By Susan C. Olmstead | The Defender | June 23, 2022
Vinay Prasad, M.D., MPH, this week addressed misleading information about kids and COVID-19 vaccines coming from four sources: The New York Times, former Biden COVID-19 response advisor Andy Slavitt, head of COVID-19 response Dr. Ashish Jha, and the Brown University School of Public Health.
Prasad made the comments in his videotaped response to news coverage of the June 15 decision to recommend Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines for infants and young children.
Prasad had a message for the “experts” hoping to convince parents to have their young children vaccinated against COVID-19: “You’re not persuading anybody.”
“You’re laying it on a little thick and you’re not being honest about it, and in the process you’re discrediting yourself,” Prasad said.
Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, has been critical of COVID-19 vaccines — and especially their use in children — since the vaccines’ introduction.
He cited a New York Times article that stated:
“Some parents may be uninterested [in the vaccines] because their children were among the 75 percent thought to have already been infected.
“But vaccination provides more powerful and consistent protection even if a child has already been infected, [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] scientists noted on Saturday.”
“The truth is … they don’t know that to be true,” Prasad said. “If a child has already had COVID, [and] recovered from COVID, we do not know that they have a further reduction in MIS-C [Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children], death, hospitalization, etc., from a potential reinfection.”
“It’s a lie,” he added. “The best they could say is that although some people speculate that to be the case, we currently have no large-scale randomized evidence to support that claim. We don’t even have observational data to support that claim in this age group.”
Prasad then addressed a tweet from Slavitt:
Now polls say only 20% of parents will vaccinate their < 5 year olds.
I will address that in a second, but the most important point for parents is that anyone who wants to can do it. And that is a game changer.
We know it protects against serious illness & long COVID. 9/
“Well, actually, you don’t know that, Andy,” said Prasad, addressing Slavitt’s claim that the vaccine protects against serious illness and “long COVID.”
In fact, “People should report this to Twitter for misinformation,” he said.
Vaccine trials in young children were too small to lead to any comment about serious illness, he said.
“Severe disease is [so] infrequent that no one can say anything about that, and you certainly don’t know about long COVID — that wasn’t even a measured endpoint in these studies.”
“And … what’s even the definition of long COVID in kids?” he asked. “We’ll have to sort that out first.”
“It’s a lie, it’s an exaggeration, it’s trying to get somebody to do something but it’s not being perfectly honest.”
Prasad also examined a statement Jha made Monday on “Good Morning America”: “The evidence is really clear that vaccinations prevent hospitalizations and serious illness, including in kids.”
This was in response to host George Stephanopoulos asking if a child younger than 5 who has already had COVID-19 and recovered should get a COVID-19 vaccine.
This answer is factually incorrect and an exaggeration to achieve a policy goal, said Prasad. “The real answer is we don’t know.”
“We do not have any evidence that would support that claim,” he said. “We do not have evidence that vaccination improves any health outcome for [children], and we certainly don’t have the evidence that it prevents hospitalization serious illness in those kids.”
Prasad then tackled a Brown University School of Public Health “tip sheet” titled “Talking About Covid-19 Vaccines for Children Six Months to Four Years Old.”
The tip sheet was produced “in an effort to provide timely knowledge and evidence-based talking points for public health professionals, healthcare workers and others” on COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 6 months.
Prasad called the tip sheet “the opinions of a few people who are self-anointed experts masquerading as evidence.”
The authors of the sheet claim: “We know from vaccinations in 5- 17-year-olds that hospitalization, critical illness and deaths are all more common among kids and teens who are not vaccinated than kids and teens who are vaccinated and boosted.”
Prasad disagreed. Due to poor study design, he said, “We really don’t know, especially in kids 5 to 11, if [vaccination] actually lowers hospitalization or MIS-C.”
“I haven’t yet seen a good study to persuade me, particularly in kids who’ve had COVID,” he said.
The tip sheet also says that in studies conducted by Pfizer and Moderna, vaccines “reduced the rate of ANY infection by between 37-80%. Although the overall number of cases were low, both vaccines are expected to decrease hospitalizations and ICU stays, as well.”
Prasad responded, “You may expect that to be the case, but some of us want data, not expectations by people who have a certain point of view.”
“That claim that these vaccines have been found to be 37% to 80% effective is a lie. It’s untrue,” he added.
Prasad summed up the treatment of people with concerns about the vaccine with a tweet from Eric Weinstein:
I was listening to NPR just the other day. It was phrased in something like the following way as I remember it: “Good news for parents, the long wait for vaccines for their young children is finally over.”
Completely dissing parents with concerns about vaccinating low risk kids.
The way I hear it: we assume the argument that all good parents agree:
“COVID vaccines = Clear Pure Good. Slam dunk. Costless & Riskless. No Brainer. Science.”
“Vaccine concerns = Right Wing / AltRight, anti-science mental illness. Fox Newsesque. MAGA Adjacent. Anti-American.”
“I think Eric Weinstein is right,” said Prasad. “Nobody likes the feeling of somebody selling you something. Everyone can tell the evidence is sparse.”
“People are just proselytizing and exaggerating on TV and there’s not really a dialogue about what’s known or not known.”
If health experts had just presented the public with both known and unknown information about the vaccines, he said — if they had admitted that most likely, both the risks and the benefits of the vaccine are “probably pretty low” — we would have more trust in their guidance.
“Just tell the truth,” Prasad urged.
Instead, health authorities “are exaggerating and lying and distorting the truth.”
Susan C. Olmstead is the assistant editor of The Defender.
© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
By Stuart Cooper | Fluoride Action Network | June 21, 2022
The published science over the past decade has taught us a lot about water fluoridation, about both the very real and significant side effects inflicted on the public, but also about the credibility of those who continue to vouch for its safety.
At this point, the question we must ask isn’t whether the overwhelming risks outweigh the theoretical scant benefits, or whether more research is needed to draw strong conclusions. No, the only appropriate question now is: How much more harm will the promoters and regulators of fluoridation allow the practice to inflict on the public?
Without the Fluoride Action Network, our coalition partners, and people like you taking a stand, their answer will be a resounding, “a lot more harm!” With their credibility and influence at stake after defending fluoridation for more than 75 years, they’ve sadly shown that they’ll not only be the last to act, but that they plan to double down until we stop them.
As we speak, tens of millions of residents currently living on community water systems with no added fluoride throughout the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand are facing the imminent threat of having their water dosed with hazardous fluoridation chemicals.
The CDC has announced a new strategy and helped develop a new technology to fluoridate an addition 19+ million Americans, which will also eventually expand to Canadians, Australians and likely others.
Meanwhile, the governments in the U.K. and New Zealand have exploited the recent pandemic to pass sweeping health care reform bills that effectively include nationwide fluoridation mandates due to decades of strong pushback from residents and elected officials at the local level, keeping fluoridation at bay.
Fluoride Has Already Damaged the Teeth of Millions
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s own data taken from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) has repeatedly found that our children in the United States are significantly overexposed to fluoride, evidenced by skyrocketing rates of dental fluorosis.
Fluorosis is a biomarker of toxicity from ingested fluoride, and is a permanent tooth defect, causing unsightly discoloration and mottling of the teeth, weakening the enamel and resulting in increased dental decay.
Ingesting fluoridated water — particularly in reconstituted infant formula — and processed foods made with fluoridated water are recognized as the primary sources of exposure, though swallowing toothpaste and fluoride prescriptions also contribute.
A 2015 review of the practice of fluoridation by the Cochrane Collaboration, the gold standard for evidence-based reviews of health interventions, found that “there is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and [water] fluoride level.”
The CDC reported that 41% of adolescents (12 to 15) had dental fluorosis in 2004. At the time this was an increase of over 400% from the rates found 60 years prior. Then the 2012 survey found that the rate jumped significantly to 65+% of adolescents with dental fluorosis.
Now, according to a recent study (Yang, June 2021) published in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety using the data from the NHANES 2015-16 survey, the “prevalence of dental fluorosis was 70% in the U.S. children.”
This means that the teeth of millions of children, teens and adults have already been damaged by overexposure to fluoride during development, and the CDC, along with the other promoters of fluoridation are fully aware. However, the teeth are not the only tissues in the body that are harmed by or accumulate fluoride. There is no apparent reason, therefore, why fluoride’s effects on the body would be limited to the teeth. As noted by renowned dentist and researcher Dr. Hardy Limeback:
… it is illogical to assume that tooth enamel is the only tissue affected by low daily doses of fluoride ingestion.
NHANES data has been used in recent published and peer-reviewed studies to link fluoridated water with a number of additional side-effects, including earlier onset of menstruation for black teens, sleep disorders in adolescents, increase uric acid levels in the blood, and kidney and liver impairment in adolescents.
Additional studies on fluoridation have also recently found higher rates of hip fractures, disruption of the endocrine system, and increased rates of hypothyroidism.
Fluoride Is the New Lead
There is now a large body of government-funded research indicating that fluoride is neurotoxic, and is associated with lowered IQ in children and a significant increase in ADHD diagnosis and related behaviors in children at doses experienced in fluoridated communities. Experts in the toxicology have likened the size of the effect to that from lead.
To date, 69 human studies, most from endemic fluorosis areas in China, have associated lowered IQ with fluoride exposure. The highest quality fluoride brain studies have been published since 2017, when the first of five NIEHS-NIH (National Institutes of Health) funded prospective-cohort studies was published (Bashash et al., 2017) finding an association between fetal exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in Mexico.
A year later, another NIH-funded study found an increase in ADHD symptoms associated with in utero exposure to fluoride (Bashash et al., 2018).
Over the next two years, two more of these government-funded studies found similar results, linking fetal exposure to fluoridated water in Canada to lowered IQ (Green et al., 2019), and finding that bottle-fed infants in fluoridated communities in Canada had a significantly lowered IQ compared to bottle-fed infants in non-fluoridated communities (Till et al., 2020).
And just last year, the fifth NIH-funded study (Cantoral et al, 2021), found that for every 0.5 mg increase in dietary fluoride intake during pregnancy was associated with a 3.10 to 3.46-point lower cognitive score in boys. The authors stated:
“Fluoride is not an essential nutrient and … fluoride ingestion in pregnancy does not strengthen enamel during tooth formation in the fetus but has been associated with increased risk of neurotoxicity, even at optimal exposure levels …
These findings suggest that the development of nonverbal abilities in males may be more vulnerable to prenatal fluoride exposure than language or motor abilities, even at levels within the recommended intake range.”
I strongly urge you to watch and share this recent 20-minute PowerPoint presentation by professor Christine Till, Ph.D., lead author of some of these landmark fluoride studies, explaining her team’s research and findings.
In 2021, the first benchmark dose analysis conducted on maternal fluoride exposure and neurotoxicity to the fetus was published in the journal Risk Analysis (Grandjean, 2021). Benchmark doses analyses are used by the EPA and toxicologist to determine at what level a substance starts to cause harm. It is well established that a loss of one IQ point leads to a reduced lifetime earning ability of $18,000.
The analysis confirmed that extremely low fluoride exposure during pregnancy impairs fetal brain development, finding that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of only 0.2mg/L — which coincides with the level in water (0.2ppm) — was enough to lower IQ by at least 1 point.
This is four times lower than the current government “recommended” level of 0.8ppm in fluoridated communities. It’s also six times lower than the level that was recommended as “safe” by the CDC, HHS, and the American Dental Association for over 60-years up until 2011 (1.2ppm).
For perspective, A urinary fluoride (UF) concentration of 0.2mg/L is far below what a pregnant woman in a fluoridated community would have, as confirmed by two recent studies. A recent study of pregnant women in fluoridated San Francisco, California, found a mean UF concentration of 0.74mg/L. A second study with participants in fluoridated communities across Canada found a mean UF concentration of 1.06mg/L.
Both studies also found that the UF levels were significantly lower for the participants living in the non-fluoridated communities. The authors of the benchmark dose analysis stated:
“These findings suggest that fetal brain development is highly vulnerable to fluoride exposure … and provide additional evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant (i.e., causing adverse effects on brain development in early life).
Given the ubiquity of fluoride exposure, the population impact of adverse effects from fluoride may be even greater than for other toxic elements like lead, mercury, and arsenic … and the benchmark results should inspire a revision of water fluoride recommendations aimed at protecting pregnant women and young children.”
These authors are hardly alone in comparing fluoride’s neurotoxic impact to the well-established harm of lead:
Other experts, including Linda Birnbaum PhD, former Director of the National Toxicology Program, stress the need to avoid fluoride:
“Given the weight of evidence that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain, it is time [to] protect pregnant women and their children [and recommend they] reduce their fluoride intake.”
There are now nine fluoride mother-offspring studies linking fluoride exposure to harm, and 23 studies published on the association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ since 2017.
How FAN Responded to the Science
Because of the growing list of published fluoride-IQ studies, and the downplaying of their importance by pro-fluoridation advocates such as the Division of Oral Health at the CDC and the American Dental Association, FAN embarked on two initiatives in 2016.
First, we requested the National Toxicology Program undertake a systematic review of ALL the studies (animal, human and cellular) pertaining to fluoride’s potential to damage the brain. The NTP agreed with our request, and they plan to publish the final results of their multiyear review of fluoride neurotoxicity any day now. In the two first drafts the NTP concluded, “that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans …”
The review drafts identified over 100 studies showing adverse effects including IQ loss and increased ADHD. Among 27 studies designated as high quality, 15 show fluoride injury at the same exposure levels found in community fluoridation programs.
Second, we petitioned the EPA under provisions in the Toxic Substances and Control Act to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridation chemicals to the drinking water supply because it poses an unreasonable risk to the developing brains of children. The EPA’s lack of action led to FAN suing them in federal court.
The initial phase of the trial was held in June 2020, concluding with the judge saying, “I don’t think anyone disputes that fluoride is a hazard.” However, the court is awaiting the final NTP report before moving forward with the final phase of the trial. Here is a short video update on the lawsuit from FAN’s attorney.
This past year, FAN embarked on a two more initiatives. We communicated with the U.S. surgeon general about the risk posed by fluoridation to developing children, and asked that he take action to warn parents.
We also initiated a dialogue with CDC officials (see initial letter signed by 112 professionals) that ultimately led to them organizing presentations for their leadership from several fluoride/neurotoxicity study authors, Dr. Bruce Lanphear, Christine Till, Ph.D., and Dr. Philippe Grandjean on their research.
How Promoters Have Responded to the Science: A New Threat
It has been six months since the CDC heard the presentations on neurotoxicity from the three veteran researchers, and it’s been over a decade since the CDC acknowledged that fluoridation has damaged the teeth of millions.
Yet, the CDC, along with the EPA, World Health Organization, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Dental Association and their state level peers not only have failed to warn residents about the dangers posed by fluoridation, but have continued advocating for fluoridation expansion in spite of the science.
The CDC has partnered with the chemical industry to target 19 million residents in 32,000 small and medium sized communities across the United States that do not add fluoridation chemicals to the public drinking water. Using your tax dollars, the CDC provided upward of $2 million dollars in funds to private business to develop a fluoridation delivery product for water systems serving between 50 and 10,000 people.
The widespread sale and promotion of this new product began in January throughout the U.S., but is also planned for Canada and Australia in the near future. The American Dental Association has joined the CDC in pushing this new strategy.
In July of 2021, the CDC held a “Public Health Grand Rounds” presentation on fluoridation. While there was no mention of the large number of new studies linking low levels of fluoridated water to neurotoxicity, it was an infomercial for a new technology that the CDC and ADA were calling “a game changer” in their efforts to expand fluoridation.
Below is a slide from that presentation, where you can see they intend to increase the percentage of fluoridated water systems from 73% to 77% — representing 19 million people on 32,000 water systems — by 2030.
This goal isn’t exactly new. The CDC and ADA have utilized a number of strategies over the past decade to expand the practice, but largely due to FAN and our network of local volunteers and professionals, the number of fluoridating communities has actually decreased, while the population served has increased slightly due to urban growth.
To accomplish this significant increase over the next eight years, they intend to utilize a new fluoridation system specifically designed to be simple and cheap enough for even the smallest water systems, which could include private systems, or even colleges and public schools.
They’re calling it the “New Wave Fluoridation System.” It utilizes compacted sodium fluorosilicate in a tablet form designed to dissolve over time in a small amount of water, much like the deodorizer tablets used in urinals.
We have learned that this process started in 2013, when CDC’s chief fluoridation engineer, Kip Duchon, suggested that the CDC help develop a product that was feasible for small and rural communities. Soon thereafter the CDC announced a Small Business Innovation Research grant opportunity — providing upward of $2 million — for private business to develop and test the idea.
KC Industries, of Mulberry, Florida, was awarded at least two large grants, one to develop the tablet and the other to develop the injection/feeder system.
KC Industries is a small chemical manufacturer with a handful of employees. According to their website, “The plant was built by Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation and began producing Sodium Fluorosilicate in 1957 as a raw material to manufacture aluminum.”
KC Industries purchased the facility in 1999 and appears to have focused heavily on the “dry” fluoride drinking water additive market with sodium fluoride. Here is their page on their sodium fluoride product; it’s worth a quick look.
Over the past 20 years, more communities have switched their additive to fluorosilicic acid, which is an incredibly dangerous and corrosive liquid, but is cheaper. This led to a massive decline in sales of dry additives, and KC Industries’ profits.
According to their press release, they were struggling until the CDC’s grant, which they say provided “a new lease on life” for the chemical company. They’re expecting “an immediate return on investment” as communities clamor for the new system.
KC Industry representatives have said that interest in the system has come from around the world. The first community to use the product as part of a free pilot project is Cleveland, Georgia. Other communities that have signed on include Marathon, Wisconsin; Center, Colorado; and Aulander, North Carolina. The Missouri state legislature has also included nearly $4 million in funding over the next few years to go toward grants to expand the program in their state.
The CDC employee who initiated this process, Kip Duchon, has retired from the CDC and is now a consultant to the ADA’s National Fluoridation Advisory Committee.
The ADA has already called it a “game-changer” and lobbied Congressional members to include taxpayer funding for this technology in the recent infrastructure bill intended to help economy out of the pandemic.
Meanwhile, the CDC also continues to give very large taxpayer-funded grants to states to pay for public relations campaigns to promote fluoridation.
Pandemic Exploited to Mandate Fluoridation in UK, New Zealand
Even worse than what is happening in North America with the new tablet fluoridation system, is the recent passage of legislation in both the United Kingdom and New Zealand, transferring authority over fluoridation from local officials (and indirectly the public) to unelected public health bureaucrats who have vowed to mandate the practice throughout their respective nations without concern for what the public wants.
Both nations include fluoridation resolutions as part of a much broader legislative effort to centralize public health decisions in response to the pandemic. The U.K. and New Zealand will now join Ireland and Singapore as the four public health outliers in a world that has overwhelmingly rejected fluoridated water.
Last year, the New Zealand government revived, amended and passed a bill that was introduced in 2016, but lacked enough support for passage. As introduced, the bill would have moved fluoridation decisions from local councils — where they reside presently — to district health boards.
However, the current government amended the language to centralize fluoridation authority even further, by giving full control to the director-general of health, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield. Using this process defied the normal democratic process, with no select committee, community consultation or public input. Local councils (and local taxpayers) will be responsible for all capital and operational costs.
Like the CDC, government officials and public health officials were warned in advance of the harm their decision would cause, yet they ignored it.
Some local leaders have quickly made their opposition to this proposal heard, including the mayor of Whangarei, Sheryl Mai, who said, “People who drink water from the tap will be mass medicated whether they want to be or not.”
Mayor Greg Lang of Carterton, and Mayor Alex Beijen of South Wairarapa, both opposed the measure because it took councils, consumers and ratepayers out of the decision. Officials in Christchurch and Southland have also recently voiced opposition, saying safety is a greater priority than fluoride. Clearly, there is still a chance for those communities that push back against this proposal.
In the U.K., decades of efforts by the government to expand fluoridation stalled having reached only 10% of the population. Efforts to fluoridate Northern Ireland failed miserably with 22 councils voting against the measure. Scotland too remained unfluoridated. Efforts over the last two decades to fluoridate Southampton, Manchester, and Hull also failed.
As a result, Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed an addition to the large Health and Care Act that would effectively mandate fluoridation by giving the health secretary, Sajid Javid, unilateral power to force communities throughout the country to add fluoridation chemicals to the public water supplies.
FAN coordinated with locals to mount opposition to this proposal, including a series of public letters from British scientists accusing public health officials of ignoring the science. The opposition culminated on the floor of the House of Lords, where a number of members spoke out against the proposal, including Lord Reay, who warned of the dangers posed to developing children.
Since passage into law, FAN has made an official submission to the government urging the Department of Health and Social Care to perform a health risk assessment on the effects of fluoridated water on the pregnant woman, the fetus and the formula-fed infant, before implementing fluoridation into the U.K. No regulatory agency in any fluoridating country has ever done this.
However, as the U.K. is contemplating expanding fluoridation to the whole country, it is essential that this is done before they embark on this program.
The Last Line of Defense
I want to conclude by asking the same question I asked at the beginning of this article, but rephrased: How much more harm will YOU allow the promoters and regulators of fluoridation to inflict on the public?
As I write this, millions of developing babies and infants are being overexposed to fluoride from their fluoridated tap water. The research has shown that there is no safe amount of fluoride for the fetus or infant. All will be impacted, some significantly more than others.
Please help us defend these vulnerable children and give them the gift of normal brain development. Help us also protect other vulnerable subpopulations, including those with hypersensitivities, dental fluorosis, bone brittleness and kidney, liver, or thyroid impairment.
The Fluoride Action Network is a nonprofit advocacy group set up in 2000 to broaden awareness among citizens, scientists and policymakers on the toxicity of fluoride compounds. It maintains the largest online database for fluoride toxicity studies, and has helped many of the 300+ communities that have ended or rejected fluoridation chemicals since 2010.
We’re amplifying the voices of a growing chorus of renowned international experts in toxicology, neurology and environmental toxins, warning the public about fluoridation, and educating and recruiting more to speak out.
We’ve captured the surgeon general’s and the CDCs’ attention, made progress with our federal lawsuit against the EPA, helped communities come together to fight fluoridation, and worked with state legislators to defeat mandate bills and support prohibition efforts.
Can you help us continue defend our water and our health, and expand our efforts as new threats arise here in North America and around the world in the United Kingdom and New Zealand? Will you stand with FAN?
Fluoride Awareness Week – Your Help Is Needed
On June 20 to June 26, we launch Fluoride Awareness Week. We set aside an entire week dedicated to ending the practice of fluoridation. There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”
The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of artificial water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has a game plan to END fluoridation worldwide.
Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.
By Steve Kirsch | June 20, 2022
A new poll of Americans shows that it’s likely that over 10M Americans were injured by the vaccine. This may explain why there are staffing shortages everywhere, from pilots to pharmacists.
The CDC has always maintained that severe reactions to the COVID vaccines are rare. Since I became a ‘misinformation’ spreader over a year ago, I’ve never believed that.
Yesterday, VSRF engaged the services of a professional polling company (Pollfish) to survey 500 people who were selected entirely at random.
The results were shocking, but they were consistent with the VAERS data which has been “lit up” since January 2021 telling us “the COVID vaccines are the most unsafe vaccines in human history.”
Now we have independent confirmation that the safety signals in VAERS were accurate, just like we’ve always said.
The numbers in this poll are absolutely shocking and there is no way to spin this as a positive.
This article includes the full Pollfish report as well as the individual response data so that anyone can analyze it themselves.
Key results from the poll
The poll was about the COVID vaccine exclusively, not about other vaccines. Stratified responses are age normalized to the US since the respondents who answered didn’t match the overall US demographics.
Doing some rudimentary estimates from the data (rather than stratifying by age which would be more accurate but more time consuming):
Putting these results into perspective
If you took the vaccine there is a 26% chance of injury as noted above. We also know that 45% of the injured said it would shorten their lifespan. This means that we are shortening the lifespan of 12% of the people who opt for the jab (since .26*.45=.117).
Shortening the lifespan of 12% of the people who take the vaccine seems like a very high price to pay for a virus that can be easily treated with a near 100% success rate with repurposed drugs.
For example, my friends George Fareed and Brian Tyson now have treated over 12,000 COVID patients using a combination of repurposed drugs and supplements without a single hospitalization or death if they were treated within 5 days of first symptoms. They even have a top-selling book on Amazon with rave reviews. Despite all of that, the FDA, CDC, and NIH continue to ignore them. They can’t get anyone to return their calls. They’ve had their protocol since the very beginning of the pandemic in March 2020 (it’s evolved over time).
It is stunning that the FDA approves the vaccines for our kids under 5 based on the COVID case statistics from just 10 children (7 placebo and 3 in the treatment arm), yet Fareed and Tyson who have treated over 12,000 patients can’t get a return phone call.
We are basically spending billions of dollars to seriously injure over 10 million Americans and kill hundreds of thousands. In the process, we did not reduce COVID, but made the problem worse with nonsensical interventions when all we ever needed was some simple advice:
We never needed the vaccine, masks (which make the problem worse), lockdowns, mandates, social distancing, or new drugs. All we had to do was follow the two simple steps above. It was never more complicated than that.
The data
Here are the full poll results and a spreadsheet with each individual response so you can do you own analysis:
Comparison with the rates of COVID vaccine injury that nurses report among their peers
Does a 12% injury rate seem high to you? That would be 30M people.
You may change your mind when you watch this video where I interview 7 nurses who were willing to speak out publicly and reveal the rate of vaccine injury among their peers.
Note: There are audio and video drop outs on the call. Use the cursor button to skip over this. I’ve reported these issues to Riverside.fm… their product feels like a beta test. Also, the preview has 8 nurses but there were only 7 in the call. Can you spot the duplicate?
Watch the video.
The rates averaged over 10% with some nurses seeing injury rates among their peers exceeding 40%. Sorry this is so hard to watch with the audio drop outs, but this is the best I have for this interview.
Jessica Rose’s take
She just sent me an email:
Steve, this is excellent. And aligns with my perceptions from the data.
Dr. Pierre Kory’s take
I sent him an email with all the data with a Subject line: Re: WHOA!!! this poll will BLOW YOUR MIND
Pierre quickly wrote back:
Wow is right. Those numbers are beyond disturbing, I have been calling this vaccine escapade a humanitarian catastrophe.. and this is what that looks like.
Comparison with VAERS
OpenVAERS shows 831,800 injuries reported domestically. But non-lethal injuries typically are under reported by a factor of 100 or more as we showed in the analysis of the disability data (where the under reporting factor was 128).
100*831K = 80M vaccine injured.
This makes our survey estimate of 30M look quite conservative.
However, if we take the raw, unadjusted numbers of our survey, 30% of all respondents over 18 were vaccine injured. Since there are 258M people over 18 in the US, we get 77M estimated vaccine injured, eerily close to the VAERS estimate.
So maybe VAERS isn’t such a bad estimator after all.
Validation by the government of Israel
Our final validation point is the proactive poll done by the government of Israel to assess vaccine side effects. This article describes that study. Among the highlights:
So our 20% rate of injury isn’t all that far off what the Israeli government found.
What vaccine injury looks like
Many people never recognize vaccine injury because they don’t know what it looks like.
For example, as I am writing this article, I received the following message from one of my subscribers:
So my mom’s very dear friend called me tonight to tell me that her cancer came back. She was diagnosed over 20 years ago and has been cancer-free. I asked her did you get boosted she said yes, I already knew she was vaccinated. She said don’t start asking me these questions. What does that have to do with anything? They now found Cancer all over her uterus and it’s now spreading to her body. You think it’s from the vaccine? She was perfectly fine all these years before getting vaccinated. It makes me so sad she will probably end up dying.
I hear these stories all the time of a new cancer or a cancer that was under control suddenly coming back with a vengeance. These aren’t coincidences. While for any individual case it may be difficult to determine a cause, in aggregate we are seeing rates of cancer post vaccine that are unprecedented.
This is why Dr. Ryan Cole said, “Since January 1, in the laboratory, I’m seeing a 20 times increase of endometrial cancers over what I see on an annual basis.”
It’s amusing to me that when you search for that quote in Google, you only get articles debunking the claim whereas if you search in DuckDuckGo, you get articles with the original quote. This is pretty sad because Dr. Cole is highly respected among his peers for telling the truth. It’s a pity we never get a chance to have a fair debate with people who claim we are spreading misinformation.
And the personal stories
A lot of people tell me they know hundreds of people and none are vaccine injured.
Perhaps.
Or perhaps 95% of the vaccine injured don’t speak out about their vaccine injury.
It feels like for every person who sees nothing, I hear from people with the opposite experience:
I have so many of my relatives, neighbors and acquaintances succumb to this poison. Just yesterday a 30 year old acquaintance died of sudden heart attack. My aunt is suffering from autoimmune mediated arthritis after she got her 2nd Pfizer shot. A neighbor died after receiving the first dose of Sinovac Vaccine. A relative died after receiving 2nd dose of SinoVac… So many to list!!
Replicating the poll
The out-of-pocket cost for the poll is $500. Anyone could replicate it.
I’m sure fact checkers will spend $50,000 to replicate it 100 times until they get the results that match their narrative, and then publish that.
We didn’t do that. We’ve never asked this set of questions ever before. The questions weren’t “gamed” to elicit a specific response. We put together the questions we wanted, we ran the poll, and we published the results.
But the poll is affordable enough that if you don’t believe me, you can replicate it yourself.
Summary
The COVID vaccines are the most dangerous vaccines in human history. There are systemic flaws in the medical system that cause doctors to fail to recognize the evidence in plain sight. But that doesn’t change the reality. The COVID vaccines have killed hundreds of thousands of people and severely injured millions more. Since there is a safe, inexpensive alternative (early treatment protocols) with near 100% efficacy in reducing hospitalization and death, the vaccines should be immediately halted for all age groups. That would be the right thing to do.
But admitting they made a mistake would be an embarrassment to the medical community, government agencies, and Congress. So they will continue to look the other way and find ways to discredit the evidence and the brave people who are speaking out. They will continue to avoid any accountability by agreeing to an open debate. And in the meantime, millions more will be disabled, and hundreds of thousands will die prematurely.
Doctors and nurses know what is going on, but will not speak out as a group because they will lose their jobs and ability to practice medicine. So they keep their heads down.
The other doctors are so blue-pilled, they actually still believe the CDC. When Pfizer presents safety and efficacy data that is appalling to anyone with a working brain, they simply look at the vote count of the outside committees (unanimously approved) and never bother to learn more about what just happened. They won’t even watch this 4 minute video that explains just how bad the trial data was.
When we discovered that there wasn’t a single death from COVID-19 in the entire state of Massachusetts in both 2020 and 2021 in age 5 to 11, did that change anything? Of course not. COVID is an emergency because it might kill kids in the future and you can never be too careful when it comes to saving kids lives. But when large numbers of kids are killed by the vaccine, we simply look the other way. That’s not an emergency; it doesn’t even exist. Their odd causes of death are ignored.
My survey won’t change anything, even if it is replicated over and over. It will just add more evidence to the public record that the medical community is causing great harm and completely incapable of seeing the truth. They will not allow themselves to be held accountable in an open discussion— ever.
The American people won’t change their minds until the doctors change their minds. And the doctors are so well trained to respect the medical authorities like the FDA, CDC, and NIH and/or sufficiently afraid of the repercussions of speaking out, that nothing will change anytime soon.
The truth always comes out sooner or later. The later it comes out, the greater the damage will be to all these institutions that people once trusted.
The other thing I know is that the scale of this deception is unprecedented. When this unravels, which I have no doubt that it will, it will destroy our trust in:
This survey is just one more nail in the coffin of the “safe and effective” narrative. Nothing more.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | June 16, 2022
Dr. Peter McCullough is under fire from the American Board of Internal Medicine (A.B.I.M.), who is threatening his medical license for “providing false and inaccurate information to patients”. Senator Ron Johnson has responded with a call for A.B.I.M. and Dr. McCullough to participate in an open hearing on Capitol Hill, and put it all on the table of public record.
Justin and Hailey Bieber, have both suffered recent health unusual health scares for young, healthy people. Were these conditions caused by the Covid shot? Del takes a look at the evidence.
InfoWars | June 16, 2022
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blasted NIAID Director Anthony Fauci for promoting booster jabs for children despite refusing to provide data proving their effectiveness, or their necessity.
The tense exchange happened during a Senate Health Committee hearing Thursday, where CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, Fauci and others hoped to procure more funding for the federal pandemic response.
“Dr. Fauci, the government recommends everybody take a booster over age five,” Sen. Paul told Fauci, who was interviewed via Zoom. “Are you aware of any studies that show reduction in hospitalization, or death for children who take a booster?”
“Right now, there’s not enough data that has been accumulated, Senator Paul, to indicate that that’s the case,” Fauci responded.
“So there are no studies – and Americans should all know this – there are no studies on children showing a reduction in hospitalization or death with taking a booster,” Sen. Paul summarized.
Paul went on to hypothetically ask if booster jabs produce antibodies, wouldn’t a never-ending litany of jabs make sense?
“If I give you 10, or if I give a patient 10 mRNA vaccines, and they make protein each time, or they make antibody each time, is that proof that we should give 10 boosters?” Paul asked.
“No. I think that is somewhat of an absurd exaggeration,” Fauci responded.
Sen. Paul shot back that the only data the Committee’s seen shows possible antibody effectiveness and only in older populations with risk factors, but “for younger folks there’s not.”
“But here’s the other thing,” Paul continued, “There are some risk factors for the vaccine… So the risk of myocarditis with a second dose for adolescent boys 12 to 24 is about 80 in a million. This is both from the CDC and from the Israeli study.”
“So, there is risk, and there are risks, and you’re telling everybody in America just blindly go out there, because we made antibodies… So, it is not an absurd corollary to say, ‘If you have 10.’ In fact, you probably make antibodies if you get a hundred boosters. All right? That’s not science, that’s conjecture and we should not be making public policy on it.”
Elsewhere during Thursday’s questioning, Paul asked Fauci if he personally “ever received a royalty payment from a company that you later oversaw money going to that company?”
“I don’t know as a fact, but I doubt it,” Fauci replied.
Paul went on to point out the “NIH continues to refuse to voluntarily divulge the names of scientists who receive royalties, and from which companies, over the period of time from 2010 to 2016.”
“Can you tell me if anyone on the vaccine approval committee’s ever received money from the people who make vaccines?” Paul asked.
“People who receive royalties are not required to divulge them even on their financial statement according to the Bayh–Dole Act,” Fauci shot back, clearly incensed.
“It’s all redacted and you can’t get any information on the 1,800 scientists who received royalties,” Paul concluded, as he was cut off by the Committee chair.
The exchange comes just one day after it was reported Fauci contracted coronavirus, despite being vaccinated and double-boosted.
See also:
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | June 13, 2022
Investigative Journalist with a popular Substack, Igor Chudov, explains his recent discoveries comparing the dramatic difference in Covid-19 death rates in both Portugal and South Africa, and what could be the cause.
Immune Dysfunction Expert, James Neuenschwander, joins Del to talk about the critical effect lockdowns and masking has had on our immune systems, particularly those of young people. Is there a direct link between the lack of exposure to germs and viruses in recent years and the current spike in deadly outbreaks of hepatitis and RSV?
Computing Forever | June 11, 2022
Visit: https://sovereignpeople.ie/index.html
Music: Peaceful Mind by Astron
Support my work on Subscribe Star: https://www.subscribestar.com/dave-cullen
Support my work via crypto: https://computingforever.com/donate/
Follow me on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/hybM74uIHJKg/
http://www.computingforever.com
KEEP UP ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Gab: https://gab.ai/DaveCullen
Subscribe on Gab TV: https://tv.gab.com/channel/DaveCullen
Minds.com: https://www.minds.com/davecullen
Subscribe on Odysee: https://odysee.com/@TheDaveCullenShow:7
Telegram: https://t.me/ComputingForeverOfficial
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Mahdi Darius NAZEMROAYA | Strategic Culture Foundation | 30.03.2015
The United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia became very uneasy when the Yemenese or Yemenite movement of the Houthi or Ansarallah (meaning the supporters of God in Arabic) gained control of Yemen’s capital, Sanaa/Sana, in September 2014. The US-supported Yemenite President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi was humiliatingly forced to share power with the Houthis and the coalition of northern Yemenese tribes that had helped them enter Sana. Al-Hadi declared that negotiations for a Yemeni national unity government would take place and his allies the US and Saudi Arabia tried to use a new national dialogue and mediated talks to co-opt and pacify the Houthis.
The truth has been turned on its head about the war in Yemen. The war and ousting of President Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi in Yemen are not the results of «Houthi coup» in Yemen. It is the opposite. Al-Hadi was ousted, because with Saudi and US support he tried to backtrack on the power sharing agreements he had made and return Yemen to authoritarian rule. The ousting of President Al-Hadi by the Houthis and their political allies was an unexpected reaction to the takeover Al-Hadi was planning with Washington and the House of Saudi. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 