during 2022 are actually not due to clinically manifest coronavirus infections.

Moreover, we shouldn’t see continued excess deaths from a respiratory virus of this kind after three years of global exposure due to the inevitable consolidation of natural immunity.

If such a situation persists, the hypothetical connection to a vaccine-related immunity suppression that just now has come into focus becomes pertinent to investigate in detail.

If, as has been argued, the vaccinations, and especially the boosters, alter the immune profile of recipients such that Covid infections get ‘tolerated’ by the immune system, it’s possible that vaccinated individuals will tend towards a situation of long-term, repeat infections that do not get cleared, and do not present with obvious symptoms, while still promoting systemic damage.

The literature now indicates an extensive substitution in the vaccinated of virus-neutralising antibodies for non-inflammatory ones, a ‘class switch’ from antibodies that work towards clearing the virus from our system, to a category of antibodies whose purpose is to desensitise us to irritants and allergens.

The net effect is that the inflammatory response to Covid infection gets down-regulated (reduced). This means that full-blown infections will present with milder symptoms, and that they won’t get cleared as effectively (partly since fever and inflammation are essential to your body getting rid of a pathogen).

That these developments alone aren’t cause for an immediate halt to the mass vaccinations, as well as thorough investigations, is astonishing.

There is of course another, and more well-known, potential partial explanation of the surprising excess mortality. We have indications of clotting disorders connected to the Covid vaccines, evident in a new major Nordic study, while repeated studies evidence a clear correlation between heart disease and Covid vaccination (see Le Vu et al., Karlstad et al. and Patone et al.).

A newly published Thai study moreover indicated that almost a third of the vaccinated youth enrolled exhibited cardiovascular manifestations, and a yet unpublished Swiss study suggests that as many as 3% of everyone vaccinated manifest heart muscle damage.

And as stated above, we also see signals pertaining to fertility disturbances connected to the Covid vaccines.

An Israeli study shows impaired motility and sperm concentrations after both Pfizer and Moderna vaccination. The safety committee of the European Medicines Agency has also affirmed that the vaccines may cause menstrual disturbances, and Pfizer’s own studies indicate that the lipid nanoparticles of the mRNA-vaccines cluster in the reproductive organs.

The hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccinations influence fertility is supported by a significant and unprecedented decline in the Swedish birth rate during the first months of 2022. According to Swedish demographers, the decline is ”surprising”.

There are similar data from many other Western countries, and to continue the mass vaccinations for low-risk groups such as children or pregnant women is utterly irresponsible – especially since the vaccinations do little or nothing to stop the spread as was initially promised, and is often still falsely maintained.

One hopes that the hypothesis of a decline in birth rates due to the vaccinations can be falsified through a thorough and independent investigation as soon as possible. The numbers are truly worrying.

Yet the fact that Pfizer’s data pertaining to fertility disturbances had been hidden away and needed to be discovered through a FOIA request is typical for the entire situation.

There’s almost no independent public debate on these issues, and critical perspectives are actively suppressed by the major digital platforms.

Public watchdogs such as the European Medicines Agency are funded by the pharmaceutical industry and often base their recommendations on Big Pharma’s in-house studies. The independence of our scientific and academic institutions is threatened, and we see a confluence between scientific research, private corporate interests and political and ideological objectives on every level.

To place a digital filter of censorship on top of all of this, where proprietary algorithms micromanage the flow of information and the public debate in accordance with the intentions of their owners, in practice means to abolish the open democratic society and independent scientific research.

Recent disclosures also show that the digital platforms have actively worked towards suppressing critical perspectives on the Covid policies and the mass vaccinations. Twitter has for this purpose developed clandestine censorship strategies and employed so-called ‘shadowbanning’ with the effect of an almost undetectable suppression of the visibility of posts and accounts connected to undesirable perspectives and analyses. Facebook took down more than seven million posts to influence the debate on Covid only during the second quarter of 2020. YouTube has banned publishing of video material that contains critical perspectives on the Covid vaccinations. Such content is designated ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ whether or not it is supported by relevant data.

These kinds of measures have very serious consequences. Digitalisation’s centralised control of the flow of information doesn’t just affect policy on the local and regional level, but also influences the way in which scientific and journalistic work can be designed and carried out. It creates structures that immediately repress heterodox views and silences critical voices through fear and indirect persecution.

Public trust in our common institutions will inevitably be eroded by this development.

The open society now desperately needs a renaissance. The democratic and scientific discourses must be rebuilt from the ground up, and in a way which respects the new and unique risks of our contemporary situation, and which protects and emphasises the responsibility of the individual citizen.

Key to this in our current predicament is to press on with critical questions pertaining to the obviously dangerous mass vaccinations and to investigate the corruption of our political and scientific institutions that the Covid situation has shed light on.

It is critical that we immediately begin to remedy the significant damage that has been rendered to global public health, and to the open society as such. 

Johan Eddebo, Ph.D, researcher in digitalisation and human rights

Sture Blomberg, MD, Ph.D, Associate Professor in Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and former senior physician

Ragnar Hultborn, Professor Emeritus, specialist in oncology

Sven Román, MD, Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, since 2015 Consultant Psychiatrist working in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry throughout Sweden

Lilian Weiss, Associate Professor, specialist in surgery

Nils Littorin, resident in psychiatry, MD in clinical microbiology

The authors are members of the bio-medico-legal network of Läkaruppropet. They are organising a conference in Stockholm on January 21st-22nd in conjunction with the Swedish Doctors’ Appeal network. Its main focus will be on the consequences of the global COVID-19 politics and the effects of the Covid vaccines.

How COVID Vaccines Cause Cancer

Colleen Huber

Dec 30 2022

Antibodies are studied more than other immune proteins for association with disease. This does not mean that they are more decisive in disease outcomes. Type I interferon likely has far more impact.

Antibodies Are Not the Whole Story of Immune Resilience Toward Cancer

Much is being made of a recent study showing IgG4 antibodies spiking in the blood labs of those who are triple-injected with the mRNA COVID vaccines.   Journalists are speculating that this may be the cause of increased cancers in the COVID-vaccinated.  But that is not the main reason that the COVID-vaccinated are getting new cancer cases, sometimes aggressive “turbo cancers,” or coming out of remission from earlier cancer.  Rather, there is earlier research that provides more plausible mechanisms for cancer risk, based on abundant prior knowledge of immune function.  Let’s look at both the new study on IgG antibodies and earlier research.

The popular fallacy seems to be along these lines: ‘Antibodies are easy to test for.  Plus, they are the focus of vaccine development and vaccine action.  So therefore we spend a lot of time thinking and talking about them.  So therefore they must be important markers of disease outcomes.  So therefore they must be decisive in disease outcomes.’

After focusing my own work on cancer patients for the last 16 years as a naturopathic oncologist, if I made this mistake in thinking, most of my patients would be dead by now from misdirected efforts.

No, cancer remains a mega-problem of DNA damage, immune distraction, disrupted cell signaling, frenzied growth, lack of apoptosis, weakened tissues, angiogenesis, and metabolic derangement, as the principal features of an entity that feeds itself at the expense and to the detriment of the organ and the organism.  These are the principal features of cancer, and they are hard as heck to treat successfully.  I discuss that very daunting challenge here.

IgG3 Versus IgG4

First, let’s look at the new study on IgG3 versus IgG4 antibodies in the triple-jabbed.  Herein, let’s call it the IgG4 study.   It finds that the triple-jabbed may be developing a non-inflammatory tolerance to even high levels of spike proteins.  That is, rather than having typical dyspnea, cough, olfactory and other full-blown COVID-type symptoms, IgG4 is a tolerant and tolerizing antibody that allows virions and spike protein load to accumulate in the body without the usual symptomatic alarms.  Thus, a COVID+ PCR result with mild symptoms, or even no symptoms, often ensues.  This may partly account for the many celebrities and politicians frequently quoted in MSM saying in so many words, ‘I tested positive for COVID, but thanks to my shots, it’s mild.’   Yet their lack of effective immune defeat of SARS-CoV-2 is what prevents their developing a lasting neutralizing immunity.  So they (at least at first) tolerate high spike protein loads and are perpetually vulnerable to recurrent infections.   Even more worrisome, what underlies that recurrence of mild symptoms, show the IgG4 study authors, is a precarious derangement of immune function with potentially problematic stockpiling of viral load, spike proteins and antibodies, with potentially devastating consequences for their future health outcomes.  Even a myeloma like abundance of immunoglobulins can create a multiple myeloma-like disease in the COVID-vaccinated, a sludgy protein-laden blood that is harmful to the fine filtration structures, glomeruli, of the kidneys.

That immune deviation, misdirection and derangement has been previously described as pathogenic priming, a maladaptation of the immune system to either ignore or to fight ineffectively against genuine threats, while at the same time focusing its resources to slay the paper tigers of non-threatening antigens.  This happened in the design of the mRNA vaccines to produce a spike protein that was characteristic of the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2, but turned out to be ineffective against Delta, Omicron and subsequent strains, as some of us had earlier warned.  Because the Wuhan strain had already flamed and burned out, the COVID vaccines were obsolete by the time they were offered to the public.

Under circumstances of natural infection, whereas IgM antibodies flare for a short time after infection onset, IgG antibodies, in contrast, are slower to develop, and are those that remain long after an infection has resolved.  (For example, my measles IgGs are still robust on a blood lab decades after I had measles as a child, with only natural immunity, no vaccine history.)

The subclass IgG4 is a non-inflammatory one that is correlated with tolerance to antigens, similar to allergy shots rendering the immune response more tolerant to grass pollen.   IgG4 has no known effector function.  Likewise, IgG4 seems to be inversely correlated with anaphylaxis.   Here, in the IgG4 paper, regarding the COVID-vaccinated, IgG4 increases considerably, over 38 times, after a third mRNA injection.  Please note that the scale of the y-axis is logarithmic, putting the IgG4s quite far up there.

At the same time, both triple- and double-jabbed lose a considerable amount of their IgG3 antibodies, discovered at 180-day and 210-day follow-up labs, respectively.  Note again the logarithmic scale, showing cratering drop-off of IgG3 antibodies, with skyrocketing IgG4 antibodies.   This is from Figure 1 of the IgG4 paper:

The subclass IgG3 is sometimes thought, including by the IgG4 authors, to be pro-inflammatory, one of many immune assaults against invading pathogens.  Although there is evidence to the contrary as well.  IgG3 is thus sometimes assumed, including by the IgG4 authors, and interested journalists, to neutralize, or fight effectively against, antigens.

However, there is little support, other than correlation of titers, for the assertion that IgG3 antibodies may be effective warriors against pathogens.  The IgG4 study authors acknowledge an earlier observation of “IgG3 responses correlating with partial protection against HIV,” and only a rise in IgG3 antibodies after natural infection with SARS-CoV-2, such as reported here, without mechanism of its protection.

One possible clue as to the IgG4 study authors’ observations of low IgG3 is the glycosylation of IgG3 as impactful on SARS-CoV-2 infection severity.  (Immunoglobulins are glycosylated protein molecules generally, but hyper-glycosylation seems to be a problem.  Glycosylation is generally detrimental to its optimal function; notorious glycosylation has devastated more than simply antibodies, in our junk food loving culture.)

IgG3 antibodies are a very small proportion of IgG antibodies and have not yet been well-studied.  Both IgG3 and IgG4 antibodies are generally a small proportion of all our B-cells, 3% and 4% respectively.

Low IgG3 antibodies are not necessarily correlated with low disease severity.  For example, in COPD, we see this correlation of low IgG3 levels with life-threatening exacerbations of COPD.  All antibodies, including IgG3 and IgG4, generally rise and then fall in case of natural infection.  Below I will explain why I am not so sure the cause and effect vector goes as is currently being assumed, from low IgG3 / IgG4 ratio to generalized immune dysfunction.  Rather, I suspect that it may more likely be an effect of other mechanisms, described below.

There Is so Much More to Immune Function Than Only Antibodies

The first problem with the current IgG fascination is the assumption that just because antibodies consume much attention, and are easily measurable proteins on a blood lab, that they are then necessarily impactful on the vast complexity of the rest of the immune system.  Metaphorically, by assuming that that which we can see is necessarily decisive, we are looking at the skin, so to speak, and assuming that we therefore know the functions of the internal organs and that the skin is the dominant cause of internal effects.  Obviously, such is not the case.

Let’s first assume that the highly mobile and ubiquitous blood contains many of the cells in our immune system and are, as a whole and in parts, key to optimal immune function.  Here is the proportion of IgG immunoglobulin antibodies to the rest of the immune system:

Immunoglobulins are present on the surface of B-cells, where they act as receptors for antigens.  B-cells fluctuate in number, but average 5.2% of all white blood cells.  White blood cells are 0.1% of all cells in the blood.  Therefore B-cells are about 0.00005% or 5 in 100,000 cells in the blood.

I explain further about that here.

This proportion of B-cells to other cells in the blood is vanishingly small.  If you can see the very skinny red line at the far left of the band below, that is the proportion of all B-cells compared to the vast remainder of cells in the blood.  (The thin red line would actually need to be a little thinner to be true to scale.)

Now let’s look at other aspects of immune function that are powerhouse fighters against cancer, but have been associated with high viral load and/or high spike protein, such as is expected to occur after COVID vaccination.  These researchers found that two of our most important cancer-fighting cells, natural killer (NK) cells and CD8+ T-cells were significantly reduced in these circumstances.  Reduction in NK cells is seen with more aggressive tumors.

But the major problem with the mRNA COVID vaccines and cancer risk was shown in April of this year, in the Seneff, Nigh paper.

The science community’s pre-occupation with the relatively smaller adaptive immune system, mostly its humoral portion, and unfamiliarity or disinterest in the vastly more important and stronger innate immune system has led attention away from this seminal paper.   I have to recommend not only reading but thoroughly studying the Seneff, Nigh paper for the best understanding to date of the effect of the COVID vaccines on tumorigenesis, immune-failure with respect to cancer and metastatic events.

What Seneff et al found is that the most profound threat to immune function by the mRNA vaccines is the interference with Type I interferon signaling pathways.  This in turn debilitates the surveillance capabilities of the immune system in cancer detection.  As a result, we see both new tumors and metastases of existing cancers in the COVID-vaccinated.  We see what is now called turbo cancers.  Here is how Seneff et al supports that hypothesis.  Their paper is enormously detailed, and my summary of it below is quite brief.

Ivanova, et al found that people who were naturally infected with SARS-CoV-2 have been able to dramatically up-regulate our arguably most crucial cytokine, Type I interferon, as seen from their peripheral dendritic cells, whereas mRNA-vaccinated people have not shown this ability, nor any such increase, nor any progenitor cells for the same.  From those various findings, is evident that the COVID vaccines suppress Type I interferon signaling.  The results are a devastating breakdown of many downstream immune functions, creating new vulnerability to not only viral diseases, but also to cancer. The necessity of interferons for the body’s war against cancer is further seen in the productive clinical use over decades of interferon as a therapeutic agent to cancer patients.

The most appreciated mechanisms of Type I interferon against cancers include up-regulation of the tumor suppressor gene p53, as well as kinase inhibitors, and the resulting arrest of cancer’s cell reproduction.  Perhaps even more crucial is that Interferon-alpha, a type of interferon I, makes cancer recognizable, or in a way visible to other immune cells for destruction.  Two other major effects of Type I interferons, specifically interferon-alpha, are cell differentiation and apoptosis, which are two of the major events that are important for a natural victory over cancer.  Type I interferon also activates the essential cancer-fighting cells discussed above, CD8+ and NK cells.  There are further genetic effects of Type I interferons, each of which tend to suppress tumors, notably through IRF-7 genes.  These genes have impact on cancers of the breast, prostate, uterus, ovaries and pancreas.  But these and oncogenes generally appear to become dysregulated by the mRNA vaccines.

Fay et al discuss G-quadruplex formations in RNA, and that role in proto-oncogene expression.  This can in turn lead to cancer progression.

Cancer Incidence

Even before the boosters were rolled out to the public, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) of the Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS) showed vastly more cancers following COVID vaccines than for all other vaccines during the 30-year history of VAERS.  These new cancers following the COVID vaccines accounted for 98% of cancers reported.  Here again from Seneff et al:

Seneff, Nigh et al https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012513/

It should be noted that the reporting of these 2021 cancers occurred in large part prior to the US public’s (tepid) uptake of even the earliest mRNA COVID boosters (injection #3 in the fall of 2021) as here shown in Our World in Data.

That 3rd injection is the one after which the IgG4 paper authors saw the most difference in IgG3/IgG4 ratios, but not necessarily the greatest increase in cases of cancer.

Let’s consider the whole immune system, not only immunoglobulins, as necessary to protect against the ravages of cancer.  Immune cells and cytokines, and their exquisitely coordinated and synergistic functions, must be protected from the destructive events initiated by irreversible experimental injections of novel products, such as the mRNA vaccines.

COVID Boosters Trigger Metastasis

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

January 05, 2023

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• Cancer rates have increased since the introduction of the COVID shots and is now one of the top three leading causes of premature death among younger adults — a trend that in turn is driving down U.S. life expectancy
• The leading causes of death in 2021 were heart disease and cancer, both of which are potential side effects of the COVID jabs
• Dr. Angus Dalgleish, professor of oncology at St. George’s University of London, warns that COVID boosters may be causing aggressive metastatic cancers
• Research shows SARS-CoV-2 spike protein obliterates 90% of the DNA repair mechanism in lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell that helps your body fight infection and chronic disease, including cancer
• The COVID jab is less effective in lymphoma patients. Emory University researchers found only 68% of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia developed neutralizing antibodies after the second dose, compared to 100% of healthy controls

Cancer rates have increased since the introduction of the COVID shots and is one of the top three leading causes of premature death among younger adults — a trend that in turn is driving down U.S. life expectancy.

In 2019, the average life span of Americans of all ethnicities was nearly 78.8 years.¹ By the end of 2021, life expectancy had dropped to 76.4² — a loss of nearly three years, which is an astounding decline. The leading causes of death in 2021 were heart disease, cancer and COVID-19, all three of which were higher in 2021 than in 2020,³ and both heart disease and cancer are potential side effects of the COVID jabs.

COVID Boosters Are Triggering Metastatic Cancer

November 26, 2022, The Daily Sceptic published a letter^4,5 to the editor of The BMJ, written by Dr. Angus Dalgleish, professor of oncology at St. George’s University of London, warning that COVID boosters may be causing aggressive metastatic cancers:

“COVID no longer needs a vaccine programme given the average age of death of COVID in the U.K. is 82 and from all other causes is 81 and falling,” Dalgleish writes.⁶ “The link with clots, myocarditis, heart attacks and strokes is now well accepted, as is the link with myelitis and neuropathy ...

However, there is now another reason to halt all vaccine programmes. As a practicing oncologist I am seeing people with stable disease rapidly progress after being forced to have a booster, usually so they can travel. Even within my own personal contacts I am seeing B cell-based disease after the boosters.

They describe being distinctly unwell a few days to weeks after the booster — one developing leukemia, two work colleagues Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and an old friend who has felt like he has had Long COVID since receiving his booster and who, after getting severe bone pain, has been diagnosed as having multiple metastases from a rare B cell disorder.

I am experienced enough to know that these are not the coincidental anecdotes ... The reports of innate immune suppression after mRNA for several weeks would fit, as all these patients to date have melanoma or B cell based cancers, which are very susceptible to immune control — and that is before the reports of suppressor gene suppression by mRNA in laboratory experiments. This must be aired and debated immediately.”

New Norm: Explosive Cancer Relapses

In a December 19, 2022, article⁷ in Conservative Woman, Dalgleish continues discussing the phenomenon of rapidly spreading cancers in patients who were in stable remission for years before receiving their COVID boosters. He notes that after his letter to The BMJ was published, several oncologists have contacted him to say they’re seeing the same thing in their own practices.

“Seeing the recurrence of these cancers after all this time naturally makes me wonder if there is a common cause?” he writes.⁸ “I had previously noted that relapse in stable cancer is often associated with severe long-term stress, such as bankruptcy, divorce, etc.

However, I found that none of my patients had any such extra stress during this time, but they had all had booster vaccines and, indeed, a couple of them noted that they had a very bad reaction to the booster which they did not have to the first two injections.

I then noted that some of these patients were not having a normal pattern of relapse but rather an explosive relapse, with metastases occurring at the same time in several sites ... Scientifically, I was reading reports that the booster was leading to a big excess of antibodies at the expense of the T-cell response and that this T-cell suppression could last for three weeks, if not more.

To me, this could be causal as the immune system is being asked to make an excessive response through the humoral inflammatory part of the immune response against a virus (the alpha-delta variant) which is no longer in existence in the community.

This exertion leads to immune exhaustion, which is why these patients are reporting up to a 50% greater increase in Omicron, or other variations, than the non-vaccinated.”

A Change of Heart and Mind

Interestingly, in mid-2021, the Daily Mail published an article in which Dalgleish encouraged people to get the COVID shot, especially younger individuals.⁹ Dalgleish explains that, at the time, there was an “overwhelming push by the government and the medical community ... that this would be in everyone’s best interest.”

So, he caved to the narrative, even though he had concerns from the start. Now, however, the environment has changed and there’s really no need for these experimental shots anymore.

His concerns further grew when his son developed myocarditis “after having a jab he did not want but that he needed for work and travel purposes.” A friend of his son, who was in his early 30s, suffered a stroke after his jab, and a relative of a close colleague died from a heart attack at the age of 34 after hers.

“I began to be highly alarmed that it was the vaccines causing these symptoms,” Dalgleish writes,¹⁰ “and that just as we had written¹¹ ... a genetically engineered virus had serious implications for vaccine design.

This paper, which was suppressed and therefore did not appear in print for many months, reported that the sequence of the virus was completely consistent with having been genetically engineered, with a furin cleavage site and six inserts at places that would make the virus very infectious, and the reason this had such tremendous implications for vaccine design was that 80% of these sequences had homology to human epitopes.

In particular, we had noticed a homology with platelet factor 4 and myelin. The former is also certainly associated with what is known as VITT (low platelets and clotting issues) and the latter associated with all the neurological problems, such as transverse myelitis, both of which are now recognized as side effects of the vaccine even by the MHRA [Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency in the UK].”

Authorities Have Willfully Ignored All Warning Signals

Dalgleish says his team’s findings were eventually circulated among cabinet members and various medical committees, but everyone ignored them. As a result, many have been placed at unnecessary risk for serious injury and/or death.

As Dalgleish points out, young hearts over-express the ACE receptor that the virus was engineered to bind to. This binding with the ACE2 receptor is what “sets off the inflammatory response, which leads to myocarditis, pericarditis, stroke and deaths,” Dalgleish says.

This could explain the dramatic increase observed in deaths of young athletes who were jabbed: They simply have more ACE2 receptors that bind to the spike proteins created by the jab. Dalgleish continues:¹²

“When the facts change, or new facts emerge, the position of all those in authority directing mandates should change but unfortunately, they did not.

I tried desperately to point out that all the evidence that vaccines might have been useful in helping to curtail the pandemic was changing; that it was becoming very clear that there were highly significant side effects to the vaccine programme that Pfizer had gone to great lengths to cover up, and that it was only a court case in the US that led to them becoming available.

At this stage the whole vaccine programme should have been stopped but nobody seemed to want to address this, neither the Government, the medical authorities or the media.

Having written many articles for the Daily Mail arguing against lockdown and for it never to be used again, I was extremely keen to address my change of opinion on the vaccines and to warn people of their dangers particularly to younger people, and to point out there were no grounds at all for giving it to children.

Unfortunately, all my efforts and approaches to the mainstream media on this subject have been rejected. This, I believe, is something that will come back to haunt all those who introduced an Orwellian kind of suppression to the emerging truth, which labelled doctors trying to save their patients along the lines of ‘first do no harm’ as outcasts or villains.”

Scientific Proof COVID Jab Causes Cancer

Back in August 2022, The Exposé¹³ highlighted scientific evidence showing the COVID jabs can cause cancer of the ovaries, pancreas and breast, and that “a monumental cover-up is taking place to suppress the consequences ... on women’s health.”

Research shows SARS-CoV-2 spike protein obliterates 90% of the DNA repair mechanism in lymphocytes, a type of white blood cells that help your body fight infection and chronic disease, including cancer.

The research in question was that of Jiang and Mei, who published a peer-reviewed article showing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein obliterated the DNA repair mechanism in lymphocytes, a type of white blood cells that play an important role in your immune system. Lymphocytes help your body fight infection and chronic disease, including cancer. Professional data analyst Joel Smalley writes:¹⁴

“The viral spike protein was so toxic to this pathway that it knocked 90% of it out. If the whole spike protein got into the nucleus (in the ovaries), and enough of it was produced and hung around long enough before the body was able to get rid of it all, it would cause cancer. Fortunately, in the case of natural infection, this is unlikely to occur.

Unfortunately, the experimental mRNA toxshot induces spike protein to be produced (the full-length spike exactly matching — amino acid for amino acid — the full length of the viral spike protein¹⁵) in and around the cell nucleus and is produced for at least 60 days and almost certainly longer.¹⁶

‘Fact checkers’ said the viral spike protein doesn’t get in the nucleus despite the expert scientists showing that it absolutely does. Public health authorities and regulators said the vaccinal spike protein doesn’t get in the nucleus despite the mRNA manufacturers submitting pictures of it doing so to them as part of their emergency use application ...

Jiang and Mei, quite logically and reasonably, cautioned that the mRNA spike protein would likely have the same effect as the viral spike protein on p53 and therefore cause cancer ... [The] Jiang and Mei paper was retracted due to spurious ‘expressions of concern’ (EOC) about the methods of the study despite them being standard practice ...

Well, despite the retraction, the spike protein circulating in large quantities, in the direct vicinity of the cell nucleus, for elongated periods of time, still has the potential to induce cancer in those cells (ovary, pancreas, breast, prostate, lymph nodes). These cancers can take years to develop and so it’s possible that we don’t see much of a safety signal for 5 or 10 years.”

As noted by Smalley, one of the authors of the EOC that led to the retraction of the paper was Eric Freed, Ph.D., who heads up the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s Center for Cancer Research.

He’s been a tenured investigator with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and NIH since 2002,¹⁷ the very agencies that funded Moderna’s mRNA jab, yet this conflict of interest was not disclosed in the EOC.

A Not so Rare Cancer Case

At the end of September 2022, The Atlantic¹⁸ featured the story of Belgian immunologist Michel Goldman, 67, who in the spring of 2021 got his first and second COVID shot. In the fall that year, he was diagnosed with lymphoma, cancer of the immune system.

Mere weeks after his body scan and diagnosis, he got his first booster, thinking he needed it since he’d soon become immunocompromised by the chemotherapy. But the booster caused a rapid decline in his health.

Another body scan at the end of September 2021, just three weeks after his first scan, revealed “a brand-new barrage of cancer lesions — so many spots that it looked like someone had set off fireworks inside Michel’s body,” Roxanne Khamsi writes:¹⁹

“More than that, the lesions were now prominent on both sides of the body, with new clusters blooming in Michel’s right armpit, and along the right side of his neck.

When Michel’s hematologist saw the scan, she told him to report directly to the nearest hospital pharmacy. He’d have to start on steroid pills right away, she told him. Such a swift progression for lymphoma in just three weeks was highly unusual, and he could not risk waiting a single day longer.

As he followed these instructions, Michel felt a gnawing worry that his COVID booster shot had somehow made him sicker. His brother [Serge, head of nuclear medicine at the hospital of the Université Libre de Bruxelles] was harboring a similar concern.

The asymmetrical cluster of cancerous nodes around Michel’s left armpit on the initial scan had already seemed ‘a bit disturbing,’ as his brother said; especially given that Michel’s first two doses of vaccine had been delivered on that side. Now he’d had a booster shot in the other arm, and the cancer’s asymmetry was flipped.

The brothers knew this might be just an eerie coincidence. But they couldn’t shake the feeling that Michel had experienced what would be a very rare yet life-threatening side effect of COVID vaccination.”²⁰

T Cells Gone Berserk

Goldman, who was an early champion of the mRNA COVID shots, now “suspected that he was their unlucky victim,” Khamsi writes.²¹ He decided to go public about his cancer despite fears “anti-vaxxers” would use it to argue against the COVID jab. His concern for people who had the same type of cancer he had won out.

There are approximately 30 different subtypes of lymphoma. The kind Goldman had — angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma — attacks follicular helper T cells, which play a crucial role in your body’s immune response to invading pathogens.

Helper T cells serve as a messenger between dendritic cells, which identify the pathogen, and B cells that make the appropriate antibodies. The mRNA COVID shots “are especially effective at generating that message, and spurring its passage through the helper T cells,” Khamsi writes.

This activation of helper T cells is part of what makes the COVID jabs work. But Goldman began to suspect that revving up those helper T cells might in some cases cause them to go berserk, resulting in tumors, or worsening of already existing ones.

Other Case Reports

Goldman was lucky. He lived to talk about it. Many others have not been so fortunate. And while he still believes he’s an “ultra-rare” case, he’s since received reports from other patients who suddenly developed angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma after their shots. As reported by Khamsi:²²

“Around the time of his February follow-up, Michel received a message from a doctor who had read his self-referential case report. The doctor’s mother had been diagnosed with the same subtype of lymphoma that Michel has following a COVID booster shot. More recently, he got an email from a woman whose sister had been vaccinated and received that diagnosis the following month.”

In August 2022, Frontiers in Medicine published a case report²³ describing “rapid progression of marginal zone B-cell lymphoma” following the COVID jab. The 80-year-old Japanese woman featured in the report developed a noticeable tumor the very next day after her first shot. According to the authors:²⁴

“Initially, we suspected head-and-neck benign lymphadenopathy as a side effect of vaccination. Nine weeks later, the number of swollen submandibular and parotid glands increased, and the lymph nodes further enlarged.

Finally, the right temporal mass was diagnosed as marginal zone B-cell lymphoma based on immunohistochemical and flow cytometry findings of biopsy specimens.

Our findings suggest that although 4-6 weeks of observation for lymph node inflammation after the second vaccination is recommended, malignancy should also be considered in the differential diagnosis of lymphadenopathy following vaccination.”

COVID Jab Is Far Less Effective in Lymphoma Patients

In May 2022, a single-center study²⁵ at Emory University discovered that the humoral immune response in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) was significantly reduced after getting a COVID jab, compared to people who did not have either of those diagnoses.

Patients with NHL or CLL also didn’t have nearly the same antibody response to the shot. Only 68% of them developed neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 after the second dose, compared to 100% of healthy controls. NHL/CLL patients who had undergone anti–CD20-directed therapies within one year of the first dose had the lowest antibody levels.

Turbo-Charged Cancers Are Becoming More Prevalent

Video Link

Data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED)²⁶ — historically one of the most well-kept and most heavily-relied upon medical databases in the world — showed that, compared to the previous five-year averages, cancer among Department of Defense (DOD) personnel in 2021 skyrocketed.

Overall, cancers tripled among servicemen and their family members after the rollout of the COVID shots. Breast cancer went up 487%. Exploding cancer rates are also seen elsewhere. One of the first to warn that the shots might cause cancer was Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist who runs his own pathology lab.

He suspects the shots accelerate already existing cancers by way of immune dysregulation.²⁷ He noticed that cancers that were previously well-controlled would suddenly grow out of control and rapidly lead to death once they got the COVID jab.

Swedish pathologist, researcher and senior physician at Lund’s University, Dr. Ute Kruger, has also observed an explosion in rapidly advancing cancers in the wake of the COVID shots. For example, she’s noticed:^28,29

• Cancer patients are getting younger — The largest increase is among 30- to 50-year-olds
• Tumor sizes are dramatically larger — Historically, 3-centimeter tumors were commonly found at the time of cancer diagnosis. Now, the tumors they’re finding are regularly 4 to 12 centimeters, which suggests they’re growing at a much faster rate than normal
• Multiple tumors in multiple organs are becoming more common
• Recurrence and metastasis are increasing — Kruger points out that many of the cancer patients she’s seeing have been in remission for years, only to suddenly be beset with uncontrollable cancer growth and metastasis shortly after their COVID jab

These “turbo-cancers,” as Kruger calls them, cannot be explained by delayed cancer screenings due to lockdowns and other COVID restrictions, as those days are long gone. Patients, despite having access to medical screenings as in years past, are showing up with grossly exacerbated tumor growths, and she believes this is because the cancers are being “turbo-charged” by the mRNA jabs.

Disturbingly, as detailed in “How Cancer Deaths From the COVID Jabs Are Being Hidden,” analysis of U.S. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) data suggests the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been filtering out and redesignating cancer deaths as COVID deaths since April 2021 to eliminate the cancer signal. The signal is being hidden by swapping the underlying cause of death with main cause of death.

Spike Protein Disrupting Immunity in Millions After COVID Infection or Vaccination: Here’s How It’s Being Treated