COVID-19 Modified mRNA “Vaccines”: Lessons Learned from Clinical Trials, Mass Vaccination, and the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, Part 1
Mead et al Deliver Counter-Punch after Springer Nature Unethical Retraction of High-Impact Paper
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse™ | July 8, 2024
Every major development in medicine evolves over years with peer-reviewed manuscripts and published correspondence along the lines of arguments and scientific discourse. Never had we seen a new technology and mass mandated line of medical products be introduced with no allowance for proper scientific discourse. Not until mRNA.
Mead and co-workers found themselves at the center of a controversy when Springer Nature CUREUS Journal of Biomedical Sciences retracted their paper calling for global market withdrawal of mRNA vaccines. The retraction violated the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines) for retraction and became a news story garnering even more attention. Other papers continued to cite Mead creating a stinging reverberation for Springer who was hoping to silence the paper.
Now epidemiologist M. Nathaniel Mead and six co-authors have punched back with the manuscript divided into two parts for a greater depth of data and analysis on the safety and theoretical efficacy of modified mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. In Part I, Mead discloses censorship of the first paper by the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, a working syndicate that is hell-bent on suppressing any scientific information on COVID-19 side effects.
You may ask what should have occurred? Springer Nature should have never retracted the paper. Rather letters to the editor and responses to the letters from authors should have been published as proper scientific interchange. The new normal is now unethical retraction, massive publicity, and republication with greater amplification of the message—precisely what the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex is trying to squelch.
Mead MN, Seneff S, Wolfinger R, Rose J, Denhaerynck K, Kirsch S, McCullough PA. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign. Cureus. 2024 Jan 24;16(1):e52876. doi: 10.7759/cureus.52876. Retraction in: Cureus. 2024 Feb 26;16(2):r137. doi: 10.7759/cureus.r137. PMID: 38274635; PMCID: PMC10810638.
COVID-19 Modified mRNA “Vaccines” Part 1: Lessons Learned from Clinical Trials, Mass Vaccination, and the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex. (2024). International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research , 3(1), 1112-1178. https://doi.org/10.56098/fdrasy50
British Columbia Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons Defeated on Judicial Notice
Case of Dr. Charles Hoffe Kills Deferral to Government Offices as Agents of “Truth”
Courageous Discourse™ | July 6, 2024
This was written by Canadian attorney Lee Turner after discussion with Dr. McCullough.
Dr. Charles Hoffe is a family and (former) emergency room physician in British Columbia who is the subject of disciplinary proceedings before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia for making public statements about SARS-CoV-2, the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, and other alternative treatments including ivermectin. Hoffe has successfully defeated an application made by the College seeking judicial notice of the truth of facts alleged by the College concerning these issues. In its efforts to discipline the physician, the College has alleged that the statements made by the physician are misleading, incorrect or inflammatory and constitute professional misconduct. The College asked the discipline panel to take judicial notice of the following facts and thereby prevent the doctor from presenting any contrary evidence in his defence:
- The Covid virus kills or causes other serious effects;
- The virus does not discriminate;
- Vaccines work;
- Vaccines are generally safe and have a low risk of harmful effects, especially in children;
- Infection and transmission of the COVID-19 virus is less likely to occur among fully vaccinated individuals than for those who are unvaccinated; vaccines do not prevent infection, reinfection or transmission, but they reduce the severity of symptoms and the risk of bad outcomes;
- Health Canada has approved COVID vaccines, and regulatory approval is a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness;
- Health Canada has not approved ivermectin to treat COVID-19; and
- Health Canada advises that Canadians should not consume the veterinary version of ivermectin.
In its June 29, 2024 decision, the disciplinary panel of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia declined to take judicial notice of items 2-5, did take judicial notice of items 7-8 (the straightforward ivermectin claims), and took judicial notice of a revised version of items 1 and 6.
The panel was prepared to take judicial notice of item 1 that reads: “COVID-19 can kill or cause other serious effects”.
The College explained their rationale for taking judicial notice of a revised version of item 1 by referencing evidence presented by the doctor in his defence that included the following:
- risk of severe disease and death from COVID-19 is extremely skewed to those above 70 years of age, especially those with multiple comorbidities. The average age of persons that died from COVID-19 in Canada was approximately 84 years old;
- very low proportion of COVID-19 related deaths in Canada occurred in those under 50 years of age-the data shows very high (although not 100%) survival rates for those under 70;
- average rate of lethality from COVID-19 for Canadians is much lower than estimates given by public health officials; and
- reported hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, because many hospitalizations and deaths “with, and not from” COVID-19 were wrongly attributed to COVID-19
With respect to item 6, the panel endorsed findings of an earlier provincial Court of Appeal decision that held the safety and efficacy of any drug is always relative and as a rule the safety and efficacy of a pharmaceutical product cannot be discussed in such blunt fashion as to say that it “is” or “is not” safe and effective. The panel held that the issues raised in the citation should be determined based upon the evidence that is tested through cross-examination rather than by taking judicial notice of one party’s assertion of the facts, and in this case, based upon statements made by public health officials or public health agencies. The panel held that it was prepared to take judicial notice of the fact that Health Canada had approved the COVID – 19 vaccines, but declined to take judicial notice that Health Canada’s approval was a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness.
This decision on the issue of judicial notice, is consistent with the June 28, 2024 decision of the US Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo Secretary of Commerce et. al. which overturned the landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The Chevron decision had given rise to what is commonly referred to as the Chevron deference doctrine. Under this doctrine, federal agencies had the power to interpret a law that they administer when that law is vaguely written, and courts were required to defer to the agency’s interpretation of a statute. In Loper, the US Supreme Court rejected the Chevron deference doctrine calling it “fundamentally misguided.” They said court should rely on their own interpretation of ambiguous laws rather than having to accept the agency’s interpretation. Commentators have suggested that the Chevron deference doctrine gave the powerful – the people who control the agencies like the FDA, CDC and FCC – a significant advantage in court making them essentially the ultimate decision-makers in interpreting ambiguous laws. Commentators have pointed out that many of these agencies are captive agencies with close ties, including financial ties, to the industries that they are charged with regulating and therefore they lack objectivity with respect to those industries. The ruling in Labor means that federal judges now have more authority to interpret these laws. The decision by the British Columbia Disciplinary Panel of the College of Physicians of Surgeons of British Columbia prevents regulatory bodies from saying “it is so because we say it is so”. They have to prove the facts they assert and those who disagree will be allowed to challenge those facts and present contrary evidence.
The case against Dr. Hoffe is far from over. This development is significant in that a government agency cannot make the rules, interpret them, and claim they hold the truth on an evolving scientific or medical issue.
Lee C. Turner, Partner, Doak Sherriff Lawyers, LLC, Kelowna BC V1Y 2A9
(Professional Law Corporation)
How Pfizer’s Original mRNA Trial Hid a 66% Increase in Cardiovascular Death Rate Amongst the Vaccinated
PharmaFiles by Aussie17 | June 29, 2024
Thanks to Dr. Clare Craig for highlighting this clip from Dr. David White on Twitter/X today. It’s important for people to understand how Pfizer manipulated the categorization of deaths in their original trial, which led to politicians using the “safe and effective” narrative. Everyone should carefully watch this, as it not only raises concerns about Pfizer or Moderna’s mRNA vaccines but also highlights the broader corruption of medical information that prioritizes profit over safety.
Dr. David White, a retired general practitioner from the UK, masterfully breaks down the concerning aspects of the Pfizer BNT162b2 trial. He walks us through the intricate details and demonstrates how Pfizer may have “adjusted” the categorization of participant deaths to make it appear as though there were fewer cardiovascular deaths in the vaccine group than there actually were.
To recap, a total of 29 deaths from all causes were reported in the trial within six months, as published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The original trial showed that deaths were about 7% higher in the vaccine group, with 15 deaths, compared to 14 deaths in the placebo group. However, many “fact-checkers” and pharma shills “scientists” claim that this difference is not statistically significant.
This is intriguing because, according to a Lancet paper, there were 44,000 more deaths in England in 2022, driven by a sharp increase in cardiovascular deaths among the middle-aged, which rose by 33%. He wonders if cardiovascular deaths in the trial’s vaccine group were also 33% higher. This question is important because it seeks to determine if the higher death rate in the vaccinated group is related to the rise in cardiovascular deaths seen in the general population.
He walks us through four mysterious “causes of deaths” categorized in the paper:
- An “Unevaluable Event” on a vaccinated death, which was found to be a sudden cardiac death confirmed via autopsy.
- A “Missing” entry categorized as a “placebo” death, which was later found to be a “vaccinated” death.
- “Emphysematous Cholecystitis,” which is a cardiovascular death but Pfizer said let’s put something that sounds really complicated and hope nobody knows its a cardiovascular death.
- “Death” for participant #10841470. First of all categorizing a “cause of death” as “Death”, are you kidding? Anyway this participant died after taking a Moderna mRNA vaccine, but was categorized as a placebo death. I wrote about this issue here.
In conclusion, after recategorizing the deaths, all-cause deaths were 15% higher in the vaccine group. There were 10 cardiovascular deaths in the vaccine group and six in the placebo group, indicating that cardiovascular deaths were 66% higher in the vaccine group.
Dr. White highlights that these figures, particularly the increased all-cause mortality in the vaccine group, clearly point to safety signals. He stresses that informed consent is a fundamental ethical principle in medicine, necessitating the open discussion of such safety concerns. It is crucial to ensure that participants are fully informed about the potential risks associated with the vaccine to maintain trust and transparency within the medical community.
Watch full video:
Is Joe Biden’s Brain Vaccine Injured?
A Midwestern Doctor | The Forgotten Side of Medicine | June 29, 2024
Story at a Glance:
• One of the most common side effects of the COVID-19 vaccination we’ve observed is cognitive impairment. This can range from brain fog to dementia, and frequently we see a rapid acceleration of pre-existing cognitive decline into Alzheimer’s disease.
• Recently large data sets have emerged which support our observations and indicate millions of people are being affected by the adverse neurological effects of the vaccines. Those datasets are summarized here.
• After Joe Biden became president, he had a rapid decline in cognitive function, leading many to say he is not the same man who assumed the presidency four years ago. Since that decline paralleled his vaccination uptake, the pertinent medical information about his case is provided here so you can assess if the two were indeed linked.
• Many other prominent Democrats have had significant vaccination injuries, including 8% of the Democratic Senators. Each of their brain injuries (3 strokes and encephalitis) and their link to vaccination are discussed here. This article particularly focuses on Dianne Feinstein’s case, because like Biden, she had pre-existing cognitive impairment which rapidly progressed after the COVID vaccines (which she forced on America) hit the market and rather than admit it, she did everything she could to cover it up until she died.
Throughout my life, I have had the experience of being able to clearly see something, and have everyone around me, including a lot of “experts,” insist that what I’m seeing does not exist, and then a few years later have my observation become generally accepted as true. This for example describes my experience with the COVID vaccines, as within a month of them being on the market, I had seen so many significant or severe injuries (and deaths) it was clear to me the shots were much more toxic than a typical pharmaceutical. Nonetheless, regardless of what I said, most of my colleagues (except those who were injured by the vaccines) would not listen to me, and it’s only now that mainstream doctors (or left-wing individuals) are beginning to accept that the vaccines were a mistake.
Similarly, throughout Biden’s presidency, it’s been very clear to me that Biden has progressively increasing cognitive impairment, yet with most of the left-wing individuals I am close to, every piece of evidence I’ve presented to substantiate this allegation is either written off as right-wing propaganda I am being hypnotized by or met with a bizarre excuse to account for Biden’s behavior. Likewise, many of my friends have had similar experiences when discussing this issue within their circle (e.g., to family members).
Yesterday, Biden shocked the world by having a debate performance which made it clear even to ardent Democrats that he was suffering from cognitive impairment. I, in turn, watched the entire left-wing media implicitly or overtly state that Biden was cognitively impaired and that there was panic throughout the Democrat party of him running in November, as it was both clear Biden could not win and that many other Democrats would also lose because many of their voters would not want to show up to vote for Biden and hence would not vote for the rest of the ticket.
This in turn suggests two distinct possibilities:
The first is that this debate was used to swap Biden out of the nomination after the primaries were completed (so an insider the public would never vote for could be appointed to the presidency).
The second is that most of the Democratic party (and much of the mass media) genuinely believed Biden’s cognitive issues were a “right wing conspiracy” and their responses last night were that of a state of genuine shock.
In this article, I am going to focus on the second possibility as I feel it also ties into the broader issue of vaccine injuries that has swept the Democrat party.
The Vaccine Mass Formation
Whenever you observe groups, you will often observe people defaulting to mimicking the behaviors of the group so that they can fit in and be accepted. In time, this often evolves to there being a very characteristic linguistic style and set of behaviors that emerges—which in many cases seems to be prioritized over the actual substance of what the group is about (e.g., I meet many people who claim to align with “the science” who copy the same phrases and chains of logic prominent scientists like Anthony Fauci use but simultaneously don’t understand any of the scientific points they are discussing).
Many examples of this mimicry occur. For example, I know numerous men who came out of the closest and then rapidly adopted an identical lispy and flamboyant style of speech, while in the New Age field, I’ve noticed the underlying thread they all share in common is a very distinctive style of speech which emphasizes a profound jubilation over a variety of inconsequential things they encounter. What’s remarkable about this mimicry is that you can often provide non-sensical examples of it that are fully embraced by the group (e.g., I periodically send my New Age friends random nonsense created by a New Age language generator which matches the cadence of the New Age field and frequently receive accolades from my friends). Likewise, in academia, it’s been repeatedly shown that if one produces incoherent nonsense that is written in the postmodernist style, it will often make it to publication (and likewise I’ve had a lot of fun over the years with essays from a nonsensical postmodernist language generator many take as being legitimate scholarly writings).
In turn, I’ve noticed that in some groups, this repetition or desire to belong to the group will magnify, and before long reinforce itself into cult-like behaviors that seem completely insane to an outside observer—a process which is particularly likely to happen if a nefarious individual deliberately manipulates the group to create this behavior (e.g., a shrewd marketing team, a talented dictator, or a sociopathic cult leader).
Note: while modern marketing has become remarkably effective at inducing this hypnosis (especially since marketers have the ability to broadcast the hypnotic message throughout the mass media so everyone feels pressured to conform to it), the most powerful manipulation (which is still not possible to standardize) occurs from individuals who figured out how to spiritually manipulate others. In turn, since I’ve seen those people do horrible stuff throughout my lifetime, I previously wrote an article explaining how to recognize spiritual manipulation and not be susceptible to it or the dangerous spiritual practices which accompany it.
Recently, Matthias Desmet brought the world’s attention to the mass formation hypothesis, which is essentially what happens when the concept I just described (individuals wanting to belong to a group and copying its non-verbal behaviors) becomes magnified to the point that they do completely irrational things, hallucinate things at odds with reality (e.g., seeing a face on the moon), and become willing to engage in truly horrific behavior (e.g., genociding another race or sacrificing their children to the state).
Desmet’s hypothesis became popular as it provided a potential explanation for why our leaders chose to enact a series of horrific COVID-19 policies, and continued to double-down on them regardless of how much evidence emerged showing the policies were a terrible idea. Conversely, it attracted a lot of animosity as many interpreted it as removing the responsibility from those who were clearly at fault for inflicting all of these horrors upon us (which I believe to be a misinterpretation of what Desmet argued).
In turn with the COVID vaccines, like many, I noticed there was a hypnotic fixation on them which led to the believers wanting to vaccinate as many people as possible (regardless of the human rights violations that required) and no amount of evidence being sufficient to convince them the vaccines weren’t a good idea.
One of the things I believe was the strongest proof for this was the fact that as the Democrat leadership continued to promote vaccination mandates, they also repeatedly vaccinated themselves despite numerous severe vaccine injuries occurring within their party.
Note: I also observed this with many medical professionals who continued to zealously promote vaccination despite being confronted with injuries in their patients.
Senate Vaccine Injuries
Many large surveys have found that a continually increasing portion of the country believes the vaccines are causing widespread social harms (e.g., a recent poll found a third of Americans believe the vaccines are killing people) and that a large number of people were harmed by them (e.g., one poll found 7% of Americans believe they suffered a major side effect from the vaccines and 34% believe they suffered a minor one). Because of this, in theory, if a large sample of vaccinated individuals could be identified, there should have been a number of significant injuries in them.
As it so happened, the US Senate provided that sample, as we saw numerous unusual and severe diseases emerge in the Democrats there at a far higher rate than had ever happened in the past, and more importantly, those diseases were things strongly linked to the COVID vaccines. Furthermore, those injuries only occurred in Senators who had zealously promoted the vaccines.
Note: it is likely far more injuries than those I listed here occurred within the Senate as due to the political implications of acknowledging a vaccine injury, I would not expect the Senators to publicize them. Those I have listed are simply the ones which were too overt to cover up.
John Fetterman:
John Fetterman, a freshman Pennsylvania Democratic Senator (then aged 52) on May 17, 2022, less than a month after strongly endorsing the vaccine, suffered an ischemic stroke two days before the state primary for his Senate seat. Despite significant signs of cognitive impairment since his stroke, Fetterman somehow won the primary and then the general election. Since becoming elected, Fetterman has had prolonged periods of absence from the U.S. Senate due to needing specialized medical care:
Fetterman was hospitalized for syncope (lightheadedness) for two days beginning on February 10, 2023. Two days after his release he was hospitalized again, for a severe case of major depression. For about two months, Fetterman lived and worked at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. As part of his daily schedule at the hospital, his chief of staff arrived at 10 a.m. on weekdays with newspaper clips, statements for Fetterman to approve, and legislation to review. During his hospitalization, Fetterman co-sponsored a bipartisan rail safety bill, introduced after the derailment of a chemical-carrying train in East Palestine, Ohio, close to the border with Pennsylvania; the regulation aimed to strengthen freight-rail safety regulations to prevent future derailments.
On April 17, 2023, Fetterman returned to the Senate to chair the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry subcommittee on food and nutrition, specialty crops, organics and research. The Washington Post said that Fetterman’s “voice stumbled at times while reading from prepared notes” during the subcommittee hearing, but “he appeared in good spirits” and communicated a message about the importance of fighting hunger.
Since that time, Fetterman has had a variety of unusual incidents suggestive of cognitive impairment (e.g., earlier this month he was speeding and crashed into someone).
Ben Luján
Ben Ray Luján is a freshman New Mexico Democratic Senator who repeatedly promoted the COVID-19 vaccines.
On January 27, 2022, Luján (then 49) was hospitalized in Santa Fe after feeling fatigued and dizzy. He was found to have had a hemorrhagic stroke from a torn vertebral artery affecting his cerebellum and was transferred to the University of New Mexico Hospital for treatment, which included a decompressive craniectomy. A statement from his office said that “he is expected to make a full recovery”. Luján returned to work at the Senate on March 3 and stated by April 21 that he was 90% recovered.
Chris Van Hollen
Chris Van Hollen is a freshmen Maryland Democrat Senator who repeatedly promoted the COVID vaccines and tackling COVID-19 “disinformation.”
On May 15, 2022, while giving a speech, he experienced a hemorrhagic stroke in the back of his head. After a hospitalization, he returned to the Senate. At the time of this injury, he was 64.
Note: while ischemic strokes are more common, we have seen cases of major blood vessels rupturing after COVID vaccinations (e.g., one of our vaccinated colleagues almost died from a ruptured aorta). We believe this is due to the the COVID vaccine damaging the lining of the blood vessels, as on autopsies, significant damage to the blood vessels is often observed (and likewise in our colleague’s case, the tissue changes observed in his aorta during the emergency repair were highly unusual). Furthermore, this damage appears to increase with time, which likely explains the roughly one year delay between vaccination and rupture in both the Senators and our colleague.
As there are 50 Democrats in the Senate, these 3 incidents represent a 6% rate of strokes occurring within roughly a year of vaccination (as the vaccines became available in early 2021). As you can see, that is much higher than the 0.083%-0.146% rate you would expect to see for these strokes but congruent with the observed vaccine injury rate.
Conversely, the only other Senator I know of who had a stroke while in office was Republican Mark Kirk, who in 2012, at the age of 54, a year after assuming office, had a stroke which required a year of rehabilitation.
Dianne Feinstein
Dianne Feinstein was another aggressive promoter of COVID vaccination (e.g., she introduced a ridiculous bill to require vaccination or a negative COVID test to fly on domestic airlines). In March of 2023, Feinstein was diagnosed with shingles and hospitalized. While her office initially insisted she would be fine, it was later revealed her shingles had progressed to Ramsey Hunt Syndrome (paralysis of the face) and encephalitis (brain inflammation). As as a result, it took 10 weeks for her to return to the Senate, at which point she was clearly disabled, and her office was gradually forced to admit Feinstein had experienced some disability.
Once there, it was evident she was both physically and cognitively impaired, but she nonetheless refused to resign. A few months later, in July she ceded her power of attorney to her daughter, then in August she was hospitalized after falling in her home, and finally at the end of September she died of “natural causes,” making her one of the only Senators (and the first female one) to die while in office.
Note: her death was immediately followed by California governor Newsom appointing a replacement for her in the Senate.
What is noteworthy about her experience was how rare her conditions were. Specifically, Ramsay Hunt syndrome is estimated to affect 1 in 20,000 people per year (with it typically being seen in immunocompromised individuals), while shingles encephalitis is typically seen in 1 out of every 33,000-50,000 cases of shingles (with it again being more frequently seen in immunocompromised individuals).
Note: for individuals over 65, between 3.9 to 11.8 per 1000 experience shingles each year (which means around 1 in 500,000 develop shingles encephalitis), while less than 100 Americans die each year from it.
Conversely, from the start, shingles was one of the most common injuries linked to COVID vaccination and likewise, its more severe complications have been strongly linked to vaccination (due to the immunosuppressive effects of the vaccine). The following table is from the most comprehensive article I was able to find on the subject:
Note: Justin Bieber also recently attracted widespread public attention after he developed Ramsay Hunt Syndrome, a condition which was extraordinarily rare for his age (he had approximately a 27/1,000,000 chance of developing this condition).
As you might expect, in the same way the COVID vaccines continually failed to work (which is why they kept on requiring more and more boosters) these injuries had no effect on the Democrats’ zeal for the vaccines. One of the saddest cases happened when Representative Castin’s 17 year old vaccinated daughter (who aggressively promoted the COVID vaccines) died suddenly and unexpectedly in her sleep from a sudden cardiac arrhythmia on June 12, 2022.
In addition to this being a cause of death linked to the vaccines (sudden cardiac death almost never happens in children), a reader calculated that (prior to the vaccines), a US Representative would be expected to have a child under 18 die once every 200 years). However, while Casten repeatedly publicly expressed his grief over his daughter’s death, that did not shake his faith in the vaccines. For example, this is something he said a year after she died:
Cognitive Impairment
Since the vaccines hit the market, we have noticed one of the most common consequences of them has either been cognitive impairment, worsening of existing cognitive impairment, or an elderly patient with cognitive impairment rapidly progressing into dementia (which is typically labeled as Alzheimer’s disease). Additionally, when we’ve looked for it, we’ve found a variety of signs of subtle neurologic injury in a large number of vaccinated adults who do not believe they have suffered complications from the vaccination.
If we take Senator Feinstein for example, at the end of 2020, the New Yorker reported that Feinstein’s colleagues and staffers were concerned Feinstein was beginning to show signs of cognitive decline which were getting harder to cover up (although others who worked with her denied this). Two years later in 2022 (after the vaccines had come out), the New York Times also covered her cognitive decline but were more explicit in acknowledging it, presumably because it had become significantly worse:
At 88, Ms. Feinstein sometimes struggles to recall the names of colleagues, frequently has little recollection of meetings or telephone conversations, and at times walks around in a state of befuddlement — including about why she is increasingly dogged by questions about whether she is fit to serve in the Senate representing the 40 million residents of California, according to half a dozen lawmakers and aides who spoke about the situation on the condition of anonymity.
On Capitol Hill, it is widely — though always privately — acknowledged that Ms. Feinstein suffers from acute short-term memory issues that on some days are ignorable, but on others raise concern among those who interact with her.
Ms. Feinstein is often engaged during meetings and phone conversations, usually coming prepared and taking notes. But hours later, she will often have forgotten those interactions, said the people familiar with the situation, who insisted that they not be named because they did not want to be quoted disparaging a figure they respect.
Some of them said they did not expect her to serve out her term ending in 2024 under the circumstances, even though she refuses to engage in conversations about stepping down.
This cognitive decline further worsened after her hospitalization. For example, shortly after she returned, when asked about her 3 month absence, she insisted she was completely fine, seemed to believe she had been working at the Senate the whole time (e.g., voting) and became confrontational when a reported suggested otherwise. To put this in context, two months later, she ceded power of attorney to her daughter, and after another two months, died.
Sadly, I do not believe Feinstein’s case is an outlier, and for that reason, I recently attempted to compile all the evidence showing vaccine cognitive decline is a very real thing. The key points I raised in that article were:
1. Friends have complained to me about cognitive impairment following vaccination, and in a few cases, shared that impairment worsened after subsequent vaccinations. Likewise, I’ve seen many signs (others have as well) that these effects are widespread in society (e.g., drivers became worse after the vaccination campaign).
2. Numerous friends reported to me that their relatives in nursing homes developed rapidly progressing dementia after vaccination and then died shortly later—something which many readers here have since shared with me also happened to their parents or spouses.
3. Both I and colleagues have noticed a variety of neurological deficits in the vaccinated. This is best demonstrated by the fact the most common symptom Pierre Kory’s vaccine injured patients come to him for is brain fog.
4. A variety of datasets support these contentions. Those include:
• The rate of motor vehicle accidents increased after the vaccination campaign.
• The Dutch detected a 18-40% increase (averaging out to 24%) in the number of adults seeing their primary doctor for memory and concentration problems following the vaccination rollout.
• A significant increase in disability has been seen throughout the Western world since the COVID vaccines came out, some of which is cognitive in nature.
• VAERS had a massive spike in cognitive disorders being reported after vaccination which was seen after the COVID vaccines hit the market.
• An Israeli survey found that 4.5% of those who received a booster developed anxiety or depression, and 26.4% who already had either then experienced an exacerbation of their condition.
• A study of 2,027,353 Koreans published three weeks ago in Nature found that vaccination resulted in a 68% increase in depression, a 44% increase in anxiety, dissociative, stress-related, and somatoform disorders.
• A more recent study of 558,017 Koreans over 65 found vaccination increased the risk of cognitive impairment by 138% and the risk of Alzheimer’s by 23%, and that this risk increased with time.
The key point with these datasets is that those increases are massive, to the point they cannot be explained by chance.
Joe Biden
During Biden’s presidency, he has aggressively promoted the mandates, and has done a variety of things which go far outside what the president typically does. These include:
• Accusing social media companies of “killing people” because they did not make a sufficiently aggressive effort to censor vaccine misinformation (which in turn his administration used to censor free speech and violate the First Amendment).
• (Erroneously) forecasting a winter of illness and death for the unvaccinated.
• Illegally mandating the vaccines on America’s workers.
• Pressuring the FDA to rapidly approve questionable COVID vaccinations, to the point its chief (and very pro-vaccine) vaccine scientists did not feel what the White House was requesting was appropriate to do—which ultimately resulted in those scientists being forced out of the approval process and the vaccines approved.
Given how strong the evidence against the COVID vaccinations actually is, I interpreted that to mean Biden genuinely believes in the vaccines, something demonstrated by the fact he’s repeatedly publicly shown himself receiving the vaccine and reported having at least three boosters.
As best as I can tell, like his colleague Feinstein, Biden’s successive vaccination appears to be correlated with a rapid cognitive decline which he nonetheless has refused to acknowledge.
To elaborate, at the time Biden ran in 2020, many including Donald Trump accused Biden of being cognitively impaired, and cited a variety of examples suggesting he may not be fit to be president (e.g., Biden rarely campaigned publicly, whenever asked aggressively refused to take a test assessing his cognitive function, and would make odd confrontational outbursts at voters who challenged him). Likewise, doctors identified reasons why Biden was potentially at higher risk for cognitive impairment (e.g., he had history of a brain aneurysm and repair in 1988, and had atrial fibrillation).
Note: one of the most common side effects of COVID vaccination is inflammation at the site of a pre-existing injury (e.g., a brain surgery). Likewise, the vaccines commonly damaged the heart and triggered conditions like atrial fibrillation.
Nonetheless, Biden was able to perform well enough during the campaign to effectively debate Trump during the 2020 presidential debate and earn a sizable portion of the vote. In contrast, one of the most common talking points I heard when I reviewed the post debate coverage was that “Biden was a very different person there and not the man who ran in 2020.”
Likewise, during Biden’s Presidency, as time has moved forward I have noticed an increasing number of gaffes. This include him mumbling words incoherently and nonsensically (something which again has worsened as time moved forward), Biden staring into space and being frozen in place while those around him move (also seen here and here), and him needing to be guided and led away by his assistants. Most importantly, when he was interviewed by a special counsel this year, they acknowledged Biden had repeated mental lapses during the interview.
Additionally, it has been my impression that his cognitive lucidity is highly variable, something demonstrated both by the fact he is sometimes relatively coherent in his speeches, but other times he is not, and that fact that he is continuously absent-minded, particularly later in the day or at night (when these sorts of issues are well known to be worse—with the medical term for it being sundowning).
Note: earlier in the Biden presidency a White House doctor shared with a close colleague that Biden had significant cognitive impairment and displayed overt dementia at night.
As a result of this, many individuals who work with the elderly and those with cognitive impairment have recognized many of the same things they’ve seen in their patients in Biden and hence feel the fact that Biden is being continually brought before the public and forced to give speeches to equate to elder abuse.
After the debates, I in turn spoke with a gifted neurologist who has a talent for diagnosing these types of conditions with limited information (e.g., no access to an MRI). They were of the opinion that Biden’s clinical picture was consistent with vascular dementia (which Biden was at risk for due to his existing medical conditions and likewise something the COVID vaccine worsens).
One point my colleague emphasized was that Biden had a stuttering disorder which has significantly worsened during his presidency and that one of the most common types of strokes frequently damage the part of the brain responsible for speech (which in turn can create a stuttering disorder) but that a progressive loss of cerebral blood flow (e.g., that seen in vascular dementia), can also cause this, especially if there is pre-existing brain damage (e.g., Biden’s existing stuttering disorder). Furthermore, in the same way that an increasing loss of blood flow can exacerbate existing brain damage, a loss of sleep (which is extremely common in a stressful job like the presidency) can as well.
Biden’s Debate
I believe Biden’s poor performance was due to him both having had his cognitive impairment continue to progress and the fact that the nighttime schedule of the debate made it impossible for his team to chose a period of high lucidity for Biden to speak to the public.
During the debate, the following jumped out at me (and many others).
1. Biden repeated overt falsehoods with certainty.
For example, early in the debate he asserted that Trump had told people to inject bleach into themselves, when Trump had in fact discussed ultraviolet light—and most of media has now acknowledged Trump never said this. In my eyes, the most important thing about this was that Biden appeared to sincerely believe most of what he said.
2. Biden repeatedly showed his disgust for both Trump and his supporters (e.g., those present on January 6th). I found this concerning because history is rife with cognitively impaired tyrants who treated their subjects unfairly due to their own (often petty) delusions.
3. Biden rarely blinked.
4. Biden’s face appeared to be mostly frozen. This is a classic symptom of Parkinson’s and also something which can resulted from a vaccine injury where a series of microstrokes can damage the facial nerve (which was corroborated by his face being asymmetrical and his smile being extremely asymmetrical).
5. Biden often seemed to stare into space for long periods of time, and in numerous cases struggled to come up with a coherent answer when it was his turn to speak (e.g., you could see on his face he was making an effort to think, or halfway through something he said he would close his eyes and pause for a while).
6. Biden missed many important points he needed to raise for his base (e.g., when talking about abortion, rather than hit the important points, he talked about the epidemic of sister-on-sister rape).
7. He had very limited mobility in his hands (e.g., he slowly raised them to make a point and then rarely moved them while he was doing so).
8. When the debate ended, he needed to have his wife help him walk off stage.
More than anything else however, he seemed to be in pain, unhealthy and really struggling through the debate. This seemed to be the primary takeaway people from both political parties took from the debate (e.g., Democrats panicked and felt demoralized, liberal pundits were in shock, and many moderates said this debate felt like elder abuse).
My own takeaway was that prior to the debates, many pundits had relentlessly promoted the message Biden was not cognitively impaired to the point that rather than them simply lying, it seemed as though they had developed a mass formation where they genuinely believed this. Because of this, there were many instances of individuals appearing to panic as their hypnosis broke and they realized that was all hogwash. In turn, the primary reason I watched the post-debate coverage is because it’s fairly rare to see a mass red-pill like this occur and the shock which coincides with it.
Note: because of how unhealthy our culture is, it’s fairly unusual for individuals over 70, let alone 80, to have normal cognitive function. In turn, since so much responsibility is placed on our leaders for positions (which require a high degree of cognitive aptitude) many have argued for putting age or term limits on our leaders—especially since people should not be making policies that will not affect them (as they will be dead once they go into effect).
Pfizer’s Fraud
Once people become strongly committed to an idea, it is remarkably difficult to get them to admit they are wrong — especially since as time progresses, they continually build upon the mental investment within their minds to their position and create mental construct after construct which is dependent upon the position being true.
In turn, I typically see one of the following break their hypnosis:
• Clear and unambiguous evidence that they were wrong being broadcast to everyone (e.g., what happened last night with the debate).
• Them directly being harmed by the lie (e.g., a pro-vax doctor getting vaccine injured). Curiously, in many cases I’ve seen people still hold onto their lie when their children are victimized by it (e.g., in addition to Representative Casten losing his daughter, I’ve seen pro-vax doctors who had multiple members of their family suffer severe vaccine injuries but still insist the COVID vaccines are necessary for their patients).
• Them realizing they were a victim of fraud. I believe the fraud angle is persuasive because it shifts the burden from them to the fraudster and hence protects their ego. Because of this, I’ve repeatedly focused on trying to prove that Pfizer committed overt fraud, as I believe once individuals become aware of it, it will make them willing to change their position (e.g., previously I discussed how Pfizer faked the data it sent to the drug regulators which indicated their vaccine was producing the proteins it was supposed to create within the body — which was a major challenge facing this experimental gene therapy).
Recently the Kansas Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Pfizer alleging that they repeatedly and systematically committed fraud with the vaccines. The key points from it were as follows:
1. Pfizer used its confidentiality agreements with the U.S. Government and others to conceal, suppress, and omit material facts relating to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, including the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
2. Pfizer used an extended study timeline to conceal critical data – the study was repeatedly delayed, including a delay from January 2023 to February 2024 because of a late vaccination of a single study participant (out of 44,000 participants). Likewise, Pfizer promised to make its data available to researchers but never did so.
3. The FDA did not immediately make the safety and efficacy data for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine available, claiming it would take 55 years, but a federal judge forced them to release 55,000 pages per month rather than 500.
4. Pfizer destroyed the vaccine control group once the FDA approved emergency use authorization in December 2020 (ultimately only 7% of the placebo group did not receive a vaccine).
Note: destroying the placebo group is a very common tactic used to conceal a high rate of injuries in a research trial.
5. In its press release announcing the emergency use authorization (EUA), Pfizer did not disclose that it had excluded immunocompromised individuals from its COVID-19 vaccine trials (whereas they later relentlessly pushed the vaccine on them).
6. Pfizer knew its COVID-19 vaccine was connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis.
7. By March 2021, the United States military and Israel’s Ministry of Health (which was working hand in hand with Pfizer) detected a safety signal for myocarditis the public was never notified about. Nonetheless, Pfizer’s CEO denied a link existed.
8. In August 2021, after Pfizer obtained FDA approval through an EUA to provide its COVID-19 vaccine to 12 to 15-year-olds, Pfizer decided to study “how often” its vaccine may cause myocarditis or pericarditis in children by testing 5-16-year-olds for troponin I. Once a safety signal was detected, Pfizer’s CEO nonetheless denied it.
9. Pfizer also detected a safety signal relating to strokes. The FDA’s and CDC’s “surveillance system flagged a possible link between the new Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine and strokes in people aged 65 and over,” while an FDA study found that individuals 85 years or older who received both a flu vaccine and Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine “saw a 20% increase in the risk of ischemic stroke.”
Note: one of the original names for the vaccine was the “clot shot.”
10. Pfizer did not release the data within its adverse event database—which as of February 2021 included 158,893 adverse events and 1,223 deaths. Furthermore, Pfizer was so overwhelmed with the adverse events, they had to hire hundreds (if not thousands) of staffers to process logging those adverse events (and nonetheless had a massive backlog). Despite this, Pfizer determined no causality existed between the vaccine and any of those injuries.
11. Pfizer only tested the booster shot on 12 trial participants who were in the 65- to 85-year-old age range and did not test it on any participant older than 85.
Note: Biden is 81.
12. Pfizer did not publicly release adverse event data from its database. By February 28, 2021, Pfizer’s adverse events database contained 158,893 adverse events from 42,086 case reports, including 1,223 fatalities, although Pfizer again did not make causality findings. Pfizer was receiving so many adverse events reports that it had to hire 600 additional full-time staff and expected to hire more than 1,800 additional resources by June 2021. Pfizer had such a backlog of adverse events that it might take 90 days to code “nonserious cases” that pfizer did not know the magnitude of under-reporting.
13. Pfizer announced a study on pregnant women but omitted the fact that more than one in ten women (52) who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine during their pregnancy reported a miscarriage, many within days of vaccination. Six women who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine during their pregnancy reported premature deliveries; several babies died.
14. Pfizer’s February 18th 2021, press release also did not disclose other adverse effects on the reproductive systems of women who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. By April 2022, Pfizer knew of tens of thousands of adverse events connected to its COVID-19 vaccine, including heavy menstrual bleeding (27,685), menstrual disorders (22,145), irregular periods (15,083), delayed periods (13,989), absence of periods (11,363) and other reproductive system effects.
15. Pfizer failed to recruit 83% of the women they had sought to study for their 4000 woman pregnancy trial, then destroyed the placebo group for the study, and still has not completed the quality control review process for it.
16. Pfizer misrepresented and concealed material facts relating to the durability of protection provided by its COVID-19 vaccine (until it was time to sell boosters).
17. Pfizer repeatedly said its COVID-19 vaccine would prevent transmission even though Pfizer knew it had never studied the effect of its vaccine on transmission. This point is important because Pfizer repeatedly gave very heavy-handed statements based on this lie (e.g., that you would kill your grandmother or endanger your community if you didn’t vaccinate) which in turn were used to justify Biden’s abhorrent mandates. Likewise, once clear evidence emerged the vaccine did not prevent transmission, Pfizer and the Biden administration continued to assert this lie to promote their product.
18. Pfizer aggressively utilized back channels to censor speech on social media that was critical of their vaccines—and likely did so in collusion with the Biden administration. The vast extent of this abhorrent conduct is contained within Alito’s dissent on the recent Supreme Court ruling relating to government censorship.
Note: the above summaries were sourced from Carl Henegahn and Kanekoa and then further modified by me.
Many learning of these points are understandably outraged. Sadly, as things like this are fairly common within the pharmaceutical industry, many of us assumed Pfizer’s talking points were lies from the start and hence are less shocked by these revelations.
Conclusion
Our country has been in an accelerating decline for decades, and I view the COVID-19 disaster as being a symptom of that decline rather than an isolated event. In turn, my hope is that as more and more shocking events happen, it can at last motivate the public and political class to begin taking things seriously and working together to fix the situation we are in rather than becoming even more polarized and simply doubling down on blaming the other side for everything that is going awry.
In the case of last night’s debate, the fact that we clearly had a cognitively impaired man struggling to lead the world’s greatest super power, beyond making waves within the United States, sends an even stronger message to the rest of the world that something is seriously wrong with America and it should no longer be treated as the sole superpower. My hope is thus that this sends a message to America’s political class that the current course we are going on is unacceptable and needs to change.
Likewise, my sincere hope is that members of the Democrat party will begin to be able to tie Biden’s “inexplicable” cognitive decline to the COVID vaccines, as many who have worked with him have noticed he is simply not the same person who assumed office four years ago, and more and more difficult to ignore signs are emerging that the Democrats made a huge mistake pushing the vaccines.
Because of this, if you have the ability to share this point within your social circle—particularly that the exact same thing happened to Dianne Feinstein (who liked Biden refused to acknowledge her impairment and instead had her staffers create a facade until she died), that would be greatly appreciated. The Democratic party is in a state of shock right now (which is when people are the most mutable), so I believe this is the best time to get that message to them.
Italian study showing a reduction in life expectancy with increased covid vaccination has been published
By Norman Fenton and Martin Neil | Where are the numbers? | June 30, 2024
In April 2024 we reported on – and analysed – an Italian study of vaccine effectiveness based on data sourced from the Italian National Healthcare System, from the province of Pescara, Italy, comprising just under one million people of all ages.
The paper describing the study has now been published in the journal Microorganisms as part of the Special Issue SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19: Infection Models, Therapeutics and Vaccines, Second Edition.
We believe this is an important paper. As we previously reported, what makes it especially interesting and exciting is that, unlike almost all observational studies of vaccine effectiveness and safety, it avoids two critical sources of bias – immortal time bias and ‘(Un)Healthy vaccinee effect’.
The study showed that, when health and age confounders are accounted for, the single and double doses of the vaccine have a detectable and negative effect on all cause mortality. We suspect that the results may even underestimate the negative effect of the vaccines because of likely vaccination status miscategorisation bias.
Given our own previous experiences of censorship and cancellation and also what happened to the recent Dutch paper that suggested the vaccines may have contributed to excess deaths, the question is: will this paper come under attack from the same pharma shills?
Journal Retracts Peer-Reviewed Study Linking COVID Vaccines to Cancer After Reuters ‘Fact Checks’ It
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 1, 2024
The journal Cureus last week retracted a Japanese study that found statistically significant increases in cancer mortality following COVID-19 vaccination, especially after the third COVID-19 shot.
The journal said on its website, “Upon post-publication review, it has been determined that the correlation between mortality rates and vaccination status cannot be proven with the data presented in this article.” This invalidated the results, prompting the retraction, the journal said.
Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., all-cause mortality researcher and former physics professor at the University of Ottawa in Canada, who also has published in Cureus, on X called the retraction “baseless.”
“Showing data in support of vaccine-induced cancer is not allowed: burn it,” he wrote.
EVIDENCE OF TURBO CANCER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED
Another baseless owned editorial “retraction” of a published peer-reviewed article at @CureusMedical
Showing data in support of vaccine-induced cancer is not allowed: Burn it.
Among other problems, this suggests a dubious “business… pic.twitter.com/M4SW4c2kS1— Denis Rancourt (@denisrancourt) June 27, 2024
Other scientists also expressed frustration with the retraction.
“Unfortunately, one more scientific study that challenges the established narrative gets retracted,” Panagis Polykretis, Ph.D., a researcher at Italy’s Institute of Applied Physics at the National Research Council said in an email shared with The Defender. “One more outrageous and unjustified example of censorship takes place!”
The study, published in April, analyzed official Japanese government statistics to compare age-adjusted cancer mortality rates during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022) with pre-pandemic rates.
The researchers found a 2.1% mortality increase in 2021 and a 9.6% increase In 2022.
They determined that age-adjusted death rates for leukemia, breast, pancreatic and lip/oral/pharyngeal cancers increased significantly in 2022 after a large portion of the Japanese population had received the third dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
Overall, they found no significant cancer-related excess mortality in 2020, but a 1.1% increase in 2021 after the rollout of the first and second vaccine doses, and a 2.1% increase in 2022.
Mortality for some cancers increased by as much as 9.7%, according to the study.
The paper also discussed possible mechanisms by which multiple mRNA vaccines could influence cancer rates and called for further research into the issue.
The findings suggested the vaccines may be accelerating cancer deaths in patients with preexisting tumors, according to John Campbell, Ph.D., who discussed the study on his YouTube show.
The paper went through a “rigorous peer review process,” according to Polykretis, who detailed the retraction saga on his Substack, before Cureus accepted the paper on April 8.
Less than a month after the paper’s publication, Reuters issued a “fact check” of a social media post that cited the paper. Reuters called the analysis “flawed” and said the study “assumes without evidence that vaccines are the cause of the cancer death rates they observe.”
The “Fact Check” article also stated the paper offered no proof of “turbo cancers” — a claim the study authors don’t make.
On June 12, Graham Parker-Finger, director of publishing for the Cureus Journal of Medical Science, notified the authors about concerns with their paper, citing the Reuters Fact Check, Polykretis reported.
An “expression of concern” was posted that same day and about a month later the journal retracted the article.
The article has been viewed over 287,000 times.
Polykretis asked, since when does a scientific journal’s editorial board judge scientific studies “on the basis of poorly written, not backed by scientific data and not peer-reviewed fact-checking” articles?
M. Nathaniel Mead is co-author of the first peer-reviewed paper to provide an extensive analysis of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine trial data and post-injection injuries. Mead, whose article also was printed and then retracted by Cureus, told The Defender this latest retraction was “unfortunate but also quite revealing.”
He said:
“The Gibo et al. retraction makes it official: Even though Cureus has now published many counter-establishment narrative papers related to adverse events, it is clearly ‘unsafe’ for any authors presenting papers that expose the likely mortality risk of these gene-based prodrugs.
“As you will recall, our comprehensive ‘Lessons Learned’ review and analysis also was heavily focused on the mortality aspect. So that’s where Springer-Nature seems to be drawing the line — after they accept the paper.
“Scientists seeking to publish on mortality-related aspects of the Covid mod mRNA injections obviously need to be extra cautious when considering their publishing options. These weaponized, predatory retractions will likely continue for as long as these products remain on the market.”
Dr. John Adler at Stanford University and Dr. Alexander Muacevic at the University of Munich Hospitals co-founded Cureus in 2009 as a web-based, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal with low-cost barriers to publication.
The academic publishing giant Springer Nature bought Cureus in December 2022.
Springer Nature is a publishing conglomerate founded in 2015 through a merger of Nature Publishing Group, Palgrave Macmillian, Macmillan Education and Springer Science+Business Media.
The publisher generated 1.8 billion euros in 2022, showing continuous year-over-year growth since 2020.
The Defender asked the editors at Cureus and Springer Nature to comment on the retraction and the allegations of censorship.
Parker-Finger responded, “Concerns were raised following publication, so we undertook a post-publication review, in line with good publishing practice, which led us to conclude that retraction was warranted for the reasons outlined in the retraction note.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
‘Stunning admissions’: White House pressured FDA to cut corners on COVID vaccine approvals in order to push mandates
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 28, 2024
The Biden administration pressured the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to “change its procedures, cut corners, and lower agency standards,” to approve Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines and authorize boosters, according to a congressional report released earlier this week.
The approval was key to facilitating the Biden administration’s rollout of the fall 2021 vaccine mandates, despite safety concerns about the shots, according to the report.
“During the pandemic, politics overruled science at the government institutions entrusted with protecting public health,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said in a press release announcing the report.
“The FDA abandoned its congressional directive to protect citizens from false claims and undisclosed side effects, and instead ignored its own rules to pursue a policy of promoting the vaccine while downplaying potential harms,” he added.
As a result, according to the report, “countless Americans” suffer from vaccine side effects and the FDA has lost credibility with the public.
Following the report’s release a U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee held a hearing Wednesday — “Follow the Science?: Oversight of the Biden Covid-19 Administrative State Response” — during which Dr. Philip Krause, former deputy director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review (OVRR) vaccine products provided evidence to support the report’s conclusions.
Krause testified that both he and OVRR Director Marion Gruber were relieved of their responsibilities overseeing the COVID-19 vaccines review process because the administration wanted to rush FDA approval on a faster timeline than their office could deliver and push forward the fall mandates, Vinay Prasad, M.D., MPH, reported.
The approval process was then pushed through by the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., and then-Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock.
Documents obtained by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) through a Freedom of Information Act Request also showed that in early 2021, both Marks and Woodcock were aware of injuries linked to the vaccines.
Krause testified that the original timeline to complete the review process for Pfizer’s Biologics License Application (BLA) for its mRNA COVID-19 product was January 2022, but the team was already shooting to have the process completed earlier.
In early July 2021, “something had happened to completely change the opinion of Drs. Marks and Woodcock regarding the urgency of completing the BLA review,” Krause testified. “It was so important to them that they did not trust the experts who led the Office of Vaccines to do it, even with their help,” he said.
Krause told the committee that on July 19, he and Gruber were taken off the review process and Marks took it over himself.
He added:
“In this meeting, Drs. Woodcock and Marks expressed concern about the rising number of COVID cases in the US and globally, largely caused by the Delta variant and stated their opinion that, absent a license, states cannot require mandatory vaccination and that people hesitant to get an EUA authorized vaccine would be more inclined to get immunized if the product were licensed.”
Marks informed staff that the goal was to complete the review as rapidly as possible, Krause said. Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine was licensed on Aug. 23, 2021.
“As predicted by Drs. Woodcock and Marks, vaccine mandates followed immediately afterwards and were announced the same day for DoD [U.S. Department of Defense] and for New York State,” Krause said.
He said that the speed with which the mandates were implemented following authorization, “suggested that the rapid review of the vaccine was motivated more by a desire to mandate vaccines than by other public health considerations.”
Given that mandates are outside of the FDA’s purview, he added, the fact that Marks and Woodcock cited the need for mandates as a reason to speed the review “strongly implies that pressure to complete the review” more rapidly than planned came from outside of the FDA, he added.
When Krause and Gruber tried to implement a slower and more deliberative process, they were demoted, Prasad wrote.
As a result, they both left the agency at the end of 2021.
Prasad noted the mandates were issued only after the administration knew the vaccine couldn’t stop transmission and “as such, the mandates were unethical.”
“Krause’s testimony shows the Biden administration engaged in inappropriate political tampering with the FDA, and the FDA leaders — Woodcock and Marks — folded to political pressure,” he added.
Woodcock, now retired from the FDA, has since expressed regret about not doing more to respond to the concerns of the vaccine-injured, telling The New York Times she is “disappointed” in herself
Marks is still at the FDA, where Prasad said he “has been doing a bad job,” recently authorizing a product from Sarepta Therapeutics despite a failed study and a negative decision from reviewers.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., independent presidential candidate and CHD’s chairman on leave, tweeted that Marks also made commercials for the vaccine, claiming it was safe and effective in pregnancy and for children. “Had Pfizer said that, it would have been a crime,” Kennedy said.
In his testimony, Krause also made a series of comments confirming early knowledge of myocarditis — with rates as high as 1 in 5,000 for young men in early studies — and the protection conferred by natural immunity.
He also said that he did not take a booster shot.
Chief Nerd called Krause’s comments “stunning admissions” and posted a video clip on X.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
‘Epic Waste of $500 Million’: Scientists Slam HHS Funding for ‘Next-Gen’ COVID Oral and Nasal Vaccine Trials
By John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | June 24, 2024
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced up to $500 million in funding for clinical trials of three next-generation COVID-19 vaccine candidates, including two nasal sprays and an oral pill.
The initiative, part of the $5 billion Project NextGen, aims to develop innovative vaccines that are easier to administer and provide improved protection against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The funding, awarded through the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) under HHS’ Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), will support Phase 2b clinical trials for Vaxart‘s oral pill vaccine (up to $453 million) and CyanVac’s (up to $40 million) and Castlevax’s ($34 million) intranasal vaccines.
Each company’s phase 2b trials will recruit 10,000 volunteers to compare the safety and efficacy of the investigational vaccine against the existing mRNA vaccines.
ASPR Assistant Secretary Dawn O’Connell said in a news release that the new vaccines “may … be easier to administer through intranasal or oral delivery.” The announcement suggests the delivery methods have the “potential to improve vaccine access.”
However, the new delivery methods also raise unique concerns, especially the nasal vaccines, which use modified viruses as vectors.
Vaccine researcher Jessica Rose, Ph.D., told The Defender that she’s concerned about vaccine shedding and the possibility of pharmaceutical companies aerosolizing their products and administering them “without public knowledge as part of a ‘vaccination’ run.”
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer, echoed Rose’s concern about potential vaccine shedding, calling it a “nightmare like other live-virus vaccine formulations.”
Hooker told The Defender that because COVID-19 mutates rapidly, “immunity will still wane precipitously” for the new vaccine candidates, just as it did with the existing mRNA vaccines.
The new vaccines are “just more ‘me too’ technologies that are late to the party for COVID-19,” he said.
UGA spins off nasal vax biotech firm
University of Georgia (UGA) vaccine development spinoff CyanVac (an affiliate of Blue Lake Biotechnology) is set to begin phase 2b clinical trials for a new nasal COVID-19 vaccine, CVXGA. The study will be conducted through BARDA’s clinical studies network.
CyanVac founder Dr. Biao He, chair of veterinary medicine at UGA, leads the team behind CVXGA. He served on a White House panel in July 2022 advising on the future of COVID-19 vaccines, where he specifically promoted nasal vaccines.
CVXGA is a Parainfluenza virus 5 (PIV5)-based vaccine that encodes the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2.
Formally known as simian virus 5, PIV5 is often referred to as canine parainfluenza virus in the veterinary field, where it is a contributing factor to kennel cough in dogs. PIV5-based vaccines have been used to prevent kennel cough, reportedly without any safety concerns.
“PIV5 is a novel intranasal vaccine vector that has been shown to replicate safely in humans in clinical trials and stimulates all three pillars of immunity — cellular, mucosal, and humoral — with minimal uncomfortable side effects,” Dr. He said in the company’s press release.
Rose cautioned that some studies (here, here and here) have associated PIV5 with human diseases such as Creutzfeldt‐Jakob disease and multiple sclerosis, but noted that later research was unable to confirm PIV5 as the cause. “More research needs to be done before this is used as a viral vector in humans,” she said.
Currently, there are no licensed vaccines for humans that contain PIV5. However, besides the CVGXA COVID-19 vaccine, PIV5 is under development for vaccines targeting various human and animal infectious diseases, including Lyme disease, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza, rabies, tuberculosis and MERS-CoV.
Castlevax promises ‘game-changing’ spike protein vax
BARDA provided Castlevax, in collaboration with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, $34 million for its phase 2b trial of its intranasal vaccine candidate CVAX-01 beginning in Q4 2024.
The company is projected to receive as much as $338 million from BARDA for its COVID-19 “booster” vaccine.
Castlevax calls its vaccine “a next-generation COVID-19 vaccine with game-changing potential” with a design that “holds spike protein firmly in pre-fusion conformation, leading to more efficient induction of neutralizing antibodies.” It promises to “deliver reduced rates of breakthrough infections.”
Its vaccine, NDV-HXP-S, uses a recombinant Newcastle disease virus (NDV) that expresses the spike protein. The spike protein has been modified to contain six mutations by the HexaPro (HXP) technology developed at a University of Texas (UT), Austin laboratory.
HXP promises to make the spike protein more stable compared to older mRNA vaccines, which only contain two mutations. “Human antibodies recognize and respond to Hexapro better since the spike protein is less prone to shifting shapes,” according to a UT lab researcher.
The vaccine is grown in chicken eggs, a method commonly used to produce flu vaccines.
Castlevax boasts of having “multiple COVID-19 products in Phase 2 through Emergency Use Authorization, while we’re simultaneously developing a bivalent mucosal RSV+HMPV [human metapneumovirus] vaccine and a mucosal Norovirus vaccine.”
Promises and dangers of nasal vaccines
Hooker noted that nasal vaccines can be effective. “Mucosal immunity provides defenses at the mucous membrane level through a type of antibody called secretory IgA [immunoglobin A] along with humoral IgG and IgM antibodies,” he said.
But he cautioned that due to the observed rapid mutation in SARS-CoV-2 variants, “Long-term efficacy will be nil” for these vaccines.
Live virus nasal vaccines have been used for flu for years, he said, suggesting these latest entries are “looking for entry into the ‘annual’ COVID-19 vaccination market opportunity.”
Rose pointed out that EcoHealth Alliance’s 2018 DEFUSE proposal to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) included a plan to aerosolize bat vaccines and deliver them at the mouths of caves in China.
“They hired an aerosol tech company to find the best way to administer their products,” she said.
When she saw this part of the proposal, Rose speculated the technique could readily be used to vaccinate people without their consent. “Given that everything they’ve done so far has been from questionable to illegal, I really have to wonder.”
Hooker added that the three BARDA-funded projects use live-virus vaccines that are “notoriously bad for pregnant women.”
Oral pill targets epithelial cells
Vaxart will receive up to $453 million from BARDA to develop an oral pill vaccine, which is also just entering phase 2b clinical trials.
“Vaccine delivery has relied primarily on injection for more than 150 years,” said Steven Lo, Vaxart’s CEO in the press release. “This funding from BARDA will assist us in determining whether we can bring a transformational, next-generation approach to global vaccination.”
Vaxart’s pill, VXA-CoV2-1, uses an adenovirus vector to infect epithelial cells in the lower small intestine. The vaccine delivers the genetic material to create the spike protein. The company boasts that a special coating allows the oral pill to survive the low pH in the stomach.
Adenovirus vaccines reportedly cannot make you sick, and cannot replicate or be integrated into the host body’s DNA.
Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) and AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccines also used adenovirus vectors.
The use of J&J’s vaccine was paused in April 2021 due to reports of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), a severe blood clotting disorder. In July 2021, the FDA warned about the risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome with the J&J vaccine after approximately 100 cases were reported among 12.8 million vaccine recipients. With existing doses of the J&J vaccine having expired in May 2023, the vaccine is no longer in use.
AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine also caused blood clots, resulting in temporary pauses in its use in several countries. With declining demand, it was also removed from the market in May 2023.
Trials set ‘a horribly low bar’
The two nasal and one oral vaccine candidates are all entering phase 2b trials where their safety and efficacy will be compared to the available FDA-approved mRNA vaccines.
Hooker said that this sets “a horribly low bar for comparison given that the ‘control’ group is now subjected to the vaccine that has the worst safety profile in history.”
He underscored that the mRNA vaccines offer “extremely limited and sometimes negative efficacy, and no utility in terms of prevention of transmission,” and argued that using them as comparators for the candidate vaccines would be next to useless.
“Basically, almost anything short of a vial of arsenic would perform comparably,” he said.
“Given the low morbidity/mortality of the currently circulating COVID-19 strains, this is an epic waste of $500 million,” he said. “Their ROI [return on investment] will essentially be a bunch of sick people with vaccine injuries.”
Rose said that long-term efficacy cannot be guaranteed “based on failure of maintained efficacy in COVID-19 product prototypes. This is precisely why they keep pushing ‘boosters.’”
Hooker also questioned the review and approval process for the new vaccines. He said:
“As far as independence, safeguards and transparency, those are now gone. Not because of this particular clinical trial entry, but because of the shamfest that FDA was and still is with the EUA [emergency use authorization] and approvals granted during the plandemic.
“All the tricks that they (Dr. Peter Marks and company) pulled like trying to prevent the release of clinical trial documents, approving without human trials, the joke that is CICP [Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program], etc., really spell death for any integrity in the approvals process.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
We Now Have Proof The COVID Vaccines Damage Cognition
Examining the causes and treatments of the common neurological injuries caused by vaccination
A MIDWESTERN DOCTOR | THE FORGOTTEN SIDE OF MEDICINE | JUNE 20, 2024
Story at a Glance:
• Subtle and overt neurological injuries are one of the most common results of a pharmaceutical injury.
• The COVID-19 vaccines excel at causing damage to cognition, and many of us have noticed both subtle and overt cognitive impairment following vaccination that relatively few people know how to address.
• For a long time, the hypothesis that the vaccines impaired cognition was “anecdotal” because it was based on individuals observing it in their peer group or patients.
• Recently large datasets emerged which show this phenomenon is very real and that the severe injuries we’ve seen from the vaccines (e.g., sudden death) are only the tip of the iceberg.
• In this article we will review the proof that vaccines are doing this and explore the mechanisms which allow it to happen so we can better understand how to treat it.
Note: I originally published this article a year ago. I am republishing it now because a robust dataset emerged which regrettably validates the hypothesis I put forward then.
When the COVID-19 vaccines were brought to market, due to their design I expected them to have safety issues, and I expected over the long term, a variety of chronic issues would be linked to them. This was because there were a variety of reasons to suspect they would cause autoimmune disorders, fertility issues and cancers—but for some reason (as shown by the Pfizer EMA leaks), the vaccines had been exempted from being appropriately tested for any of these issues prior to being given to humans.
Since all new drugs are required to receive that testing, I interpreted it to be a tacit admission it was known major issues would emerge in these areas, and that a decision was made that it was better to just not officially test any of them so there would be no data to show Pfizer “knew” the problems would develop and hence could claim plausible deniability. Sadly, since the time the vaccines entered the market, those three issues (especially autoimmunity) have become some of the most common severe events associated with the vaccines.
At the start of the vaccine rollout, there were four red flags to me:
• The early advertising campaigns for the vaccines mentioned that you would feel awful when you got the vaccine, but that was fine and a sign the vaccine was working. Even with vaccines that had a very high rate of adverse events (e.g., the HPV vaccine), I had never seen this messaging before. This signified it was likely the adverse event rate with the spike protein vaccines would be much higher than normal.
• Many of my colleagues who got the vaccine (since they were healthcare workers they were able to get it first) posted on social media about just how awful they felt after getting the vaccine. This was also something I had never seen with a previous vaccine. After some digging, I noticed those with the worst vaccine reactions typically had already had COVID and that their reaction was to the second shot rather than the first, signifying that some type of increased sensitization was occurring from repeated exposures to the spike protein. Likewise, the published clinical trial about Pfizer’s vaccine also showed adverse reactions were dramatically higher with the second rather than first shot.
• Once the vaccine became available to the general public, I immediately had patients start showing up with vaccine reactions, many of whom stated they received their flu shot each year and never had experienced something similar with a previous vaccination. One of the most concerning things were the pre-exacerbation of autoimmune diseases (e.g., spots in their body they previously would occasionally have arthritis in all felt like they were on fire). After I started looking into this I realized people were seeing between a 15-25% rate of new autoimmune disorders or exacerbations of existing autoimmune disorders developing after the vaccine, a massive increase I had never seen any previous vaccine cause.
Note: this was demonstrated by a February 2022 Israeli survey which showed 3% of vaccine recipients experienced a new autoimmune disorder and that 24% experienced an exacerbation of a pre-existing one, a rheumatologic database published in the BMJ that found 4.4% of recipients experienced an exacerbation of a pre-existing autoimmune disease, and a survey by a private physician of 566 patients which found vaccination spiked their inflammatory markers, causing their five year risk of a heart attack to go from 11% to 25%.
• About a month after the vaccines were available to the public, I started having friends and patients share that they’d known someone who had unexpectedly died suddenly after receiving the vaccine (typically from a heart attack, stroke, or a sudden aggressive case of COVID-19).
This was also extremely concerning to me, because reactions to a toxin typically distribute on a bell curve, with the severe ones being much rarer than the moderate ones. This meant that if that many severe reactions were occurring, what I could already see was only the tip of the iceberg and far, far more less obvious reactions were going to be happening, to the point it was likely many people I knew would end up experiencing complications from the vaccine.
Note: the above graph is only illustrating one aspect of the picture as there will also be a much larger number of minor reactions, and even more invisible ones (e.g., a symptom occurs years down the road) or no reaction at all.
I tried to warn my colleagues about the dangers of this vaccine, but even when I pointed out Pfizer’s own trial admitted the vaccine was more likely to harm than help you, no one would listen to me. Not being sure what else to do, but not be willing to do nothing, I decided to start documenting all the severe reactions I came across so I could have some type of “proof” to show my colleagues.
This was something that was extremely important at the time since no one was willing to take on the personal risk of publishing something that went against the narrative (that vaccines were killing people) in the peer reviewed literature. Shortly after Steve Kirsch kindly helped launch my Substack, I decided to post the log I’d put together, and since there was a critical need for that information (as many had seen the same things I’d observed but no one was reporting them), the post went viral and created much of the initial reader base that made my Substack possible.
It was immensely time consuming to do the project (especially the verification of each story that was reported to me), so I ended the project after a year. During that time, I came across 45 cases of either a death (these comprised the majority of the 45 cases), something I expected to be fatal later on (e.g., a metastatic cancer) or a permanent and total disability. Additionally, in line with the previously described bell curve, I also came across many more serious but not quite as severe injuries.
What I found remarkable about this was that through a passive reporting system in my own limited social network (I learned of these cases because people reached out to me or someone off-handedly shared them with me), I alone found enough cases of severe vaccine injuries to justify pulling the COVID-19 vaccines from the market, yet, our healthcare authorities, who had access to thousands of times as much data as I did chose to pretend nothing was happening. Furthermore, from my own dataset (due to it being large enough to contain all the common COVID vaccine injuries), I accurately predicted most of the vaccine injuries that would be subsequently seen and only now (years later) are gradually being acknowledged.
In turn, we are now seeing clear signs that excess mortality has spiked across the globe, large polls are finding that one fifth of Americans know someone they believe were killed by the vaccines and because so much trust has been lost from this cover up, public health authorities are at last admitting there may be a problem—but they didn’t say anything until now because they “didn’t want to create vaccine hesitancy,” which coincidently is the same excuse which has been used for decades (e.g., Dr. Meier, a distinguished professor called out this behavior after the government unleashed an easily preventable polio disaster in 1955.
Patterns of Vaccine Injury
I’ve had a long term interest in studying pharmaceutical injuries because many of my friends and relatives have had bad reactions to pharmaceuticals. In most of these cases, ample data existed to show that reaction could happen (often to the degree it strongly argued against the pharmaceutical remaining on the market) and yet almost no one in the medical field was aware of those dangers, hence leading to my injured friends never being warned before they took the pharmaceutical or even while the injury was occurring (e.g., the doctor said they’d never seen anyone have those reactions, that whatever was happening was due to anxiety, and that they would soon end — when in reality it became a lifelong condition because the patient didn’t stop the drug in time).
My bell curve theory originally came about from examining all of their cases. I thus was interested to know if the distribution of adverse events from the spike protein vaccines would match what I had observed with previous dangerous pharmaceuticals and if what I saw personally did or did not match what everyone was reporting online (which is part of why I put so much work into making sure the log was both accurate and detailed).
One of the things that immediately jumped out at me during that logging process were the multiple cases of a friend’s parent in a nursing home receiving the vaccine, immediately undergoing a rapid cognitive decline which was “diagnosed” as Alzheimer’s disease and then dying not long after. At the time, I assumed these were most likely due to undiagnosed ischemic strokes as that was the most plausible mechanism to describe what I’d heard, but I was not certain as I could never examine any of these individuals for signs a stroke had indeed happened.
Note: despite many deaths in the nursing home population due to COVID and the vaccines, the number of people awaiting admission to a nursing home has significantly increased (shown by this large data set from the Netherlands). Given that individuals typically do not want to go to a nursing home unless they are no longe able to take care of themselves, this suggests that something new is causing the rapid development of debilitating cognitive impairment (e.g., dementia) in the adult population. Likewise, as Ed Dowd has repeatedly documented, there has been a large increase in physical and cognitive disability throughout the adult population which has significantly impacted the economy because of how many workers are being lost to vaccine injuries.
Steve Kirsch was contacted by a whistleblower who reported there has been a 25 fold increase in sudden dementia at the nursing home where she works. Similarly, like the cases shared with me, Kirsch has noted that (like me) he has frequently been contacted by relatives who reported a sudden onset of dementia in their beloved relative which was then swept under the rug. Furthermore, he has also collected numerous other forms of evidence corroborating this is indeed happening. These cases are really sad because the elders in nursing homes have very little ability to advocate for themselves, and most people will just write the cases off as “Alzheimers,” rather than seeing the red flag staring them in the face.
These cases were very concerning to me, as they signified (per the bell curve) that there was going to be a much larger portion of people who would develop less severe cognitive decline following vaccination.
Note: one of the most common types of injuries from pharmaceuticals are neurological injuries which both impair cognitive function and create psychiatric symptoms. This places patients in a difficult situation of being gaslighted by the medical system. This is because their doctors assume the psychiatric symptoms the patients are experiencing are the cause of their illness rather than a symptom of it, leading to the patient being told the illness is all in their head and continually referred for psychiatric help. One of the best examples of this occurred as a result of the abnormal heart rhythms (e.g., rapid anxiety provoking palpitations) caused by the vaccine damaging the heart which were consistently diagnosed as being a result of anxiety, even when a subsequent workup I requested showed heart damage was present. Remarkably, in the early era of vaccines, many doctors (as detailed here) acknowledged that vaccines caused neurological injuries which manifested as psychiatric symptoms, but now that recognition has been almost completely forgotten.
As I began seeing more and more signs of cognitive impairment following vaccination, I realized that what I observed mirrored what I had previously seen with chronic inflammatory conditions such as mold toxicity, HPV vaccine injuries, and lyme disease. Some of the examples included:
• Many people reported having a “COVID” brain where it was just harder for them to think and remember things. I sometimes saw this occur after more severe cases of COVID, but more frequently after vaccination, along with many instance of patients who per their timeline clearly developed it from the vaccine but nonetheless believed it had come from COVID.
• These issues tended to be more likely to affect older adults, but younger ones were more likely to notice (and complain) about them. In the case of older adults, I typically learned about them from someone else who had observed the cognitive decline rather than directly from the individual.
• I saw numerous cases of vaccine injured individuals who had trouble remembering or recalling the word they knew expressed what they were trying to communicate (this is also a common mold toxicity symptom).
• I had friends and patients who told me their brain just didn’t work the same since they’d received the vaccine. As an example, a few colleagues told me they started losing the ability to remember basic things they needed to practice medicine (e.g., medication dosages for prescriptions). They shared that they were very worried they would need to take an early retirement and that they thought it came from the vaccine but there was no one they could talk to about it (which understandably created a lot of doubt and anxiety).
• I saw cases of coworkers demonstrating noticeable (and permanent) cognitive impairment after I’d assumed they’d received the vaccine. Their impairment was never mentioned or addressed (rather the physician kept on working, did not perform as well, and in some cases retired).
• I met significantly injured vaccine injured patients who told me one of the primary symptoms was a loss of cognitive functioning they had taken for granted throughout their life. In many cases following treatment of their vaccine injury, their cognition also improved.
• Colleagues who treated vaccine injured patients told me cognitive impairment was one of the common symptoms they saw and was particularly noteworthy because they had never seen anything like that happen to young adults. To quote Pierre Kory:
In my practice of treating vaccine injuries, one of the three most common symptoms I see is brain fog. So many of my patients had been in the prime of their lives, can now barely function, have significant cognitive impairment and need a lot of help from our nurses to carry out their treatment plans. I never imagined I would see any of this in people far younger than me and instead I see it every day. I bear witness to an immense amount of suffering on a daily basis that is hard to put into words.
• One of my friends (a very smart immunologist) developed complications from the first two vaccines and based on their symptoms was able to describe exactly which parts of their immune systems were becoming dysregulated. Against my advice, they took a booster and reported they suffered a significant cognitive impairment never experienced before in their lifetime. I feel this case was important to share as it illustrates how an exacerbation of a vaccine injury can also cause an exacerbation of cognitive symptoms.
Note: I also saw significant cognitive impairment occur in individuals who were acutely ill with COVID-19. This was not as unusual since delirium is a well known complication in patients hospitalized with a systemic illness (e.g., sepsis), but it seemed to happen more frequently than usual. However, in almost all cases, COVID-19 cognitive impairment resolved after their illness (even when they had been critically ill and required hospitalization) whereas the cognitive impairment I saw from the vaccines was often permanent (unless it was treated).
I specifically wanted to write this article for two reasons.
First, unless you’ve talked to a lot of people who have been through this, it’s really hard to describe what it’s like to gradually lose your mind and the basic cognitive function you relied upon to navigate the world—especially if everyone around you is telling you that it’s not happening and it’s all in your head. I wrote this article to give a voice to those people.
Second, despite Alzheimer’s disease being the mostly costly disease for America, most providers know fairly little about it and instead use it as a blanket diagnosis for anytime a patient shows signs of impaired cognition. This, I in turn would argue has been because there is minimal interest in understanding the causes (and treatments) of Alzheimer’s disease as there is so much more money in “research” for it and productive expensive (but useless and harmful) drugs for it.
Evidence of Cognitive Impairment
At the same time I was observing these effects, many rumors were also swirling around online that the vaccines would cause severe cognitive impairment and that we would witness a zombie apocalypse from the vaccine injuries.
This apocalypse of course never happened (which again illustrates why it is so important to be judicious with what one pronounces will come to pass—as our movement has repeatedly damaged its credibility by making easily outlandish and easily falsifiable predictions). Nonetheless, many have observed a suspicion cognitive impairment was occurring. For example to quote Igor Chudov’s article on the topic:
I own a small business and deal with many people and other small businesses. Most provided reliable service, would remember appointments, followed up on issues, and so on. I noticed that lately, some people have become less capable cognitively. They forget essential appointments, cannot concentrate, make crazy-stupid mistakes, and so on.
In my own case, in addition to poorly performing colleagues, the most evident change I noticed was a worsening of drivers around me and had quite a few near misses from impaired driving.
The great challenge with these situations is that it’s very hard to tell if something is actually happening or your perception is simply a product of confirmation bias. For this reason, while I was comfortable asserting my belief the COVID-19 vaccines were causing the severe injuries on either end of the bell curve, I avoided doing so for many of the less impactful injuries in the middle where it was much more ambiguous if what I was observing was “real” or simply my own biased perception of the events around me. Because of this, amongst other things, I never mentioned the changes in driving I observed.
Note: after I posted the original article many of the readers stated they too had observed a significant worsening in the behavior of drivers around them. I was then pointed to this dataset, which suggests this issue was happening, but is difficult to properly assess because COVID-19 can also cause cognitive impairment and less people were driving in 2020 and because the dataset still has not been updated since 2022.
Recently, Igor Chudov was able to identify another dataset from the Netherlands which further corroborated that we were indeed facing a massive cognitive decline:
Primary care data for January to March 2023 showed that adults visited their GP more frequently for a number of symptoms compared to the same period in 2019. Memory and concentration problems were significantly more common than last year and in the period before COVID-19. Where these symptoms are concerned, the difference compared to 2019 is growing steadily in each quarter.
In the first quarter of 2023, there was a 24% increase in GP [general practioner] visits related to memory and concentration problems among adults (age 25 years and older) compared to the same period in 2020. This is evidenced by the latest quarterly research update from the GOR Network. The increase in memory and concentration problems of adults seems to be a longer-term effect of the coronavirus measures as well as SARS-CoV-2 infections.
More specifically they found:
• No increase was observed in adults under 25 years old.
• A 31% increase was observed in those 24-44 years old.
• A 40% increase was observed in those 45-74 years old.
• An 18% increase was observed in those over 75 years old.
Note: previous rounds of this survey, in addition to the cognitive issues described above, found that since 2019, the general population has also experienced worsening mental health (e.g, anxiety, depression or suicidal thoughts), sleep problems, tiredness, and cardiovascular issues (e.g., shortness of breath, dizziness or heart palpitation).
Typically, patients, less than 75 years old are unlikely to visit their doctors for cognitive issues. Taken in context with this data, it means there is a stronger case that the (massive) increases in cognitive issue for those under 75 were caused by something that happened after 2019. Additionally, since there were already a large number of visits for cognitive impairment in the elderly, the lower percentage increase is slightly misleading in quantifying the extent to which everyone was affected. For example to quote the previous report:
Primary care data showed that adults visited their GP somewhat more frequently for sleep problems in October–December 2022 than in the same period in 2019. This was particularly striking in the oldest age group (75 years and older).
Note: poor sleep is one of the primary causes of cognitive impairment (or dementia) and sadly also commonly impaired after COVID-19 vaccination.
All of this data put health officials in a bit of an awkward situation since publishing data demonstrating large scale cognitive impairment directly undermines the narrative they previous had committed themselves to. Nonetheless, the authors of the report were significantly more candid than many others before them:
The source of this increase in memory and concentration problems is unclear. A possible explanation could be that COVID-19 measures caused accelerated cognitive decline among people who were starting to have problems with memory and concentration (66 years on average).
COVID-19 was of course cited as a potential cause (which, as discussed above can sometimes cause long term cognitive impairment):
A supplementary explanation could be that some of these people have long-term symptoms after COVID-19. Various studies have shown that memory and concentration problems are common in post-COVID symptoms. Other infectious diseases, such as flu, can also cause these symptoms. However, recent studies have shown that long-term memory and concentration problems are much more common after COVID-19 than after flu. In addition, these symptoms are more common in older age groups. The figures provided by GPs are consistent with this expectation.
Fortunately, the authors acknowledged that long COVID could not be the primary explanation for what was occurring, and instead alluded to the elephant in the room—the vaccines.
Finally, Ed Dowd has identified numerous government datasets demonstrating that widespread impairment and disability has occurred since the vaccine rollout. Likewise, VAERS detected a massive spike in cognitive issues being reported to it after the COVID vaccines hit the market.
Note: one of the key components of the COVID-19 vaccine push was to make it politically incorrect to raise any data-based objections to the vaccines, and thereby stifle any inconvenient discussions of the topic which would have exposed how dangerous these products were. Because of this, I repeatedly heard stories (like this one) of liberals (including famous ones) who had severe vaccine injuries but could not discuss them with their peers, as doing so meant being outcasted from their social group and being cut off from job opportunities, in effect placing them in a similar position to where gay men were in the early 1980s (as coming out often meant being ex-communicated by many close to you). Fortunately, things are now changing (as there are too many injuries to hide) and we are beginning to see more and more prominent individuals “come out of the closet” and admit they were vaccine injured.
Data Transparency
Making decisions has always been difficult and history is rife with catastrophic errors made by individuals who got it wrong. Because of this, a variety of solutions have been developed over the years (e.g., having a committee go through a process to decide something as it is unusual to have a leader who excels at making excellent decisions), all of which have serious short comings.
In recent years, we’ve had a push for data to become the means to making decisions. On one level, I think this is an excellent approach. For example in sales and the internet (which is where I suspect much of the push for data originated from), large amounts of data are used on a daily basis and constantly used to refine how a marketing campaign internet platform is set up so that it can maximize profits.
However, in many cases (e.g., those outside of business and sales), that same incentive to optimally utilize the data and adjust what’s being done due to the data does not exist. Because of this, while we have a large emphasis on gathering data, most of it is never utilized. For example, in medicine, we force our healthcare workers to do an immense amount of data entry, yet, we never combo the electronic health records to determine which drugs are unsafe or ineffective (which is very easy to do). I would argue this is because the healthcare system receives so much unconditional money they have no incentive to produce better results and because the pharmaceutical industry receives so much money for toxic drugs, it has every incentive to keep them on the market.
In order to enshrine this paradigm, industry had to both create the mythology that data should both be viewed as the ultimate authority we must all be subservient to, but simultaneously not be something that is publicly available. This in turn was done by arguing that data was “costly proprietary information and intellectual property must be protected” or that it “contained personal health information which could not ethically be disclosed to protect the patients.”
In turn, science has very much become us being expected to trust the team of “experts” who analyze a dataset, and not surprisingly, this process lends itself to corruption.
For example, the only publicly available vaccine injury database VAERS, exists because activists forced it to be required by law, and ever since it was made, the government (along with the medical establishment and the media) has done everything it can to undermine VAERS (discussed further here). Because VAERS reputation had been sullied, for the COVID vaccines, a new monitoring system, V-Safe, which was designed to address the short comings of VAERS was created. However, before long, activists discovered that V-safe did not allow the majority of adverse reactions to be reported in it, and furthermore would not make the data available for outside analysis. Instead, we were given access to a Lancet publication which concluded that:
Safety data from more than 298 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered in the first 6 months of the US vaccination programme show that most reported adverse events were mild and short in duration.
Reports of seeking medical care after mRNA vaccine were “rare”… Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations; however, these events are rare. Vaccines are the most effective tool to prevent serious COVID-19 disease outcomes and the benefits of immunisation in preventing serious morbidity and mortality strongly favour vaccination.
Through lawsuits, activists were eventually able to obtain the V-safe data where they then discovered the above study had lied and there were a lot of serious issues within that database. For example, the above article claimed 0.8-1.0% of vaccine recipients required medical care, whereas the raw V-safe data show 7.7% did—on average 2.7 times, which meant that every 4.8 vaccinations caused one medical visit.
Likewise, throughout the pandemic, we had almost all of the scientific journals refuse to publish anything which challenged the narrative (e.g., I’ve been in touch with numerous teams that have run into an endless number of roadblocks to publish contrarian data). Yet, simultaneously, those journals were willing to contort the existing (poor quality) data as much as possible if that supported the narrative (e.g., Pierre Kory has shown how multiple studies whose data demonstrated ivermectin benefitted patients concluded ivermectin was useless and then widely promoted for having debunked ivermectin).
Similarly, Deborah Birx and Anthony Fauci were essentially responsible for the disastrous COVID-19 response (e.g., useless but harmful mass testing, masking and lockdowns), as both within the White House and in the (fawning) media, they relentlessly and successfully pushed for those approaches regardless of how much protest they met. As both news clips and eye witnesses testimonies showed, Fauci and Birx constantly used “the data” to justify their their approach (e.g., when challenged, Birx would often say “I’m all about the data” while Fauci always cited “the data” whenever he advocated for a policy on national television).
However, Scott Atlas (who was with them on the White House COVID-19 task force) discovered that they both never presented scientific papers to the task force, lacked the ability to critically evaluate scientific research, they did not understand basic medical terminology, they would make patently absurd and non-sensical interpretations of their data, and adamantly refused to consider any of the data which challenged their narratives. In many cases, what he witnessed was so absurd he likened it to being in the Mad Hatter’s tea party from Alice and Wonderland, whereas I felt it was a real life version of this iconic Whitehouse scene from Idiocracy.
Because of the widespread lack of data transparency, a few different approaches exist.
First many (e.g., Drs. Peter Gøtzsche and Malcolm Kendrick) have gradually become experts in “data forensics” and being able to identify the tricks the pharmaceutical industry uses to doctor research so that the data always ends up supporting the sponsor’s desired conclusion. What I personally find depressing about this is that a fairly repetitive playbook is used to doctor studies, but the top medical journals consistently turn a blind eye to this, always publish that deceptive research, and in most cases refuse to correct it once the public points out the fraud.
Second, many (e.g., Steve Kirsch) argue that if data is not made publicly available, one must assume it’s incriminating and the data’s owners are lying about what’s in it (e.g., that the COVID vaccines are safe and effective). For example, for decades activists have been trying to get access to the data from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (as it has the information which could definitively say if vaccines are safe or effective) but they’ve had no success—which in turn suggests that database is full of incriminating information for the vaccine program. Likewise, given the disconnect between what I was seeing with COVID-19 vaccine injuries and what the government was reporting (the only message we ever heard was “safe and effective!”) it was clear to me the government had very bad data and had made the decision to do whatever could be done to cover it up—a prediction which sadly has continued to hold true.
Third, we have to rely upon publicly available datasets which happened to capture the effects of vaccination programs (e.g., the one which tracks annual disability rates in the USA registered a huge spike after the COVID-19 vaccines hit the market). Unfortunately, while these clearly show that an issue exists which needs to be investigated, they do not definitively prove causality, and hence are often dismissed on that basis (much like VAERS is).
Fourth, we have to rely upon whistleblowers. Unfortunately, when this happens, the national government typically targets them for violating “patient confidentiality.” For instance, when a New Zealand whistleblower released fully anonymized data showing the vaccines were killing people, his government charged him with crimes carrying a maximum seven year prison sentence.
Note: the most recent example of government persecution of whistleblowers happened in Texas, where in February 2022, Texas’s government declared providing gender transitions to minors constituted child abuse, and June 2023, outlawed it. In response to this, in March of 2022, one of the largest Children’s hospitals in Texas (and where Peter Hotez exerts a significant amount of influence) announced it would stop providing transgender hormonal therapies. This however was a lie, so in April 2023, a concerned surgeon who had previously worked at the hospital convinced the hospital to give him access to their medical records, and then leaked anonymized medical records demonstrating that the hospital was continuing these practices, as in his opinion, under Texas law, this was child abuse he was required to report. In response to this, the Biden administration (not Texas) charged him with four felonies which carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, which is very different from how other HIPPA violations have been handled. Likewise, more recently, after another nurse at the hospital exposed that the hospital was committing Medicaid fraud by billing for transgender care but labeling it as something else (as Texas’s Medicaid program does not permit for those practices to be reimbursed), after which the FBI was sent to interrogate (and likely intimidate) the nurse.
All of this hence leaves us in a very disorienting position—how do we know who to trust? In turn, I would argue one of the largest reasons so many people trust the audacious lies the government tells us is because the alternative (not knowing who or what to trust) is arguably even worse.
In my own case, I’ve developed a very simple rule for navigating the scientific literature (and many other sources of information as well).
Step 1. Determine the biases and conflicts of interest of the publication source (e.g., most medical journals and their editors take a lot of money from the pharmaceutical industry and hence do not want to upset their sponsors—an issue we sadly also see in the mainstream media).
Step 2. Determine if the conclusion of a published study agrees with, challenges, or is relatively neutral to it’s publisher’s bias.
Step 3 Use this formula:
• Agrees with publisher—high likelihood the study is wrong and it’s probably not worth your time to look into it.
• Disagrees with publisher—high likelihood the study is correct and that a very high bar had to be passed for it to be published (along with significant pressure being exerted behind the scenes).
• Relatively neutral for the publisher—you can take the paper at face value when you analyze its methods and conclusions to see if they had a reasonable way to derive their conclusion. Additionally, while the most prestigious medical journals are corrupt, this category is the one area they shine in and often ensure high standards were met for publication.
South Korea’s Data
In November 2023 and March 2024, some very interesting data emerged from a team of South Korean researchers where they looked at the electronic health records for a quarter and then half of the population in Seoul (2.2 million for the first study and then 4.3 million for the second) and then compared the rates of a variety of new (non-serious) medical conditions in those vaccinated and unvaccinated over three months. From this, they found a variety of medical conditions had a significant increase in the vaccinated. Those increases were as follows (with a range existing depending on how long after vaccination they were compared and which COVID vaccines they received).
This was essentially a dataset we had been trying to get for over 2 years and it matched what we’d seen (e.g., many of these conditions such as shingles and alopecia [hair loss] appear to be strongly linked to vaccination). In turn, it both demonstrated that the vaccines were causing massive harm to society as millions of Americans suffer from these diseases and hence millions more developed them.
Unfortunately, after I analyzed them, I realized it was not appropriate for me to discuss them here as they were pre-prints rather than published articles, which either meant that they had fraudulent data (as it was quite extraordinary they got access to this data) or they were too politically incorrect for any journal to want to publish. While I felt the latter was much more likely, I was not sure which is was, so I avoided publishing that article (which was hard to do given how much time I’d put into it) as I did not want to fall into the trap of promoting something because it promoted my pre-existing biases and then misleading the audience here.
Note: if for some reason these studies disappear I have included the pre-prints below.
We hence tried to reach the authors (no success) and I patiently waited for the articles to leave the preprint server (which has still not happened).
However, recently. three other studies were published by the same team using the same dataset. The first one, (also from March 2024) analyzed the increase of ten common autoimmune disorders (autoimmune hepatitis, ankylosing spondylitis, hashimoto thyroiditis, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, primary biliary cholangitis, rheumatoid arthritis, graves, vitiligo, lupus).
This one stated only vitiligo was increased (by 174%), so it seemed plausible to me it could have been published, as it made a token admission the vaccines were bad (as they had a rare side effect from a disease most people don’t know about). Then, when I looked at the data, I noticed a few of the other conditions appeared to have also increased. In turn, since those increases weren’t mentioned in the article, I took that as a sign the article was deliberately omitting incriminating information from its conclusion so it could make it to publication (this happens a lot). Additionally, I was surprised the authors did not evaluate for polymyalgia rheumatica, as this seems to be one of the autoimmune disorders most distinctively associated with vaccination.
That article made me more confident the initial results were real—however since it was published in an obscure journal, I reserved judgement on it. Recently however, two very important ones came out.
Two weeks ago, the first was published in Nature (one of the top medical journals). It found that COVID vaccination resulted in a 68% increase in depression, a 44% increase in anxiety, dissociative, stress-related, and somatoform disorders, a 93.4% increase in sleep disorders, a 77% decrease in schizophrenia, and a 32.8% decrease in bipolar disorder. I was really surprised to see this be published, and took it as a sign there may have been a decision made to begin disclosing some of the harms of vaccination in the official medical literature. Additionally, I took this as an indication that this was an indirect admission neurologic issues also followed vaccination (due to the strong link between neurologic and psychiatric symptoms).
Note: the previously mentioned Israeli survey found that 4.5% of those who received a vaccine developed anxiety or depression, and 26.4% who already had either experienced an exacerbation of it.
Around the same time (three weeks ago) another article was published in a mainstream journal (or to be more exact “accepted for publication”). It analyzed individuals over 65 and found COVID vaccination increased the risk of mild cognitive impairment 138% and the risk of Alzheimer’s by 23%, and a smaller increase in vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease the authors did not deem to be significant.
To put this in context, given that America spends over 300 billion dollars per year on Alzheimer’s disease, this single datapoint effectively means that the COVID vaccines cost the United States around 100 billion dollars. Additionally, as the authors only tracked the difference over 3 months (and it increased over time as these are both progressive diseases), the actual cost is likely greater, especially given that the elderly keep on receiving boosters. Likewise, it also makes a very strong argument for anyone who believes the vaccines damaged their cognition that this indeed happened.
Why Are The Vaccines Causing Cognitive Impairment?
My specific interest in studying spike protein vaccine toxicity arose because I suspected I would see many similarities to other pharmaceutical injuries I had observed previously and treatments that had developed for those injuries could be used to treat COVID-19 vaccine injuries. On Substack, I’ve tried to focus on explaining the areas that I believe are the most important to understanding this, zeta-potential, the cell danger response (CDR) and the treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. Note: Each of these is interrelated with and often causes the others.
Zeta Potential: Zeta potential (explained in detail here) governs if fluid in the body clumps together (e.g., forming a clot) or remains dispersed and capable of freely flowing. Additionally, it also influences if proteins will stay in their correct formation or misfold and clump together (with Alzheimer’s disease being characterized by misfolded proteins in the brain). Many different issues (discussed here) emerge when fluid circulation (be it blood, lymph, interstitial fluid or cerebrospinal fluid) becomes impaired. Since the spike protein is uniquely suited for impairing zeta potential, we have found restoring zeta potential (discussed here) often is immensely helpful during COVID-19 infections and for treating COVID-19 vaccine injuries. Many of those approaches in turn were initially developed from working with other vaccine injuries and cognitive decline in the elderly.
Note: the spike protein also has a prion forming domain, and many believe its responsible for the highly unusual amyloid (fibrous) blood clots seen in COVID-19 victims. Additionally, the COVID vaccines have been linked to extremely rare (and fatal) protein misfolding disorders such as the rapid dementia caused by CJD (discussed further here).
Cell Danger Response (CDR): When cells are exposed to a threat, their mitochondria shift from producing energy for the cell to a protective mode where the cell’s metabolism and internal growth shuts down, the mitochondria release reactive oxygen species to kill potential invaders, the cell warns other cells to enter the CDR and the cell seals off and disconnects itself from the body. The CDR (explained further here) is an essential process for cellular survival, but frequently in chronic illness, cells become stuck in it rather than allowing the healing response to complete.
Note: one common cause of impaired cognition are neurons becoming stuck in the CDR and hence not performing their cognitive tasks.
Understanding the CDR is extremely important when working with complex illnesses because it explains why triggers from long ago can cause an inexplicable illness, and why many treatments that seem appropriate (specifically those that treat a symptom of the CDR rather than the cause of it) either don’t help or worsen the patient’s condition. Many of the most challenging patients seen by integrative practitioners are those trapped within the CDR, but unfortunately, there is still very little knowledge of this phenomenon.
My interest was drawn back to the CDR after I realized that one of the most effective treatments for long COVID and COVID-19 vaccine injuries was one that systemically treated the CDR. Since many of the therapies that have been developed to revive nonfunctional tissue was developed by the regenerative medical field, I wrote an article describing how these approaches are applied to restore localized regions of dysfunctional tissue (which is sometimes needed to treat vaccine injuries) and another on the regenerative treatments that treat systemic CDRs (and are more frequently needed for vaccine injuries).
Alzheimer’s Disease (AD): since AD is one of the most costly disease in America, billions of dollars are spent each year in researching a cure for it. This research (which began in 1906) has had a very narrow focus on removing amyloid from the brain, and since the production of amyloid is a protective response from the brain, the decades of work to remove it have gone nowhere. Nonetheless, the FDA is presently working hand in hand with the drug industry to push forward ineffective, quite dangerous but highly profitable treatments for AD.
Remarkably, effective treatments do exist for AD and my colleagues have developed a few different methods that have successfully treated the condition. Additionally, one neurologist, Dale Bredesen developed a method for reversing AD that he proved worked in mulitiple publications (included a recent 2022 clinical trial)—something which no one else has done, but remarkably has been almost completely ignored by the neurological field.
All of these successful approaches utilize the following principles:
• Restore both the blood flow to the brain and the lymphatic drainage from it (which safely removes amyloid plaques). This often requires restoring the physiologic zeta potential and having a healthy sleep cycle. Additionally, AD is commonly linked to damage to the lining of the brain’s blood vessels, which is unfortunate because one of the most frequent toxicities of the spike protein is injury to the blood vessels (which has been shown in many autopsies—including within the brain).
• Treating the CDR (which causes chronic inflammation) and reactivating brain cells that became trapped in an unresolved CDR (which amongst other things requires reclaiming a healthy sleep cycle, providing the nutrients the brain needs to sustain itself, and mitigating the damage of neurotoxins like inhaled anesthetics).
Note: Bresden’s approach also emphasizes the importance of addressing chronically elevated blood sugar or insulin levels.
One of the most important things to recognize about AD is that it is a slowly worsening disease which often progresses over decades. In the early stages of AD (where it is the most reversible), minor cognitive changes occur, which (when possible to autopsy) correlate with tissue changes within the brain. In rarer instances, individuals can instead have a rapidly progressing form of Alzheimer’s (e.g., from Lyme) which strikes at a younger age and is often linked to the toxin exposure. Given how quickly the increase in AD appeared in both the patients I know and this dataset, I suspect it’s very likely the mechanisms behind the rapidly progressing forms of AD play a key role in the cognitive impairment and dementia we are seeing from these vaccines.
Conclusion
Many of the most successful people I know are willing to go against a crowd and act in spite of being afraid (e.g., they resisted the peer pressure to get the vaccine because they felt it was a good idea). Likewise, rather than looking to an authoritative source for advice, they tend to create preliminary assessments of what’s going on based on the limited data that’s available to them, and then act on it rather than waiting for a clear and definitive answer (or at least a safe one) to present itself.
In turn, as I’ve gotten to know many of the prominent dissidents in this movement, I’ve found they all had those traits in common (which likewise many of my extraordinary medical mentors did as well). For example, Steve Kirsch used this capacity to become a successful Silicon Valley entrepreneur. When the vaccines came out, he “trusted the science,” and immediately got one, but before long noticed numerous people he knew had had severe injuries from them, and rather than be in denial about it, recognized that chain of injuries was statistically impossible, began digging into it, realized the existing data showed we had a huge problem, and then began speaking out on it despite the fact much of the (left wing) peer group he’d belonged to for decades disowned him for doing so.
In my own case, for the COVID vaccines, I had initially come in with expectation (which formed as the virus broke out in Wuhan) that whatever “emergency” vaccine was pushed for it would have significant issues and the adverse events would be by and large covered up by the government (or only “discovered” years down the line). In turn, I concluded it was far more preferable for me to feel confident I could treat the infection when I eventually got it and develop natural immunity than it was to take a risk with the vaccines.
However, once I began seeing a high number of red flags the moment the vaccines hit the market, I realized that I had made a big miscalculation and these things were incredibly dangerous so I needed to shift my focus to preventing people from being harmed by them.
Furthermore, I took the bell curve theory into account and assumed that if I was seeing occasional deaths or severe cognitive degeneration following vaccination, it was likely that far more cases of cognitive impairment were occurring, and as this recent Korean study shows, that is indeed the case.
It is thus both quite tragic and remarkable that we now have a leadership which has so little accountability to produce quality results that things like the basic scientific process (which helped our country become one of the most powerful nations in history) is being completely disregarded and replaced with a dogmatic system which refuses to consider basic data points which more and more are proving themselves to be immensely costly to our nation.
Everything we are seeing now was incredibly predictable and represented a systemic failure in our system and a profound societal decline that must be reversed if we want our nation to be something which continues to provide the basic things we have taken for granted from it for most of our lives. I am especially worried as prior to COVID-19, our society was already struggling to reverse this decline, and since that time, we’ve been hit by a wave of cognitive impairment which can only further diminish our ability to address this.
Autopsy Study Linking COVID Shots to Deaths Finally Published, After Lancet Removed It
‘Unprecedented Censorship’
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 25, 2024
A systematic review of autopsy-related literature following COVID-19 vaccination found that 73.9% of the 325 deaths were linked to the shots, suggesting “a high likelihood of a causal link” between the shots and death.
The review, published on June 21 in the peer-reviewed journal Forensic Science International, was first posted on July 5, 2023, on The Lancet preprint server, SSRN, an open access research platform.
However, Preprints with The Lancet removed the study from the server within 24 hours, “because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology,” according to a statement on the SSRN page, The Daily Sceptic reported.
The paper had been viewed over 100,000 times.
Authors submitting papers to Lancet journals for review post their work to the SSRN to make it publicly available while it undergoes peer review.
University of Michigan researcher Nicolas Hulscher authored the study, along with Dr. William Makis, Peter A. McCullough, M.D., MPH, and several of their colleagues at The Wellness Company.
The authors said autopsies should be performed on all deceased people who have received one or more COVID-19 vaccines and that vaccinated people should be clinically monitored for at least one year following vaccination. They called for further research into the issue.
McCullough told The Defender :
“Our study faced unprecedented censorship from the Lancet SSRN preprint server and was taken down after massive downloads by concerned physicians and scientists across the globe.
“Lancet did not want the world to know that among deaths that were autopsied after COVID-19 vaccination, independent adjudication found that the vaccine was the cause of death in 73.9% of cases.
“The most common fatal vaccine syndromes were myocarditis and blood clots. Investigative journalists should probe Lancet to uncover who was behind unethical suppression of critical clinical information to the public.”
Makis announced the publication of the “Lancet censored” paper on X last week.
McCullough also noted the project was approved through the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health and used a standard scientific methodology to evaluate the studies for inclusion in the review.
The authors subsequently posted on the Zenodo preprint server, while the review underwent peer review at Forensic Science International. It was downloaded over 125,000 times.
Preprint servers were established to address inefficiencies in academic publishing. The peer-review process typically takes months or more, delaying the real-time sharing of scientific findings with the public.
Also, many journals are proprietary and can only be accessed through expensive personal or institutional subscriptions.
Preprint servers offer a location for scientific reports and papers to be available to the public while the paper goes through peer review — making scientific findings available immediately and for free and opening them up to broader public debate.
There is no peer-review process for preprints, although there is a vetting process.
Preprint servers are intended to be neutral and to post all research conducted with a clearly explained and reproducible methodology, according to Vinay Prasad, M.D., MPH, who reported last year that his COVID-19-related work was subject to similar censorship.
Thirty-eight percent of Prasad’s own lab’s submissions to preprint servers were rejected or removed — even though those same articles eventually were published in journals and extensively downloaded.
Preprint servers have become “gatekeepers” for what science gets published, Prasad said.
When The Lancet took down the paper, The Daily Sceptic’s Will Jones wrote that given the credentials of the authors, “It is hard to imagine that the methodology of their review was really so poor that it warranted removal at initial screening rather than being subject to full critical appraisal. It smacks instead of raw censorship of a paper that failed to toe the official line.”
The Lancet Preprints did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment.
Findings have wide-ranging implications
The authors searched the published literature archived in PubMed and ScienceDirect for all autopsy and necropsy — another word for autopsy — reports related to COVID-19 vaccination, where the death occurred after vaccination.
They screened out 562 duplicate studies among the 678 studies initially identified in their search. Other papers were removed because, for example, they lacked information about vaccination status.
Ultimately 44 papers containing 325 autopsies and one necropsy case were evaluated. Three physicians independently reviewed each case and adjudicated whether or not the COVID-19 shot was the direct cause or contributed significantly to the death reported.
They found 240 of the deaths (73.9%) were found to be “directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination” and the mean age for death was 70.4 years old.
Primary causes of death included sudden cardiac death, which happened in 35% of cases, pulmonary embolism and myocardial infarction, which occurred in 12.5% and 12% of the cases respectively.
Other causes included vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, myocarditis, multisystem inflammatory syndrome and cerebral hemorrhage.
Most deaths occurred within a week of the last shot.
The authors concluded that because the deaths were highly consistent with the known mechanisms for COVID-19 vaccine injury, it was highly likely the deaths were causally linked to the vaccine.
They said the findings “amplify” existing concerns about the vaccines, including those related to vaccine-induced myocarditis and myocardial infarction and the effects of the spike protein more broadly.
They also said the studies have implications for unanticipated deaths among vaccinated people with no previous illness. “We can infer that in such cases, death may have been caused by COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote.
The authors acknowledged some potential biases in the article.
First, they said, their conclusions from the autopsy findings are based on an evolving understanding of the vaccines, which are currently different from when the studies evaluated were published.
They also noted that systematic reviews have bias potential in general because of biases that may exist at the level of the individual papers and their acceptance into the peer-reviewed literature.
They said publication bias could have affected their results because the global push for mass vaccination has made investigators hesitant to report adverse events.
They also said their research did not account for confounding variables like concomitant illnesses, drug interactions and other factors that may have had a causal role in the reported deaths.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Featured Video
Stanislav Krapivnik: Massive Escalation – Attack on Putin’s Residence
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Truth and Public Policy in the Digital Age
The Kevin Barrett-Chomsky Dispute in Historical Perspective – 10th part of the series “9/11 and the Zionist Question”
Prof. Tony Hall | American Herald Tribune | August 9, 2016
… In Among The Truthers Kay repeats the core idea of The Volunteer: A Canadian’s Secret Life in the Mossad. As Kay would have it, 9/11 confirms the role of Israel as the West’s primary bulwark against Islamic savagery. In making this case Kay repeats the assertion of Benjamin Netanyahu that 9/11 was good for Israel.
Kay asserts, “Following the attacks supporters of Israel spoke of a silver lining. The war against militant Islam suddenly was a global one. Now the whole world would see and understand the sort of nihilistic hatred that Israelis confront every day.” As Kay sees it, Jews are being enlisted en masse to serve as primary soldiers in a war of civilizations.
He writes, “The Jew was the perfect anti-Islamist, whose zeal and reliability was hard-wired into his political DNA thanks to six decades of Israeli warfare against Islamic terrorists in the Middle East.” … Read full article
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Bill Francis on Did Netanyahu just ask Trump f… Rod on How Intelligence, Politics, an… papasha408 on Trump Says Hamas Will Be Given… papasha408 on Is Israel About to Return to G… Bill Francis on NSW Premier Admits New “Securi… Richard Ong on Israeli forces arrest writer a… Bill Francis on How reporting facts can now la… loongtip on Europe’s Panic Economy: Frozen… Gemma on Israel’s diamond industr… Bill Francis on Victoria Moves to Force Online… papasha408 on The Empire of Lies: How the BB… loongtip on US Weighs Port Restrictions on…
Aletho News- Did Netanyahu just ask Trump for another war — and get it?
- As Israel bans aid orgs in Gaza, notorious mercenary firm seeks “Targeter”
- The Bari Weiss Playbook: How a Zionist Operative Conquered American Media
- How Intelligence, Politics, and Foreign Interests Shaped America’s Religious Movements
- Welcome To 2026: Europe Laying Groundwork For Climate Science Censorship!
- The new German totalitarianism
- Stanislav Krapivnik: Massive Escalation – Attack on Putin’s Residence
- Gaza races to preserve what remains of its 5,000-year-old archaeological legacy
- Dayton At 30: US Betrayal Old And New
- UNRWA head slams ‘outrageous’ Israeli law to cut water, energy to agency’s facilities
- If Americans Knew
- Tikvah Fund Secures $10.4M Grant From Trump, Pushes for Censorship to Advance Zionism
- Did Netanyahu just ask Trump for another war — and get it?
- Israel suspends operations of multiple humanitarian organizations in Gaza, including Doctors Without Borders
- Cold kills another Palestinian baby in Gaza as Israel continues to block shelter aid
- AIPAC Is Retreating From Endorsements and Election Spending. It Won’t Give Up Its Influence.
- Gaza health officials report outbreaks of water-borne illnesses, flu – Not a ceasefire Day 82
- TCN Warns – “ISRAEL FIRST: U.S. May Attack Iran Again”
- Hamas calls on Israel to allow impartial investigation into 7 October attacks
- Indiegogo Withholds $51K In Donations From MintPress in Financial Censorship Crackdown
- Gaza races to preserve what remains of its 5,000-year-old archaeological legacy
- No Tricks Zone
- Welcome To 2026: Europe Laying Groundwork For Climate Science Censorship!
- New Study Finds A Higher Rate Of Global Warming From 1899-1940 Than From 1983-2024
- Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue Warns “Germany Won’t Make It” If Winter Turns Severe
- Merry Christmas Everybody!
- Two More New Studies Show The Southern Ocean And Antarctica Were Warmer In The 1970s
- Der Spiegel Caught Making Up Reports About Conservative America (Again)
- New Study: 8000 Years Ago Relative Sea Level Was 30 Meters Higher Than Today Across East Antarctica
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
Aletho News 