Barbara Loe Fisher’s commentary highlights the alarming erosion of freedom of thought, speech, and conscience, particularly in the context of informed consent and advocacy. Please take a moment to watch her message… (Scroll down past the donation request.)
By
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.
Our governments should be protecting our children, and independent studies into the vaccination program are long overdue. The reason they will not tackle this hot potato is purely financial: It could cost billions in compensation and could potentially bankrupt countries.
We are constantly told by our health authorities that childhood vaccinations help train young immune systems and that vaccinated children are healthier than unvaccinated.
How do governments know this? They don’t. It is pure supposition. They have no definitive proof because of a lack of double-blind placebo-controlled trials and no official vax versus unvaxxed studies.
But more than 100 official papers do exist and they do not support government assertions. Vaccinated children suffer higher levels of chronic illness and autoimmune disease than unvaccinated children.
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., is co-author of a book that looks at all those papers. He is professor emeritus of biology at Simpson University in Redding, California, and like most parents, he believed in childhood vaccination until his 15-month-old son was injured by three vaccines: diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTaP), oral polio and haemophilus influenzae type b (HIB).
“He had an ear infection at the time and should not have received the vaccines, but the doctor said it was fine,” said Hooker. “He lost eye contact, was unable to walk unaided and he never recovered.”
And yes, he did go on to get the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine because the doctors did not make the association between his son’s regression and the vaccines, and neither had Hooker. His son is now 25, non-verbal, has gastrointestinal problems, mitochondrial dysfunction and is diagnosed with autism. There is no cure.
For 25 years, Hooker, who also has a degree in chemical engineering, has campaigned for recognition of vaccine injury and thought he would get somewhere in 2014 after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) epidemiologist and senior researcher Dr. William Thompson sent him a study that showed a correlation between autism, the MMR and African American boys.
It was a study Thompson sat on for 10 years before it was released. It showed that African American children who received the MMR before they reached 36 months had 2.4 times greater odds of an autism diagnosis compared with children receiving the MMR after 36 months.
It should have been a huge red flag but had no major impact and was not widely reported in mainstream media, although President Donald Trump wanted to create a Vaccine Safety Commission to conduct these studies. However, he accepted $1 million from Pfizer for his inauguration and unsurprisingly, the Vaccine Safety Commission was shot down before it was even formed.
For 38 years, Dr. Anthony Fauci was head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He has been a barrier to vax vs unvaxxed studies and claimed that double-blind placebo-controlled vaccine trials that had been conducted contained all the evidence needed.
When challenged by lawyers Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (now running for president) and Aaron Siri in 2017, on behalf of Del Bigtree, the presenter and vaccine injury campaigner who created the Informed Consent Action Network, Fauci said he would send the evidence. It never materialized so they sent a legal demand.
On June 27, 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services admitted in writing that no such studies existed.
Many vaccines have long-term health impacts that do not become evident for years. In a 1999 interview, Fauci acknowledged that many severe injuries would remain hidden, and if the agency rushed vaccines to approval “then you find out that it takes 12 years for all hell to break loose, and then what have you done?”
American children receive 71 vaccination doses, and the heads of the vaccine program were unable to produce any double-blind placebo-controlled trial to support their safety.
The CDC says that 1 in 36 children has a diagnosis of autism and the numbers are similar in the U.K., but no one has identified a cause.
A shocking fact is that when vaccine manufacturers create a childhood vaccine, they do not use saline for the control group. They will either use a different vaccine, a different version of the vaccine they are testing or an adjuvant.
For example, neurotoxic, amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulphate, or AAHS, an adjuvant, was used as a control in the human papillomavirus (HPV) Gardasil trial with devastating results.
Governments justify this by saying that adverse events are only “one in a million.” This figure is quoted by all Western countries with vaccine programs but how have they come to it?
The U.S. government compares the number of vaccine injuries compensated by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program with the total number of vaccines given in the U.S. Most vaccine-injured people have no idea about the scheme and doctors rarely correlate vaccination injury to the onset of debilitating symptoms.
Most doctors deny it exists. In the U.K., people can apply to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, but most do not know about this either. The scheme is restrictive, a claimant must prove 60% disability caused by vaccines with a small one-off payment of 120,000 euros if successful.
The truth will always be out and Hooker and his friend RFK Jr. have found elusive, but official, vax vs unvaxxed publications hidden in the National Institutes of Health archive in the global research database PubMed.
Hooker said: “We have so far identified over 100 peer-reviewed articles from open, peer-reviewed, scientific, and medical literature.”
Here are the results from just two, but without fail the book’s studies show that vaccinated children fare worse when it comes to robust health. The numbers differ slightly, which is to be expected, but unvaccinated children are in the bottom percentile.
A particularly shocking finding in the following study is that no unvaccinated children suffer from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) compared with 5.3% of the vaccinated group.
The “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination” is by James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., president and CEO of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Dr. Paul Thomas, a pediatrician from Portland, Oregon, who was struck off because of the study, reinstated, then resigned due to restrictions on his terms of practice.
In this powerful paper, they took a unique approach to investigating the vax versus unvaxxed health differences of the children in Thomas’ medical practice. Rather than examining whether children had been diagnosed with the disorders studied, they compared the number of office visits associated with specific diagnoses in vax versus unvaxxed children.
Lyons-Weiler wrote: “Our measure, the Relative Incidence of Office Visits (RIOV), is sensitive to the severity of disease and disorder — specifically, the disease burden.”
RIOV also reflects the frequency of recurring diseases such as fever, ear infections and respiratory infections.
They compared 2,763 fully and partially vaccinated children with 561 unvaccinated children.
The vaccinated children had significantly more office visits associated with ear infections, conjunctivitis, breathing issues, anemia, eczema, behavioral issues, gastroenteritis, weight and eating disorders and respiratory infections than the unvaccinated children, although unvaccinated children experienced more chickenpox and pertussis (whooping cough).
Due to the meager rates of certain conditions in Thomas’ practice, such as developmental disorders, the researchers could not determine statistically significant differences between the two groups. However, the ADHD figures were significant, 5.3% vaccinated compared with zero unvaccinated.
The study was published in November 2020 in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health which then came under pressure to retract it, which it did.
The retraction statement included a brief, vague explanation: “Following publication, concerns were brought to the attention of the editorial office regarding the validity conclusions of the published research.”
Below are the graphs from the study.
The other example study considered in this article is Analysis of Health Outcomes in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children: Developmental Delays, Asthma, Ear Infections and Gastrointestinal Disorders conducted by Hooker and medical research journalist Neil Miller and published in the journal SAGE Open Medicine in 2020.
They examined the medical records from three different pediatric practices in the U.S. They followed 2,047 patients from birth to a minimum age of three years, and a maximum age of 12.5 years.
They divided the children into two groups: those who received any vaccines before their first birthday (69.1%) and those who did not (30.9%). The authors accounted for diagnoses only after a child’s first birthday to establish that vaccination preceded the first diagnosis of illness or disorder.
As shown in Figure 2.4, vaccinated children were diagnosed with developmental delays at 2.18 times greater odds, asthma at 4.49 times greater odds and ear infections at 2.13 times greater odds than unvaccinated children. These odds ratios were statistically significant.
Breastfeeding provided protection against a child developing asthma but not as much as for breastfed and unvaccinated babies. For example, unvaccinated babies who were bottle-fed were 5.4 times more likely to develop asthma than unvaccinated breastfed babies. Vaccinated and breastfed babies were 10.7 times more likely to develop asthma while vaccinated and bottle-fed babies were 23.8 times more likely to develop asthma.
Our governments should be protecting our children, and independent studies into the vaccination program are long overdue.
The reason they will not tackle this hot potato is purely financial: It could cost billions in compensation and could potentially bankrupt countries. So it is up to parents to ask questions, research and protect their children.
Read more in the new book “Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak” by RFK Jr. and Hooker.
Originally published by The Conservative Woman.
Sally Beck is a freelance journalist with 30 years of experience in writing for national newspapers and magazines. She has reported on vaccines since the controversy began with the MMR vaccine in 1998.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
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.
By
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.
While the first three parts of “COVID Unmasked” depict the brutality and cruelty we lived through during COVID-19, Part 4 is the antidote. It offers a vision for how we can break out of this downward spiral to tyranny.
Last week, I binge-watched CHD.TV’s premiere of “COVID Unmasked.” This four-part series is a must-see!
I am not a huge TV fan, but now that CHD.TV is on Roku (wow!), I settled down on my living room couch to watch all the episodes — and it was worth it!
The series picks out key highlights, clips and quotes from the COVID-19 nightmare with narration that sparkles with irony and sarcasm — such as when the film points out that not only was the coronavirus predicted decades ago, but even its origin from a “wet market” in China was “foretold.”
But the series isn’t just a chronicle. It delves deeply into some of the personalities behind COVID-19 — including Bill Gates — comparing Gates’ empire-building to that of John D. Rockefeller, who was perhaps the first modern-day globalist.
Part 2 of “COVID Unmasked” compares Nazi medical experiments with COVID-19 protocols. It explores the Nuremberg Code, which prohibits precisely what became commonplace during COVID-19 — compulsory medical experiments without informed consent.
The series shows us exactly what a confidence game like COVID-19 entails — providing scenes from movies where characters reveal how it’s done. A typical con starts with something reasonable, yet quickly moves the victim, almost unnoticeably, to a place that the person would never have tolerated at the beginning.
The COVID-19 con started with “just two weeks” and “just masks” and “just distancing” and then moved rapidly to truly extraordinary deprivations of freedom — ankle bracelets, anal swabbing, implanted microchips, infrared temperature scanning, robotic mask patrols in Japan, vaccine passports and quarantine camps.
Several clips depict Yuval Noah Harari, a key guru of “The Great Reset,” explaining that we humans are merely “hackable animals” whose free will does not exist. This episode ends with an extraordinary quotation from Aldous Huxley, author of “Brave New World.”
Although Huxley wrote the novel in 1932, he refined his thinking in 1961, including this prescient prediction, made during a speech to the Tavistock Group, at the California Medical School in Berkeley, California:
“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship with tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods.
“And this seems to be the final revolution.”
While the first three parts of “COVID Unmasked” depict the brutality and cruelty we lived through during COVID-19, Part 4 is the antidote. It offers a vision for how we can break out of this downward spiral to tyranny.
If you have time for only one episode, then start with Part 4 and work your way back.
Part 4 starts with a quotation from Jonathan Swift, author of “Gulliver’s Travels,” dated 1726:
“The disease to which the whole race of mankind is subject: the nobility contending for power, the people for liberty, and the King for absolute dominion.”
Although we no longer call our elites “nobility” nor our highest authority “King,” the premise applies as much today as it did 300 years ago: Our presidents and governors seek unbridled dominion, corporate and bureaucratic elites seek power, and “We the People” seek freedom.
This episode explores the power of U.S. county sheriffs, the officials with governmental power under the U.S. Constitution in more than 3,000 counties. I was delighted to see footage of sheriffs from Ohio, California, Arizona, Illinois, New York, Oregon, Texas and Michigan who calmly explained why they did not and would not enforce unconstitutional emergency orders, including mask mandates and lockdowns.
Part 4 also highlights footage from demonstrations in Europe where police joined with protestors, taking off helmets in solidarity. There are vignettes of parents standing up for their children at school board meetings, reviling mindless orders to mask young children.
Catherine Austin Fitts, publisher of “The Solari Report,” encapsulates the two competing visions at the end — the vision of human freedom endowed by our Creator as expressed in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence versus a technocratic vision of humans as natural resources or “hackable animals.”
The stark choice still lies ahead — to uphold our rights and bring law enforcement to our side or to succumb to despotism. The film depicts this choice in beautiful scenes from contact sports — basketball, soccer, hockey — athletes manifesting freedom contrasted with a COVID-19 vision made permanent: fear, isolation, separation and transhumanist degradation.
The four-part series is a wonderful achievement. I am grateful and proud that Steve Miller, its creator, invited CHD.TV to host the premiere.
If you’re like me, you’ll laugh, you’ll cry and you’ll cringe, but ultimately you will be inspired that if we stand together, we shall overcome.
Watch Part 1:
Watch Part 2:
Watch Part 3:
Watch Part 4:
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.
By
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.
A peer-reviewed study published Sept. 19 in The Lancet provides “pretty conclusive proof” that mRNA from the COVID-19 vaccines migrates into breast milk, according to internet lecturer John Campbell, Ph.D. — despite claims by regulators, public officials and doctors that the mRNA in the vaccine would stay localized at the injection site.
A new peer-reviewed study provides “pretty conclusive proof” that mRNA from the COVID-19 vaccines migrates into breast milk — “probably for the first 48 hours after vaccination,” according to internet lecturer John Campbell, Ph.D.
Campbell, a retired emergency room nurse, teacher and author of two nursing textbooks, reviewed the study, published Sept. 19 in The Lancet, in a video presentation.
According to the study, the breast milk of 10 of 13 women who took the vaccine tested positive for mRNA up to 45 hours after the vaccine was administered.
The study confirmed the transportation of the synthetic mRNA lipid nanoparticles to the mammary glands via the bloodstream or lymphatic system, leading to its presence in breast milk, Campbell said.
“This is consistent with other studies, so there’s no real debate about this anymore,” he added.
The study did not investigate the effects of the contaminated breast milk on infants, Campbell said.
A study last year in JAMA Pediatrics produced similar results.
Regulatory bodies failed to disclose risk
According to Campbell, regulators, public officials and doctors worldwide initially claimed the mRNA in the vaccine would stay localized at the injection site.
For example, mothers were reassured by the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine (ABM) in a statement released on Dec. 14, 2020, that the vaccine lipid was unlikely to enter the bloodstream and reach breast tissue.
“If it does, it is even less likely that either the intact nanoparticle or mRNA transfer into milk,” the ABM said.
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology had — and continues to promote — a similar message.
Referring to the lipid nanoparticles carrying the mRNA, Campbell said, “If these people had gone to the bother of talking to anyone who specializes in pharmacokinetics … they would have said, ‘Well, with this size particle, it’s … almost certain to be distributed everywhere.’”
“It goes to your liver. It goes to your heart,” he said. “In this case, through the breasts. … It probably goes everywhere. It’s a pity we weren’t told.”
Campbell said he was “pretty cross” because such a disclosure would have reversed his decision to get vaccinated.
He pointed out that in the initial trials, breastfeeding mothers, pregnant women and infants were excluded, “yet the regulatory body still decided to go ahead and give these vaccines [to these groups] which weren’t tested.”
“That’s a question they really need to answer,” he said.
mRNA ‘hijack[s] natural process of genetic communication’
Referring to an illustration provided in the study, Campbell said synthetic mRNA can “hijack the natural process of genetic communication.”
He described the mechanism of action this way:
Campbell emphasized that the only way the mRNA could get to the breast tissue would be if it were “systemically absorbed.”
mRNA vaccine manufacturing built on ‘completely flawed’ science
Speaking of other biodistribution studies, Campbell said the lipid nanoparticles could find their way to the myocardium, perhaps the vascular endothelium in the coronary vessels, creating an autoimmune response.
RNA from vaccines can produce antigens that stimulate inflammatory responses from cytotoxic T-cells. Even lipid nanoparticles can potentially cause inflammatory reactions, Campbell said.
The huge mRNA manufacturing efforts “are based on a completely flawed … fundamental scientific problem … until the liquid nanoparticle systemic distribution problem is solved,” Campbell said. “And yet, this massive investment is going ahead, looking to replace the traditional vaccines.”
According to Campbell, pharmaceutical companies are overlooking these problems because they will be able to develop new patentable products that ensure vast new income streams.
He emphasized the need for large-scale epidemiological surveys, conducted by organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, to gather more information about potential risks associated with the systemic distribution of the vaccines.
Campbell discussed the HT-29 cell line, derived from colon cancer tumors, that has been used in vitro since 1964 to study absorption, transport and secretion by intestinal cells.
The study exposed these cells to the mother’s milk, which failed to produce the spike protein. Campbell said this was inconclusive as they mimic only intestinal cells, not all other cells exposed to the mRNA.
Campbell also called for further research on the effect on newborns and for healthcare workers to have candid discussions with lactating mothers before vaccination.
Manufacturers should “give us really good reasons why lipid nanoparticles will not be systemically distributed in their new products,” Campbell said.
“Let us as a human race proceed with humility — although I don’t think there’s much chance of that,” he said.
Watch here:
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.
by Maryanne Demasi
“Buckhaults, who has a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology, said “there is a very real hazard” that these fragments of foreign DNA can insert themselves into a person’s own genome and become a “permanent fixture of the cell.”
by Amber Baker
“According to Johns Hopkins University, FDA officials have shied away from calling the latest mRNA shots “boosters.” The change in nomenclature reflects a collective approach to treating COVID similar to influenza, where everyone is encouraged to get an “annual flu shot” and now also get an annual “COVID shot” at the same time. Using the words “updated COVID vaccine” rather than “COVID booster” also emphasizes that recipients of the minimally-tested new shots aren’t just boosting existing immunity from the same previous shots, but rather a completely new immune response—from a completely new medical product—to the newly-circulating variants.”
VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show 1,447,520 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID-19 vaccines, including 31,696 deaths and 263,462 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and Oct. 21, 2022.
By
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,447,520 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Oct. 21, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
The data included a total of 31,696 reports of deaths and 263,462 serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period.
There were a total of 5,435 reports of adverse events following the new COVID-19 bivalent booster as of Oct. 21, 2022. The data included a total of 45 deaths and 280 serious injuries. As of Oct. 27, 22.8 million people have received the updated bivalent booster dose.
Of the 31,696 reported deaths, 20,252 cases are attributed to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, 8,599 cases to Moderna, 2,752 cases to Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and no cases yet reported for Novavax.
Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 887,564 adverse events, including 14,920 deaths and 92,482 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Oct. 21, 2022.
Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.
Of the 14,920 deaths reported as of Oct. 21, 7% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination and 15% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
In the U.S., 632 million COVID-19 vaccine doses had been administered as of Oct. 19, including 376 million doses of Pfizer, 238 million doses of Moderna and 19 million doses of J&J.
Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Oct. 21, 2022, for 6-month-olds to 5-year-olds show:
VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Oct. 21, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:
VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Oct. 21, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
According to the CDC, “VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public.”
VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Oct. 21, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.
CDC pressured FDA to authorize COVID boosters without clinical trials
The CDC pressured U.S. regulators to clear COVID-19 boosters without clinical trial data, according to emails obtained by Judicial Watch.
CDC officials relayed to counterparts at the FDA in early August 2021 that they wanted authorization for Moderna and Pfizer boosters, as data began showing that the vaccines weren’t working as well as initially promoted.
The conversation took place on a call that was described by Dr. Phil Krause, a top FDA official, to several other FDA workers. On that call, the CDC “evidently stated” they would assemble all the data they were aware of on third dosing in the immunocompromised setting and send it to the FDA in hopes they would authorize a third dose for those with compromised immune systems under Emergency Use Authorization.
All COVID-19 vaccines were authorized only for emergency use at that time. No boosters had been authorized and no clinical data were available for a third vaccine dose. Less than two weeks later, the FDA authorized boosters for certain people, including immunocompromised persons.
The agency said “a thorough review of the available data” concluded the group “may benefit” from a third dose. The only data cited on efficacy were from two studies, one conducted by French researchers and another by Canadian researchers. Pfizer and Moderna hadn’t completed any clinical trials.
FDA slow-walked studies on COVID vaccine safety signals in elderly
The FDA took more than a year to follow up on a potential increase in serious adverse events in elderly people who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, according to an investigative report published Tuesday by The BMJ.
According to The BMJ, in July 2021, the FDA “quietly disclosed” the findings of a potential increase in four types of serious adverse events in elderly people who had received a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: acute myocardial infarction, disseminated intravascular coagulation, immune thrombocytopenia, and pulmonary embolism.
The FDA disclosure lacked specific details, such as the magnitude of the increased potential risk, and the agency said it would “share further updates and information with the public as they become available.”
The FDA did not alert physicians or the public, via a press release or any other means, The BMJ investigator said.
Eighteen days later, the FDA published a study planning document that outlined a protocol for a follow-up epidemiological study for investigating the matter more thoroughly.
According to the BMJ, the recondite technical document disclosed the unadjusted risk ratio estimates originally found for the four serious adverse events, which ranged from 42% to 91% increased risk.
More than a year later, the status and results of the follow-up study are unknown. The BMJ report also alleged the FDA has not “publicly acknowledged other published observational studies or clinical trial reanalyses reporting compatible results.”
CDC knew COVID shots could cause myocarditis in young males months before telling the public
Two months after COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out to the U.S. public, a statistically significant vaccine safety signal for myocarditis in males ages 8 to 21 appeared in the CDC’s VAERS database, but CDC officials waited another three months before alerting the public, according to a new study.
The study, “Delayed Vigilance: A Comment on Myocarditis in Association with the COVID-19 Injections,” by Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., and Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., was published on Oct. 17 in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research.
In their study, Jablonowski and Hooker recorded and analyzed the increasing incidence of myocarditis as it progressively became a statistically significant “signal” in VAERS.
In an interview with The Defender, Hooker said the paper shows a “strong, statistically significant vaccine adverse event ‘signal’ for myocarditis in males 8 to 21 years of age was seen on the VAERS database as early as Feb. 19, 2021, just two months after the release of the COVID-19 vaccine to the U.S. public.”
Yet, instead of sounding the alarm, “CDC officials buried the connection between COVID-19 vaccination and myocarditis until May 27, 2021,” Hooker added. “By this date, over 50% of the eligible U.S. population had received at least one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.”
All age groups at higher risk of myocarditis death after COVID vaccines
People of all ages are at higher risk of death from heart inflammation after COVID-19 vaccination compared with the typical occurrence of myocarditis death, according to a new preprint study.
Researchers in Japan analyzed deaths caused by myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation, where the myocarditis set in within 28 days of vaccination. Thirty-eight deaths fit the definition, about half of which were diagnosed by autopsy and or biopsy, with the others being determined through tools such as blood tests and electrocardiograms.
Researchers then took the vaccinated mortality rate and compared it with the death from myocarditis rate from the general population before the pandemic, in the years 2017 to 2019.
Using data provided by the Japanese government, the researchers observed an increased myocarditis mortality rate ratio in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated population compared with the general population during the three years pre-COVID-19 pandemic era, especially in young adults.
An increased risk was also observed in the middle-aged (40s) and elderly vaccinated populations.
Even estimating the lowest level of the effect, the risk of COVID-19 vaccination on myocarditis death would be at least four times higher than the unadjusted mortality risk, the researchers said. There are also signs that some post-vaccination deaths aren’t reported properly, they added.
Recent studies identify new concerns related to COVID vaccines and organ transplants
Recent studies identified a new concern related to the failure of transplanted kidneys and other organs: COVID-19 vaccination.
In one study, published in September in Transplant Infectious Disease, researchers cataloged acute organ rejection within a week or two of COVID-19 vaccination in five individuals who had received kidney, liver or heart transplants six to 18 months earlier.
In August, Japanese researchers reported rejection of corneal grafts — which ordinarily have a high success rate — in COVID-19 vaccine recipients, occurring from one day to six weeks post-vaccination.
Noting literature that documents transplant rejection in association with other vaccines such as influenza, hepatitis B, tetanus and yellow fever, the Japanese authors expressed worry about what “the projected societal shift towards a more frequent vaccination schedule” portends for transplant recipients.
Concerns about the impact of COVID-19 jabs on people with existing transplants are important, but another pressing-yet-unaddressed issue is what happens when an unvaccinated person receives a transplanted organ from someone who received a COVID-19 vaccination.
Woman injured by Gardasil vaccine shares how COVID shots injured her mother and ended the life of her grandmother
In 2012, when she was 20 years old, Rochelle was so injured by Merck’s Gardasil vaccine that she had to give up her pre-med studies.
Ten years later, her mother was injured by Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, and shortly after, her grandmother died just a few weeks after getting her second dose of Pfizer’s vaccine.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Rochelle, now 30, shared her story, and her mother and grandmother’s stories. Rochelle told The Defender that her father, grandfather and brother all became doctors, and her mother, Marcia, was a nurse.
Rochelle’s mother received both doses of the Moderna vaccine in the spring of 2021. Adverse events followed soon after the first dose and she was diagnosed with polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR), which her doctor said was induced by the vaccine.
Marcia’s PMR “caused severe inflammation throughout her body,” leading to “spontaneous tendon ruptures and a lower back disc herniation,” said Rochelle. In addition, “she tore her thumb tendon just by moving her hand normally and required urgent surgery to repair it.”
Rochelle said her mother will need several surgeries for complete tendon tears in her shoulder, and may potentially need spine surgery to repair her herniated disc. She is also on medication and for a long time, could not perform basic tasks.
What happened to Rochelle after getting the Gardasil human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine, and her mother, Marcia, after getting the COVID-19 vaccine was bad enough — but not as bad as what happened to Rochelle’s grandmother. After receiving her second Pfizer vaccine, Jean lost her ability to communicate, her health declined severely and within a few weeks, she was dead.
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.
By Theresa Wrangham
“Many schools nationwide offer health services through school-based health centers (SBHC) to improve access to health care for underserved populations.1 These services may include vaccination. Parents and guardians have the right to be notified when SBHC services will be provided to a minor child.2”