Vaccine Mandate Dissenters Smeared

Vaccine Mandate Dissenters Smeared

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • October 4, 2021, Southwest Airlines sent an announcement to its employees informing them the airline is “required to comply with the government federal contractor mandate for employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19”
  • The following weekend, October 9 and 10, 2021, Southwest Airlines was forced to cancel some 1,800 flights. While some claim the cancellations were due to a coordinated “sickout” in protest of the vaccine mandate, Southwest Airlines blamed “disruptive weather” and “air traffic issues” for the cancellations
  • An estimated 50 to 60 NBA players remain unvaccinated. In a recent article, the Rolling Stone accuses me of capitalizing on players’ refusal to get the jab
  • Rolling Stone again relies on the propaganda narrative of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, despite Facebook having refuted the organization’s made-up claims
  • As of November 30, 2021, unvaccinated Canadians will be barred from planes and trains “to ensure a minority of people cannot sabotage Canada’s economic recovery” by spreading the virus and getting people sick. This despite the scientific fact that the COVID jab does not prevent infection or spread of the virus

October 4, 2021, Southwest Airlines sent an announcement to its employees informing them that “because Southwest Airlines is a federal contractor,” the airline is “required to comply with the government federal contractor mandate for employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.”1

The following weekend, October 9 and 10, 2021, the airline was forced to cancel some 1,800 flights. The reason for the mass cancelations remains unclear, however.

While some claim the cancellations were due to a coordinated “sickout” in protest of the vaccine mandate, Southwest Airlines blamed “disruptive weather” and “air traffic issues” for the cancellations. Curiously, bad weather did not have the same devastating effect on most other airlines. American Airlines, for example, which is much larger, cancelled just 63 flights that weekend.2

The pilots’ union also denied involvement, saying that “our pilots are not participating in any official or unofficial job actions.”3

The timing is interesting though. Friday October 8, 2021, Southwest’s pilot union asked a Dallas, Texas, court to temporarily block the vaccine mandate until its preexisting lawsuit4 against the company, filed August 30, 2021, is resolved. According to the pilot union’s legal filing:5

"The new vaccine mandate unlawfully imposes new conditions of employment and the new policy threatens termination of any pilot not fully vaccinated by December 8, 2021. Southwest Airlines' additional new and unilateral modification of the parties' collective bargaining agreement is in clear violation of the RLA [Railway Labor Act]."

While the mass cancellations of flights surely made life difficult for many people, coordinated walkouts appear to be the only way to make our voices heard. The COVID-19 shot is far from harmless, and any blood clotting issue would be a clear career killer for pilots and flight attendants. Pilots also aren’t allowed to fly when they report being fatigued, and fatigue is a very common side effect of the jab as well.

Interestingly, a few weeks ago, there was a report of a Delta pilot who had recently received his second dose of the COVID jab, who died during the flight. The plane was landed safely by the co-pilot. You can learn more details in the video below.

NBA Players Take a Stand

In related news, an estimated 50 to 60 NBA players have refused to take the COVID jab.6 Among them is Kyrie Irving, who is predicted to be sidelined from dozens of games during the 2021-2022 basketball season. As reported by USA Today:7

"New York City's vaccine mandate requires professional athletes playing in public arenas to be vaccinated against COVID-19, and Irving's vaccination status remains unclear. Now, for the first time, Nets coach Steve Nash is acknowledging that the team expects Irving to miss home games at Barclays Center due to the mandate.

'I think we recognize he's not playing home games,' Nash told reporters Sunday. 'We're going to have to for sure play without him this year. So it just depends on when, where and how much.'"

In early August 2021, the NBA Union had held its annual summer meeting online. One of the agenda items was whether the league office should mandate that 100% of players had to get the COVID jab. Across the board, those in attendance said such a mandate would be a “non-starter.” As reported by Rolling Stone magazine:8

" … unvaccinated players were pushing back. They made their case to the union summit: There should be testing this year, of course, just not during off-days. They'd mask up on the court and on the road, if they must. But no way would they agree to a mandatory jab. The vaccine deniers had set the agenda; the players agreed to take their demands for personal freedom to the NBA's negotiating table."

Rolling Stone also disparages Orlando Magic’s Jonathan Isaac, who has refused the COVID jab on religious grounds:

"When NBA players stated lining up for shots in March, Isaac started studying Black history … He learned about antibody resistance and came to distrust Dr. Anthony Fauci. He looked out for people who might die from the vaccine, and he put faith in God.

'At the end of the day, it's people,' Isaac says of the scientists developing vaccines, 'and you can't always put your trust completely in people.' Isaac considers un-vaxxed players to be vilified and bullied, and he thinks 'it's an injustice' to automatically make heroes out of vaccinated celebrities.'"9

Another player who has spoken out against the COVID jab mandate is Golden State Warriors Draymond Green, who during a September 30, 2021, press conference said he will not pressure other players to get vaccinated.10

He said he believes the vaccination issue has become a political issue. In the process, we’ve lost the notion that people’s personal medical decisions must be honored. He also noted that the pressure levied to force people into taking the jab is causing many to get suspicious. “Why are you pressing this so hard?” he said.

Rolling Stone Attacks Me

In another article,11 Rolling Stone reporter Matt Sullivan takes aim at yours truly, referring to me as “the anti-vax godfather.” The article appears to be an emergency response to a tweet in which I said that “NBA players are being very courageous to speak up.”12

“… consistently increased engagement on social posts in support of vaccine-denying athletes from accounts linked to what they call The Disinformation Dozen.

The nonprofit estimated in March that this group … accounted for 73 percent of all anti-vax content on Facebook; the social network responded by shutting down their main accounts and penalizing their other ones, but Silicon Valley’s Covid police haven’t stopped the anti-vaxxers from re-emerging to ally themselves with celebrities.

‘The Disinformation Dozen are sort of saying, ‘They’ve got Biden, we’ve got Kyrie Irving,’ and they’re trying to see if they can use it to access Black audiences, young audiences and basketball fans,’ says CCDH chief executive Imram [sic] Ahmed.

‘This cancer is seeking to replicate itself in another organ of society. The hope is that it can be contained and doesn’t metastasize from there. But the worst thing that can happen is for players to react to nonsense — if they’re wrong, the price is paid in life’ …

Dr. Joseph Mercola, who tops The Disinformation Dozen, tweeted his applause to more than 325,000 followers this week for Golden State Warriors superstar Draymond Green’s rant against vaccine mandates as ‘very courageous’ and for an appearance on Fox News by the Orlando Magic forward Jonathan Isaac — who told RS that he didn’t know why vaccinated people wear masks indoors — as ‘a refreshing voice of reason.’14

Facebook Has Refuted the CCDH Report

What Sullivan didn’t include was the fact that Facebook has publicly refuted the CCDH’s “Disinformation Dozen” report, stating that:15

“… these 12 people are responsible for about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all vaccine-related posts they’ve shared, whether true or false, as well as URLs associated with these people.

The report16 upon which the faulty narrative is based analyzed only a narrow set of 483 pieces of content over six weeks from only 30 groups, some of which are as small as 2,500 users.

They are in no way representative of the hundreds of millions of posts that people have shared about COVID-19 vaccines in the past months on Facebook.

Further, there is no explanation for how the organization behind the report identified the content they describe as ‘anti-vax’ or how they chose the 30 groups they included in their analysis. There is no justification for their claim that their data constitute a ‘representative sample’ of the content shared across our apps.”

Despite that, Sullivan continues to promote that CCDH report as “fact” and Imran as some sort of authority on who has the greatest influence on social media.

Are Naturally Immune ‘Antivax’?

Sullivan emailed me a few questions in preparation for that smear piece. Among those questions was whether I have “counseled any NBA players seeking information about the vaccine,” and “If so, how so?” Apparently, he believes I advise professional athletes, which I don’t.

He also wanted to know how I consider these sports influencers to be part of “my movement” or “my team,” and whether I believe Irving’s defiance of the New York City vaccine mandate would rally my supporters. Here’s my reply:

“Many of these athletes have had COVID themselves and the public health officials are reluctant to admit they are right. Natural immunity is better than any vaccine, which proves these mandates are not about immunity — they are about forced vaccination and control.

You’ve said the NBA is ‘relying on science’ in a previous article yet they are ignorant and lying about natural immunity — just as the federal government is doing. The mandates are not about immunity, they are about control and obedience. www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/15/natural-immunity-vaccine-mandate/

Individuals can think for themselves and should be allowed to do so, independent of pharmaceutical influence, employer mandates or political authoritarians. I believe that each person must fully educate themselves before engaging in any medical risk taking.

People are smarter than they are being given credit for, and everybody has their own unique circumstances to base their decisions on including biological vulnerabilities that can make vaccine risks greater for some people than others. twitter.com/ericspracklen/status/1445901692143390720?s=21

I applaud anyone who stands up against medical mandates which can negatively affect their lives. It takes courage to take on the attacks of the media and pharmaceutical interests and accept the consequences being forced upon them without their consent.

Many stadiums are packed with 80,000 people now, without any vaccine mandates and have embraced life beyond the ridiculous propaganda currently controlling in the media.”

It’s Not About Health, It’s About Control

As noted by Spencer Fernando,17 the idea that the COVID jab would be mandated and forced on people was rejected as loony conspiracy theory at the beginning of the pandemic. Ditto for vaccine passports. Yet here we are.

The pace toward tyranny is slower in the United States compared to some other countries, thanks to our Constitution, but President Biden’s attempt to dictate unconstitutional COVID injection mandates to private employers across the nation is evidence that the Constitution is routinely being overstepped even here. Some countries, like Canada and Australia, aren’t even pretending to hide the fact that it’s about social control anymore. As noted by Fernando:18

"Have you noticed how events in Canada have really moved in only one direction? Compliance at all costs. The trend has been clear: More and more control, more and more threats of punishment, and more and more demands for compliance."

As of November 30, 2021, unvaccinated Canadians will be barred from planes and trains” to ensure a minority of people cannot sabotage Canada’s economic recovery” by spreading the virus and getting people sick. But there’s a giant hole in this rationale.

A person with natural immunity is safer than anyone who has gotten the jab, because its more robust and provides wider protection against variants. The COVID shot does not prevent infection or spread of the virus.

If the goal were to prevent spread of the virus, then the only things that would make sense would be to prove you’re not infected or that you are immune. Proof of vaccination will have zero impact on the spread of the virus. You’ll just end up with a vaccinated population that spreads new mutations among themselves.

The Power of Natural Immunity

In a September 15, 2021, Washington Post article, Dr. Marty Makary, professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, stated:19

“It’s okay to have an incorrect scientific hypothesis. But when new data proves it wrong, you have to adapt. Unfortunately, many elected leaders and public health officials have held on far too long to the hypothesis that natural immunity offers unreliable protection against covid-19 — a contention that is being rapidly debunked by science.

More than 15 studies have demonstrated the power of immunity acquired by previously having the virus. A 700,000-person study from Israel two weeks ago found that those who had experienced prior infections were 27 times less likely to get a second symptomatic covid infection than those who were vaccinated.

This affirmed a June Cleveland Clinic study of health-care workers (who are often exposed to the virus), in which none who had previously tested positive for the coronavirus got reinfected.

The study authors concluded that ‘individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination.’ And in May, a Washington University study found that even a mild covid infection resulted in long-lasting immunity.

So, the emerging science suggests that natural immunity is as good as or better than vaccine-induced immunity. That’s why it’s so frustrating that the Biden administration has repeatedly argued that immunity conferred by vaccines is preferable to immunity caused by natural infection, as NIH director Francis Collins told Fox News host told Bret Baier a few weeks ago.

That rigid adherence to an outdated theory is also reflected in President Biden’s recent announcement that large companies must require their employees to get vaccinated or submit to regular testing, regardless of whether they previously had the virus.”

If You Don’t Take a Stand, Who Will?

Clearly, we’re not dealing with either logic, science or health. The effort to vaccinate the whole world, whether they need it or not, is about control and greed.

“Some have said that people have ‘gone crazy’ during this crisis,” Fernando writes.20 “However, I think the reality is that people have been revealed.

A large number of people (and nearly all politicians) have demonstrated that in a crisis they panic, lose any sense of proportion, are unable to think creatively, and double-down on the same failed approach over and over again.

Worse than that, they have shown that they would prefer to demonize and direct fear towards others, rather than seek to take responsibility for their own lives and their own health. Rather than seek control over themselves, they seek control over others.”

Many are now so locked into irrational fear, it’s virtually impossible to get them to look at data or facts. Meanwhile, the political class has grown obsessed with controlling everyone, and don’t want to see or hear anything that might undermine that aim.

As a result, those willing to defend freedom and individual rights appear to be a shrinking group. But no matter how small that group gets, we can never quit. As noted by Fernando:21

"… it's remnants that hold on to values in difficult moments, and provide the foundation from which those values are renewed and rebuilt. That's why we must continue to stand up against measures like the national vaccine passport, and stand up for our fellow citizens who are being demonized by our pathetic and failed leaders."

The question is how? How do we stand against the ever more draconian rules being thrown at us? For starters, we all need to stop making money for the authoritarians. That means not donating to political campaigns that support authoritarian leaders or buying products or using services provided by companies that in turn support the elimination of our rights.

Secondly, we need to get organized. If you work at a company that is threatening to implement mandatory vaccination, you could coordinate a “sickout,” where everyone calls out sick on the same days, or some other form of strike. You can also consider taking legal action.

In early September 2021, USCourts.gov posted a list of attorneys willing to take on vaccine injury cases and/or cases involving vaccine mandates. Since then, that webpage has been removed, but the list can still be found on Daily USA24.22 Legal counsel may also advise you on how to protect your communications.

Recommended Articles

13 reasons why you should not allow your child to get the Covid-19 Vaccine

13 reasons why you should not allow your child to get the Covid-19 Vaccine

At a press conference on Monday September 13th, the four Chief Medical Officer’s (CMO’s) of the United Kingdom advised the UK Government to offer the Pfizer vaccine to children aged between 12 and 15.

Around 3 million under-16s are due to be offered the jabs after Chris Whitty endorsed the move, claiming it may “help prevent outbreaks in classrooms and further disruptions to education this winter”.

Doses will be largely administered through the existing school vaccination programme and parental consent will be sought. But children will be able to overrule their parents’ decision in the case of a conflict if they are deemed mature and competent enough, which has rightly caused fury.

For a child to be competent enough to make the decision to have the vaccine they should be made aware of all the facts before they reach their decision, and the same can be said for parents who wish to consent to their child having the jab. So we’ve compiled 13 factual reasons why you should not allow your child to get the Covid-19 vaccine…

Reason No. 1
86% of Children suffered an Adverse Reaction to the Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccine in the Clinical Trial

The information is publicly available and contained within a US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) fact sheet which can be viewed here (see page 25, table 5 on-wards).

That fact sheet contains two tables that detail the alarming rate of side effects and damage experienced by 12 – 15- year-old children who were given at least one dose of the Pfizer mRNA injection.

The tables shows that 1,127 children were given one dose of the mRNA jab, but only 1,097 children received the second dose. This fact in itself raises questions as to why 30 children did not receive a second dose of the Pfizer jab.

Of the 1,127 children who received a first dose of the jab 86% experienced an adverse reaction. Of the 1,097 children who received a second dose of the jab 78.9% experienced an adverse reaction.

Reason No. 2
1 in 9 Children suffered a Severe Adverse Reaction leaving them unable to perform daily activities in the Pfizer Clinical Trial

For children 12 to 15 years of age, the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine clinical trial found the overall incidence of severe adverse events which left them unable to perform daily activities, during the two-month observation period to be 10.7%, or 1 in 9, in the vaccinated group and 1.9% in the unvaccinated group.

Consequently, children who received the vaccine had nearly six times the risk of a severe adverse event occurring in the two-month observation period compared to children who did not receive the vaccine. In addition, the incidence of Covid-19 in the unvaccinated group was 1.6%, therefore, there were almost seven times more severe adverse events observed in the vaccinated group than there were Covid-19 cases in the unvaccinated group.

This information is all freely available to see in official Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents and official Centre for Disease Control (CDC) documents.

Reason No. 3
Just 9 deaths associated with Covid-19 have occurred in Children since March 2020

Official NHS data which can be viewed here (see Table 3 – COVID-19 deaths by age group and pre-existing condition of the downloadable excel document) shows that since March 2020 just 9 people under the age of 19 have died with Covid-19 who had no known pre-existing conditions in England’s hospitals, up to the 26th August 2021. The data also shows that just 39 people under the age of 19 have died with Covid-19 in the same time frame who did have other serious underlying conditions.

There are approximately 15.6 million people aged 19 and under in the United Kingdom which means just 1 in every 410,526 children and teenagers have allegedly died with Covid-19 in 18 months who had other serious pre-existing conditions. Whilst just 1 in every 1.7 million children have allegedly died with Covid-19 in 18 months, who had no know pre-existing conditions.

A scientific study titled ‘Deaths in Children and Young People in England following SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first pandemic year: a national study using linked mandatory child death reporting data’ (which can be found here), conducted by Clare Smith of NHS England and Improvement and several Universities also concluded that children are at negligible risk of death, hospitalisation, or serious illness due to the alleged Covid-19 virus.

The study collated data from the National Child Mortality Database; a mandatory system that records all deaths in Children under 18 years of age in England. What the researchers found is that just 25 children under the age of 18 died of Covid-19 between March 2020 and February 2021, with 15 of the 25 having a pre-existing life-limiting condition, and 19 of the 25 having a chronic condition.

The study also found that 16 of the 25 children who sadly died had two or more comorbidities with 8 children suffering pre-existing neurological and respiratory problems, 3 children suffering pre-existing neurological and cardiology problems, and 3 children suffering respiratory and cardiology problems.

Reason No. 4
The risk of Children developing serious illness due to Covid-19 is extremely low

A study (found here) led by Professor Russell Viner of UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, published on the medRxiv server, found that 251 young people aged under 18 in England were admitted to intensive care with Covid-19 during the first year of the pandemic (until the end of February 2021).  

The results of the study found that there were 5,830 admissions associated with Covid-19 among children up to 17 years of age during the pandemic year, this represents just 1.3% of secondary care admissions among children.

The lead author of the study said: “These new studies show that the risks of severe illness or death from SARS-CoV-2 are extremely low in children and young people”.

Reason No. 5
The Pfizer Covid-19 Vaccine is experimental and still in Clinical Trials

The Pfizer mRNA Covid-19 injection is in fact only temporarily authorised (see official MHRA document here) for emergency use only. In October the government made changes to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 to allow the MHRA to grant temporary authorisation of a Covid-19 vaccine without needing to wait for the EMA.

A temporary use authorisation is valid for one year only and requires the pharmaceutical companies to complete specific obligations, such as ongoing or new studies. Once comprehensive data on the product have been obtained, standard marketing authorisation can be granted. This means that the manufacturer of the vaccine cannot be held liable for any injury or death that occurs due to their vaccine, unless it was due to a quality control issue.

The reason the Pfizer mRNA Covid-19 injection has only been granted temporary authorisation is because it is still in clinical trials that are not set to conclude until May 2nd 2023. You can see the official Clinical Trial Study Tracker for the Pfizer jab on the US National Library of Medicine site here.

This is the first time mRNA injections have ever been authorised for use in humans (see here), and the long term side effects are not known, meaning the millions of people around the world who have had the Pfizer Covid-19 injection are essentially taking part in an experiment.

Reason No. 6
Three Scientific Studies conducted by the UK Government, Oxford University, & CDC, which were published in August have found the Covid-19 Vaccines do not work

New research in multiple settings shows that the alleged Delta Covid-19 variant, the now dominant variant in the UK, produces very high viral loads which are just as high in the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated population. Therefore, vaccinating individuals does not stop or even slow the spread of the alleged dominant Delta Covid-19 variant.

CDC Study

The CDC study (found here) focused on 469 cases among Massachusetts residents who attended indoor and outdoor public gatherings over a two week period. The results found that 346 of the cases were among vaccinated residents with 74% of them presenting with alleged Covid-19 symptoms, and 1.2% being hospitalised. However, the remaining 123 cases were among the unvaccinated population with just 1 person being hospitalised (0.8%).

Oxford University Study

The Oxford University study (found hereexamined 900 hospital staff members in Vietnam who had been vaccinated with the Oxford / AstraZeneca viral vector injection between March and April 2021. The entire hospital staff tested negative for the Covid-19 virus in mid May 2021 however, the first case among the vaccinated staff members was discovered on June 11th.

All 900 hospital staff were then retested for the Covid-19 virus and 52 additional cases were identified immediately, forcing the hospital into lockdown. Over the next two weeks, 16 additional cases were identified.

The study found that 76% of the Covid-19 positive staff developed respiratory symptoms, with 3 staff members developing pneumonia and one staff member requiring three days of oxygen therapy. Peak viral loads among the fully vaccinated infected group were found to be 251 times higher than peak viral loads found among the staff in March – April 2020 when they were not vaccinated.

UK Department of Health & Social Care Study

The UK Department of Health & Social Care study (found here) is an analysis of ongoing population wide SARS-CoV-2 monitoring in the UK and includes measures of viral load among the population.

The study found that viral loads among the vaccinated and unvaccinated population are virtually the same, and much higher than had been recorded prior to the Covid-19 injection roll-out. The study also found that the majority of cases among the vaccinated population were presenting with symptoms when they became positive.

The authors of the study conclude that the Pfizer and Oxford / AstraZeneca injection have lost efficacy against what they claim to be the Delta Covid-19 variant.

Reason No. 7
Public Health England Data shows the majority of Covid-19 Deaths are among the Vaccinated and suggests that the Vaccines worsen disease

A report titled ‘SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England’ (found here – see Table 5 Page 21), is the 22nd technical briefing on alleged variants of concern in the United Kingdom published by Public Health England.

From February 1st 2021 up to August 29th 2021 nearly twice as many unvaccinated people account for confirmed cases of Covid-19 than those who are fully vaccinated.

However when you include the number to have received one dose of a Covid-19 injection the number of cases among the vaccinated group (222,693) actually surpasses the number that have been recorded among the unvaccinated population.

The total number of deaths to have occurred since February 2021 involving the Delta Covid-19 variant that have been linked to vaccination status total 1,698. Of these just 30% have been among the unvaccinated population, despite the fact most second vaccinations were administered between April and June.

Whereas the fully vaccinated account for 64.25% of Covid-19 deaths since February 2021, and when including the partly vaccinated in those numbers they account for 70%.

The data published by Public Health England actually suggests that the risk of death increases significantly in those who have been fully vaccinated.

536 deaths have occurred among 219,716 confirmed cases in the unvaccinated population since February. This is a case fatality rate of 0.2%. Whereas 1,091 deaths have occurred among 113,823 cases among the fully vaccinated population. This is a case fatality rate of 1%.

This means the Covid-19 injections seem to be increasing the risk of death due to Covid-19 by 400% rather than reducing the risk of death by 95% as claimed by the vaccine manufacturers, Public Health bodies, and the Government.

Reason No. 8
There have been at least 1.18 million Adverse Reactions to the Covid-19 Vaccines in the UK alone

The thirty-second report highlighting adverse reactions to the Pfizer / BioNTech, Oxford / AstraZeneca, and Moderna Covid-19 injections that have been reported to the UK Medicine Regulator’s (MHRA) Yellow Card scheme reveals that there have been 1,186,844 adverse reactions reported since the 9th December 2020 up to the 1st September 2021.

The reports for each available vaccine can be found here under the analysis print section and include adverse reactions such as blindness, seizure, stroke, paralysis, cardiac arrest and many other serious ailments.

The Pfizer mRNA injections has left at least 107 people fully paralysed and a number of other people partly paralysed up to the 1st September 2021. However, the MHRA state that an estimated 10% of adverse reactions are actually reported to the Yellow Card scheme, meaning the true figure of adverse reactions is immensely higher.

Reason No. 9
There have been more deaths in 8 months due to the Covid-19 Vaccines than there have been due to all other available Vaccines since the year 2001

The UK Medicine Regulator responded to a Freedom of Information (found here) request demanding to know how many deaths have occurred in the past 20 years due to all vaccines, and their response revealed that there have been four times as many deaths in just eight months due to the Covid-19 injections.

The request was made via email to the Medicine and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on the 6th August 2021, and in answer to the question asked on the number of deaths due to all other vaccines in the past twenty years, the MHRA revealed that they had received a total of 404 reported adverse reactions to all available vaccines (excluding the Covid-19 injections) associated with a fatal outcome between the 1st January 2001 and the 25th August 2021 – a time frame of 20 years and 8 months.

However, according to the MHRA Yellow Card Report (see here – under each analysis print section) there have been 1,632 deaths reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines from December 9th 2020 up to September 1st 2021. This includes 16 deaths due to the Moderna jab, 24 deaths where the brand of vaccine was unspecified, 1,064 deaths due to the AstraZeneca vaccine, and 524 deaths due to the Pfizer mRNA injection.

Reason No. 10
The risk of Myocarditis (Heart Inflammation) in Children due to the Pfizer Vaccine

Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle, whilst Pericarditis is inflammation of the protective sacs surrounding the heart. Both are serious conditions due to the fact the heart muscle cannot regenerate, and both conditions have officially been added to the safety labels of the Pfizer jab and Moderna jab by the MHRA (see here).

Myocarditis and pericarditis happen very rarely in the general (unvaccinated) population, and it is estimated that in the UK there are about 6 new cases of myocarditis per 100,000 patients per year and about 10 new cases of pericarditis per 100,000 patients per year.

The MHRA has undertaken a thorough review of both UK and international reports of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination against Covid-19 due to a recent increase in reporting of these events in particular with the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, with a consistent pattern of cases occurring more frequently in young males.

Scientific Study published on the JAMA network, has also found that the incidence of myocarditis among vaccinated individuals is at least double what Health Authorities are claiming.

The new JAMA study (found here) showed a similar pattern to a CDC study (found here), although at higher incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination, suggesting vaccine adverse event under-reporting.

The researchers calculated the average monthly number of cases of myocarditis or pericarditis during the pre-vaccine period of January 2019 through January 2021 was 16.9 compared with 27.3 during the vaccine period of February through May 2021.
The mean numbers of pericarditis cases during the same periods were 49.1 and 78.8.

Dr. George Diaz who conducted the study told Medscape that “Our study resulted in higher numbers of cases probably because we searched the EMR, and [also because] VAERS requires doctors to report suspected cases voluntarily,” Diaz told Medscape. Also, in the governments’ statistics, pericarditis and myocarditis were “lumped together”.

Reason No. 11
Children have died and are dying due to the Covid-19 Vaccines

The US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which can be searched here by inputting the specific VAERS ID shows that several children have died in the US after having the Covid-19 vaccine, with many suffering cardiac arrest.

A 16 year-old female received the Pfizer vaccine on the 19th March 2021. Nine days later the same female went into cardiac arrest at home. By the 30th March 2021 she had sadly died. Found under VAERS ID 1225942.

A 15 year-old female suffered cardiac arrest and ended up in intensive care four days after having the Moderna mRNA jab. She also sadly died. Found under VAERS ID 1187918.

Another 15 year-old female received her second dose of the Pfizer jab on the 6th June 2021. Sadly one day later she died suddenly without reason. Found under VAERS ID 1383620.

A 15 year-old male die due to an unexplained reason twenty-three days after having the Pfizer jab. Found under VAERS ID 1382906.

The above are sadly just a few examples of the deaths to have occurred among children due to the Covid-19 vaccines in the USA.

Reason No. 12
Who profits from your Child getting the Covid-19 Vaccine?

It may surprise you to know that GP’s were already being incentivised to inject the adult population with the Covid-19 vaccine with a payment of £12.58 for every dose administered.

So it may surprise you further to know that GP’s are being offered an additional payment of £10 on top of the £12.58 already offered for every injection administered to a child in the United Kingdom. All of this is documented in an official NHS document found here.

According to the last count made in 2020 there are approximately 3,154,459 children between the ages of 12 and 15 in the United Kingdom. Therefore GP’s across the UK could stand to make a combined £142.45 million if every child is injected with a Covid-19 vaccine.

A Freedom of Information request (found here) which the MHRA responded to in May 2021 revealed that the current level of grant funding received from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation amounts to $3 million and covers “a number of projects”. The MHRA being the UK Medicine Regulator to have granted emergency use authorisation for the Pfizer / BioNTech mRNA vaccine to be given to children.

Coincidentally, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation bought shares in Pfizer back in 2002 (see here), and back in September 2020 Bill Gates ensured the value of his shares went up by announcing to the mainstream media in a CNBC interview that he viewed the Pfizer jab as the leader in the Covid-19 vaccine race.

“The only vaccine that, if everything went perfectly, might seek the emergency use license by the end of October, would be Pfizer.”

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also coincidentally bought $55 million worth of shares in BioNTech (see here) in September 2019, just before the alleged Covid-19 pandemic struck.

Can we really trust the MHRA to remain impartial when its primary funder is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who also own shares in Pfizer and BioNTech?

Reason No. 13
The Joint Committee on Vaccination & Immunisation have refused to recommend the Pfizer Vaccine be offered to Children

On the 3rd September 2021 the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) announced (see here) they were not recommending the Pfizer Covid-19 injection be offered to all children over the age of 12.

The assessment by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is that the health benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms. However, the margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal vaccination of healthy 12 to 15 year olds at this time.

The JCVI cited the following –

“For the vast majority of children, SARS-CoV-2 infection is asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic and will resolve without treatment. Of the very few children aged 12 to 15 years who require hospitalisation, the majority have underlying health conditions.”

Since 1st April 2009 the Health Protection (Vaccination) Regulations 2009 place a duty on the Secretary of State for Health in England to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the recommendations of JCVI are implemented (See here – page 6).

Yet in an unprecedented move, the Secretary for Health and the Government decided to bypass the JCVI and seek the advice of the four Chief Medical Officers (CMO’s) of the United Kingdom.

In their letter to the Government (found here), the UK CMO’s state they looked at wider public health benefits and risks of universal vaccination in this age group to determine if this shifts the risk-benefit either way. They claim in their letter that “the most important in this age group was impact on education”.

This raises some serious questions –

  1. Did Covid-19 close the schools? The answer is of course no. Schools were closed because of Government policy.
  2. Should a person take a medical treatment so that they are able to partake in society or education? The answer is couse no. A person should only ever take a medical treatment for a medical reason, in the case of the Covid-19 vaccine that reason should be to prevent infection; which it does not do, or prevent illness; which it will not do as children are at such low risk of suffering serious illness due to Covid-19.

The decision by Chris Whitty and his fellow Chief Medical Officers to advise the Government that the Covid-19 vaccines should be offered to children is not a decision based on science, it is instead a decision based on politics.

But we have just presented 13 factual reasons why you should not allow your child to get the Covid-19 vaccine, and each and every one is based on the science.

Now the choice is yours, or perhaps that of your child, we hope you make the correct one.

To view the original article, please visit >> https://theexpose.uk/2021/09/14/13-reasons-why-you-should-not-allow-your-child-to-get-the-covid-19-vaccine/

The Rationale for the Continued Vaccine Roll-Out is Not Evident

The Rationale for the Continued Vaccine Roll-Out is Not Evident

Friday, 30th July 2021

We appear to have serious problems with the Covid-19 vaccination programme. The evidence underpinning the claimed efficacy and safety of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine is highly questionable. Statistical analysis raises numerous issues, and until these are addressed, the alleged benefits cannot be shown to outweigh the risks. 

With wider concerns expressed by some of the world’s leading immunologists, virologists and epidemiologists, justification for the continued vaccination programme appears to be lacking. Possible unacceptable risk is evident in every nation which has vaccinated a significant proportion of its population.

The vaccines appear to increase the mortality risk from Covid-19, something the authorities and the regulatory agencies have so far shown little or no interest in investigating.

Some of what we are about to discuss is necessarily speculative. It is based upon a full statistical analysis—but, absent a comprehensive investigation, we cannot be certain why this analysis appears to show an increased Covid-19 mortality risk following vaccination.

Equally, refusal to investigate this correlation is untenable. No claim of either vaccine safety or efficacy is justified without properly accounting for this statistical analysis.

Concerning Data Emerges in Israel

Recently, the UK Column interviewed, among others, Dr Hervé Seligmann (Part 1 here). Dr Seligmann has a B.Sc. in Biology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He earned an M.Sc. in 1991 and gained his Ph.D in 2003. He has had over 100 scientific papers published. He works at the Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Aix-Marseille University, Marseilles, France. His statistical research partner is the engineer Haim Yativ.

Dr Seligmann and Mr Yativ have posted an informative English-language resource page where you can see recent updates to their research. Their analysis of Israeli data appears to show a significant increased risk of Covid-19 mortality (for the vaccinated) during the period between receipt of the first and second vaccine doses, and for a brief period following the second dose. Their research has focused upon the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine (tozinameran).

Their research impacts the risk/benefit analysis for the Pfizer BioNTech mRNA vaccine. It brings the claims made about its efficacy and safety into considerable doubt. Their analysis should be assessed in light of the absence of completed clinical trials for the BNT162b2 vaccine, which are still in the recruitment phase.

Nor are there any completed clinical trials for any of the other leading vaccines used in western nations. AstraZeneca’s AZD1222 (or ChAdOx1-S) trial (NCT04516746) is due to be completed in February 2023. Moderna’s mRNA vaccine phase III trial (NCT04470427) should be concluded by October 2022. Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen trial (NCT04614948) is expected to near completion in May 2023.

There are no posted results for any of these trials. The vaccines have all been approved for population use under emergency authorisation for this reason. They are unlicensed medications and do not have marketing authorisation. The approval decision was made based solely on data provided to the regulators by the manufacturers.

In Israel, on 11 February 2021, Ynet published an article in which they made the following claim:

Data from the Ministry of Health obtained by Ynet show the huge gap between the completely vaccinated and the unvaccinated. According to them, the effectiveness of the vaccine is higher than 90% in all age groups, both in preventing coronary heart disease and in preventing serious illness and death.

It is important to note that Ynet’s statement is based upon an analytical comparison made between the “completely vaccinated” and the “unvaccinated”. Further data from the Israeli Ministry of Health was then made available and was reported on 11 March by the German media outlet Correctiv.org. Dr Seligmann and Mr Yativ then reanalysed the original datasets and found clear discrepancies between the data and the reported “benefits” of the vaccines.

Key to this issue was that the claimed “benefits” were only measured from completion of the second dose, and took no account of the risks in the five-week period between and immediately following the first and second dose. Seligmann and Yativ referred to this window as the “period of vaccination”. We will use the abbreviation “PoV” for this period throughout the rest of this article.

Seligmann and Yativ analysed the data from the Israeli Ministry of Health (included in their report—linked above) and the data from Dagan et al., 2021. They continue to monitor the datasets but, as already stated, this analysis was for the period up to 11 March.

They calculated an unvaccinated person’s Covid-19 mortality baseline risk from data covering the 303-day period between 1 March 2020 and 20 December 2020, when the Israeli BNT162b2 vaccine rollout began. They analysed the percentage of cases and deaths for the two age groups in the Israeli data (those below and those above 60 years of age) published by the actuaries at the health insurance company Clalit.

Using this data, Seligmann and Yativ calculated the daily percentage chance of Covid-19 mortality for the respective, unvaccinated cohorts. For those under 60, it was 0.00000257% per day. For Israeli citizens over 60, it was 0.00022631% per day. The data released by the Israeli Ministry of Health, for various intervals in the PoV, were then compared to these unvaccinated baselines.

Between 0 and 13 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine, the Covid-19 daily mortality risk for the over 60’s was 0.003303%. This was more than 14.5 times higher than for the unvaccinated. More than thirteen days following the first dose of vaccination, this risk increased to 0.005484% per day; a risk more than 24.2 times greater than among the unvaccinated. This increased further, for the first six days after the second dose, to 0.006076% — representing a 26.85-fold increased risk of Covid-19 mortality for the vaccinated.

In the second week following the second dose, the risk for the over-60s remained at 18.4 times higher for the vaccinated. This gradually reduced to 6.7 times worse than the unvaccinated at fourteen days following the second dose, and the excess risk continued to decrease over the the next few weeks. The data showed that there is a a PoV of approximately five weeks during which there is a significantly increased risk of dying from Covid-19 for the vaccinated over-60s.

A similar increased risk of Covid-19 mortality was seen in the data for the under-60s. In the first two weeks following the first dose, the risk was increased 23.86 times. This increased further to a 42.4-times elevated risk in the second week after the first dose. In the first week following the second dose, the data indicated a 94-fold increase in the daily Covid mortality risk for the vaccinated. For the period studied, there was no noted increased risk to the under-60s beyond the first week following the second dose.

The Missing "Benefit" of BNT162b2 Vaccination

Seligmann and Yativ’s statistical analysis clearly showed a significantly higher risk of Covid-19 mortality for the vaccinated during the PoV. They then noted that once the vaccine had taken full effect, the Covid-19 mortality risk for the vaccinated reduced below the risk for the unvaccinated. They found an apparent benefit from the vaccine once the PoV had ended.

Taking into account that the general population risk of Covid-19 mortality is so low, they were able to calculate how many days of full vaccine protection would be required to compensate for the significant increased daily mortality risk during the PoV.

For the over-60s, after the first dose, the BNT162b2 vaccine would have to provide nearly two years of full protection (690.62 days) to achieve any net benefit. Seligmann and Yativ stated:

Pooling both age classes, on average, in order to not lose more lives than gain lives due to vaccination, the protective effects of the vaccine, without costs associated with 3d [a third dose] and more shots, would have to be absolute and with no other vaccine-related but COVID19-unrelated deaths for a period of at least 658 days.

The researchers also noted a number of important caveats. For example, the age distribution and relative risk classes for the unvaccinated wasn’t clear in the Israeli data. This could be a compounding factor for their analysis, and they have requested clarification. They have yet to receive a response.

Their initial analysis did not take account of non Covid-19 mortality patterns. They also disregarded the fact that vaccine protection is not absolute. They went on to extrapolate their research to look at broader mortality patterns. This indicated even further reason for concern, especially among children, suggesting that the vaccinated pose a risk to the unvaccinated.

Seligmann and Yativ noted that the Israeli Ministry of Health and the co-authors of the Dagan, et al. paper had commercial conflicts of interest with Pfizer. However, sticking to the data presented in the Dagan, et al. paper, they noted an overall threefold increase on Covid-19 infection rates for the vaccinated during the five-week PoV.

We might add our own caveat at this point: a positive RT-PCR test is not evidence of a “case” of Covid-19. However, Seligmann’s calculations are based upon the government’s definition of a case.

In summation, Seligmann and Yativ have identified an elevated risk of both infection and subsequent Covid-19 mortality, during the PoV with BNT162b2. This is so marked that to justify it, the absolute protection conferred by the vaccine (an absolute protection which is known not to exist) would have to be prolonged (for many years—without any need of boosters or further vaccination). If this is not the case, then any net benefit from the vaccine is extremely unlikely.

Media reports from Israel would seem to admit that a net benefit does not exist. The New York Times recently reported:

Researchers estimated that the Pfizer shot was just 39 percent effective against preventing infection in the country in late June and early July, compared with 95 percent from January to early April.

The Daily Telegraph reports that BNT162b2 recipients are already being required to take a booster. Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla announced that Pfizer’s claimed efficacy drops to 84% within six months. Bourla stated that supposed “efficacy” against severe disease declines by 6% every two months. He alleges that this necessitates the booster.

If Seligmann and Yativ’s statistical analysis is correct, this strongly indicates that there is no possible Covid-19 health benefit for the BNT162b2 vaccine. Consequently, a “booster”—of something which appears to cause harm—would be irrational.

Corroboration from Others

Seligmann and Yativ’s findings have seemingly been corroborated by the research of Dr Steve Ohana and Dr Alexandra Henrion-Caude. They found a large spike in mortality among the 20-49 age group in Israel. They then compared this to other nations with a high vaccine coverage (taking the jurisdiction of England & Wales) and noted the same phenomenon. They concluded:

Surges in mortality among young people are very rare events, and are usually associated with wars […] The mortality peak among 20 to 49-year-olds in February-March 2021 is therefore unprecedented and indeed concerning […] Our additional observation supporting this possible link between vaccination and youth mortality is the fact that common patterns of excess mortality were also observed in England and Wales […] [T]he established link between the Pfizer vaccine and myocarditis/autoimmune diseases in young adults further lend a physiological support. Such accumulation of concern should, in our view, urgently prompt a pause in the vaccination campaign, until the reasons of the youth excess mortality observed in mass vaccination countries are clarified.

In addition, Peter Schirmacher, director of the Pathological Institute in Heidelberg, Germany, who advocates Covid-19 vaccination, has highlighted the need for immediate post-mortem examinations of the vaccinated. Schirmarcher carried out more than forty autopsies on people who died shortly after vaccination in Germany. He found that up to 40% of them died from cerebral vein thrombosis or autoimmune disease that could be attributable to the vaccines

There is even a suggested mechanism explaining how this increased mortality could be occurring. An autopsy of a recently vaccinated 86-year-old decedent found that the S-protein (spike protein), whose production is induced by the BNT162b2 vaccine, was found in almost every organ of the man’s body. This is contrary to the claims of the mRNA vaccine manufacturers, who maintain that the S-protein is only produced by and remains at the vaccine site.  

Doctors for Covid Ethics are among the many renowned scientists and physicians who have raised concerns about the S-protein produced by the body’s cells following an mRNA Covid jab. They state:

The first injection will induce the expression of spike protein, and the formation of specific antibodies to it. Re-vaccination will lead to a second round of spike protein production, including in endothelial cells. The antibodies, now already present, will bind to these spikes and will direct attack of the complement system to these cells. Neutrophil granulocytes, too, will be activated by antibodies bound to the endothelial cells. Vascular damage and leakage will ensue.

Not only is there statistical evidence suggesting cause for concern; there is physiological evidence that could account for the data. It is not known whether the apparent increased mortality is derived from this suggested mechanism—and that is the point. Without a proper investigation, no-one knows.

Reason for Concern in the UK

Currently in the UK, the MHRA Yellow Card scheme data suggests that more than 1,500 people may have died as a result of vaccination. In addition, the MHRA has stated that Yellow Card reports only represent 10% of total vaccine related mortality, suggesting a plausible 15,000 vaccine related deaths so far in the UK.

The MHRA now states that this under-reporting estimate should not be used for Covid-19 vaccines, because (they allege) awareness of their Yellow Card scheme for vaccine adverse drug reactions has somehow improved. They have offered no evidence to substantiate this claim.

We might ask what the point of the MHRA Yellow Card scheme is. On the one hand, the agency states that its purpose is to act as an “early warning system” for possible vaccine harm. Yet the MHRA also states:

The suspected ADRs described in this report are not interpreted as being proven side effects of COVID-19 vaccines.

This would be acceptable if the MHRA had investigated those possible adverse reactions to establish whether they were ADRs. Again, there is no evidence that they have. All we can say is that the MHRA does not interpret them as vaccine ADRs. Therefore, the chance of their Yellow Card scheme actually providing an “early warning” would appear to be nil.

If we apply Seligmann and Yativ’s analysis to the UK vaccine rollout data, a very worrying picture emerges. The Israeli researchers considered the BNT162b2 vaccine in Israel. This brand was also the first vaccine administered to the most vulnerable in the UK. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to apply their findings to the UK data.

The first dose of the BNT162b2 was given to Margaret Keenan on 8 December 2020. The vaccine rollout began in earnest between a week and two weeks later. As in Israel, it was in full swing by 20 December 2020.

Brian Pinker was the first person in the UK to receive an AstraZeneca vaccine, on 4 January 2021, nearly a month later. The rollout of the AstraZeneca vaccine also took a couple of weeks to get fully up to speed.

The vaccines were distributed in keeping with the UK Government’s priority schedule. This meant that the first to receive the vaccine were the most vulnerable in British care homes, hospitals and other care settings.

On 10 January 2021, the then Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, confirmed figures reporting that 2.3 million people had been vaccinated for Covid-19 in the UK. While specific data on the vaccine distribution has not been released, it is clear that the vast majority of these people must have received BNT162b2.

On 22 November 2020, the seven-day average for daily Covid-19 mortality in the UK stood at 466.4. By 8 December—the day of Keenan’s vaccination—the average had dropped to 428.9. This represented a decline of 8% in the daily mortality average in just over two weeks.

By 19 January 2021, the seven-day daily Covid-19 mortality average had increased by nearly 300% to 1285.7. Using Seligmann and Yativ’s PoV—assuming a full BNT162b2 vaccine programme from 15 December onward, and using the UK Government’s own statistics—it appears that a significant proportion of 29,755 reported Covid-19 deaths may have been attributable to the increased mortality risk presented by the vaccine.

We cannot say, without a thorough investigation, what that proportion is. However, the distribution of that mortality does appear to correlate strongly with the distribution suggested by Seligmann and Yativ’s analysis.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Yellow Card data indicating a possible 1,500 vaccine-related deaths appears to underestimate vaccine harm considerably. The known phenomenon of under-reporting—combined with the remarkable correlation between the Israeli analysis, the vaccine rollout of BNT162b2 and the official UK Government statistics—suggests that the Pfizer vaccine is dangerous.

As the data currently stands, it seems that many thousands of alleged Covid-19 deaths may have occurred due to the additional risks posed by the BNT162b2 vaccine alone. Given the lack of clinical trials, it is not possible for anyone to state categorically that any of the major Covid-19 vaccines is either effective or safe; certainly not Pfizer BNT162b2. 

Government claims of lives saved do not stand up to scrutiny. When we also consider the growing evidence of risks associated with other vaccines, the rationale for the continued vaccine rollout is not evident.

To view the original article, please visit >> https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/the-rationale-for-the-continued-vaccine-roll-out-is-not-evident

Dr Peter McCullough reveals the Covid-19 Vaccines are Bioweapons and a CDC whistle-blower

Dr Peter McCullough reveals the Covid-19 Vaccines are Bioweapons and a CDC whistle-blower has confirmed 50,000 Americans have died due to the jabs

BY  ON 

The most highly cited physician on the early treatment of COVID-19 has come out with an explosive new interview that blows the lid off the medical establishment’s complicity in the unnecessary deaths of thousands.

Dr. Peter McCullough said these deaths have been facilitated by a false narrative bent on pushing an all-new, unproven vaccine for a disease that was highly treatable.

He said the alleged Covid-19 virus is a bioweapon and the vaccines represent “phase two” of that bioweapon.

“As this, in a sense, bioterrorism phase one was rolled out, it was really all about keeping the population in fear and in isolation and preparing them to accept the vaccine, which appears to be phase two of a bioterrorism operation,” McCullough said in a June 11 webinar with German attorney Reiner Fuellmich and several other doctors.

He noted:

“Both the respiratory virus and the vaccine delivered to the human body the spike protein, the gain of function target of this bioterrorism research.”

“Now I can’t come out and say all this on national TV today or at any time,” he continued. “But, what we had learned over time is that we could no longer communicate with government agencies. We actually couldn’t even communicate with our propagandised colleagues in major medical centres, all of which appear to be under a spell, almost as if they are hypnotized right now.”

He did not hold back in his criticism of his colleagues in the medical community.

“And doctors, good doctors, are doing unthinkable things, like injecting biologically active messenger RNA that produces this pathological spike protein into pregnant women. I think when the doctors wake up from their trance they’re going to be shocked to think what they’ve done to people.”

McCullough is professor of medicine and vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University and also teaches at Texas A&M University. He is an epidemiologist, cardiologist and internist and has testified before the Texas State Senate related to COVID-19 treatments. He holds the distinction of being the most widely cited physician in the treatment of COVID-19 with more than 600 citations in the National Library of Medicine.

In the interview McCullough said:

“The first wave of the bioterrorism is a respiratory virus that spread across the world, and affected relatively few people—about one percent of many populations—but generated great fear.”

He said the virus targeted primarily people over 50 with multiple medical conditions. It poses almost no risk to children.

He said 85 percent of the more than 600,000 U.S. deaths could have been prevented with a multi-drug treatment given in the early to mid-point of the disease.

Instead, people were told to stay home and not return to the hospital unless their symptoms got worse, such as severe breathing problems. By then it was too late for many. They were placed on ventilators and died.

The vast majority of doctors jumped in lockstep to follow these erroneous “guidelines” handed down by the World Health Organisation and the U.S. Centre for Disease Control. Those guidelines neglected to place any focus on the treatment of sick patients and, from the beginning, as early as April 2020, started emphasizing the need for a vaccine as the only real hope of beating back the virus.

The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS] logged 5,993 reports of deaths of people injected with the COVID vaccine between Dec. 14, 2020, and June 11, 2021. That’s more than all the deaths reported to VAERS from all other vaccines combined over the last 22 years.

But these numbers, as shocking as they are, don’t scratch the surface of the actual number of dead Americans, said McCullough.

“We have now a whistleblower inside the CMS, and we have two whistleblowers in the CDC. We think we have 50,000 dead Americans. Fifty thousand deaths. So we actually have more deaths due to the vaccine per day than certainly the viral illness by far. It’s basically propagandized bioterrorism by injection.

McCullough added that “every single thing that was done in public health in response to the pandemic made it worse.”

He said the suppression of early COVID treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine and especially Ivermectin, “was tightly linked to the development of a vaccine.”

Without the suppression of the already-available treatments, the government would not have been able to legally grant Emergency Use Authorisation to the three vaccines rushed to market in the USA by Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson.

In the case of Moderna, the U.S. government is co-patent holder through the National Institutes of Health, a clear conflict of interest, and confidential documents reveal Moderna sent a coronavirus mRNA vaccine candidate was sent to a US University in December 2019, weeks before Covid-19 was allegedly known to even exist.

“I published basically the only two papers that teach doctors how to treat COVID-19 at home to prevent hospitalisation and death…If treated early, it results in an 85 percent reduction in hospitalisations and death,” McCullough said.

So not only were the vaccines rolled out unnecessarily by suppressing already available, effective treatments, but the FDA and CDC are now covering up tragic numbers of deaths caused by their experimental mRNA injections.

McCullough said he has organized groups around the world that emphasise early treatment.

“Governments have actually tried to block early treatment of Covid patients, so we created a home patient guide,” he said.

“We broke through to the people, and the people who got sick with COVID called in to get medications from mail-order distribution pharmacies. So without the government even knowing what went on, we crushed the epidemic here in the United States towards the end of December and January.

“We basically took care of the pandemic with about 500 doctors and telemedicine services. And to this day we treat about 25 percent of the US COVID-19 population that actually are at high risk, over age 50 with medical problems or present with severe symptoms. And we basically handled the pandemic, and at the same time we’ve tried to keep ourselves above the political fray.”

McCullough said his focus has recently turned to the unnecessary and dangerous injections.

“We are working to change the public view of the vaccine. The public initially accepted the vaccine and we had to kind of slowly turn the ship. Now, in the U.S. the rates of vaccination have been dropping since April 8. Most of the vaccination centres are empty.

“We have a lot going on in the United States. We are engaging more and more attorneys.

Source

COVID-19 Origins Revealed

COVID-19 Origins Revealed


By Mike Adams

June 8, 2021

The cover-up has imploded. Covid-19 was engineered in a lab, and the desperate attempts to hide its true origins are rapidly collapsing.

Over the weekend, even the Wall Street Journal is now catching up to what Natural News reported a year ago, admitting that covid-19 came from a lab. The article is entitled, “The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak” and carries the subhead, “The Covid-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus.”

Authored by Steven Quay and Richard Muller, the article discusses the genetic fingerprint of the “double CGG” combination that appears in the virus:

Although the double CGG is suppressed naturally, the opposite is true in laboratory work. The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it. An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to track the insertion in the laboratory. Now the damning fact. It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2.

Despite this, the virologists involved in the gain-of-function research on coronavirus sought to hide the existence of this double CGG fingerprint:

When the lab’s Shi Zhengli and colleagues published a paper in February 2020 with the virus’s partial genome, they omitted any mention of the special sequence that supercharges the virus or the rare double CGG section. Yet the fingerprint is easily identified in the data that accompanied the paper. Was it omitted in the hope that nobody would notice this evidence of the gain-of-function origin?

But in a matter of weeks virologists Bruno Coutard and colleagues published their discovery of the sequence in CoV-2 and its novel supercharged site. Double CGG is there; you only have to look. They comment in their paper that the protein that held it “may provide a gain-of-function” capability to the virus, “for efficient spreading” to humans.

So it’s not just that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab; the scientists involved in that effort also tried to cover their tracks and deceive the world as millions died.

“The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the virus was developed in a laboratory,” write Quay and Muller. Yes, we knew that a year ago. Now, the mainstream media is finally beginning to admit to the reality that those of us in the independent media have known all along.

Names you need to know: Peter Daszak (EcoHealth Alliance), Anthony Fauci, Ralph Baric

Some good sources of information about the communist Chinese bioweapons program that was funded by Daszak, Fauci and even the Pentagon:

RedState.com: EXCLUSIVE: High-Ranking Chinese Defector Has ‘Direct Knowledge’ of Several Chinese Special Weapons Programs

Wall Street Journal: The Science Suggests a Wuhan Lab Leak

UK Daily Mail: The Pentagon secretly funneled $39 to Peter Daszak, his charity funded the Wuhan lab

The National Pulse: Fauci’s Boss Admits Funding Wuhan Lab: ‘We Had No Control Over What They Were Doing.’

LifeSiteNews: China Virus “Smoking Gun” Found

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?

From the UK Daily Mail:

The Pentagon gave $39 MILLION to Dr. Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance – the charity that funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan lab accused of being the source of the outbreak, federal data reveals… Federal data seen by DailyMail.com reveals The Pentagon gave $39 million to EcoHealth Alliance, which funded a lab in Wuhan, China, between 2013 and 2020. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is accused of being the source of Covid-19.

From LifeSiteNews:

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has just uncovered a Chinese book that proves that Chinese military scientists have been working towards the development of a “new era of genetic weapons.” These weapons, the Chinese scientists promised, could be “artificially manipulated into an emerging human disease virus, then weaponized and unleashed.”

In the 2015 volume, called The Unnatural Origin of SARS and New Species of Man-Made Viruses as Genetic Bioweapons, the Chinese military scientists begin by suggesting that World War III would be fought with biological weapons.

And not just any bioweapons.

Coronaviruses, a number of which cause respiratory illnesses in people, were mentioned as a class of viruses that could be readily weaponized. Indeed, the Chinese scientists were even more explicit, pointing out in their paper that the coronavirus that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, was an ideal candidate for a bioweapon.

From The Bulletin:

It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”

Virologists like Daszak had much at stake in the assigning of blame for the pandemic. For 20 years, mostly beneath the public’s attention, they had been playing a dangerous game. In their laboratories they routinely created viruses more dangerous than those that exist in nature. They argued that they could do so safely, and that by getting ahead of nature they could predict and prevent natural “spillovers…”

Researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, led by China’s leading expert on bat viruses, Shi Zheng-li or “Bat Lady,” mounted frequent expeditions to the bat-infested caves of Yunnan in southern China and collected around a hundred different bat coronaviruses.

Shi then teamed up with Ralph S. Baric, an eminent coronavirus researcher at the University of North Carolina. Their work focused on enhancing the ability of bat viruses to attack humans so as to “examine the emergence potential (that is, the potential to infect humans) of circulating bat CoVs [coronaviruses].” In pursuit of this aim, in November 2015 they created a novel virus by taking the backbone of the SARS1 virus and replacing its spike protein with one from a bat virus (known as SHC014-CoV). This manufactured virus was able to infect the cells of the human airway, at least when tested against a lab culture of such cells.

Baric had developed, and taught Shi, a general method for engineering bat coronaviruses to attack other species. The specific targets were human cells grown in cultures and humanized mice.

Peter Daszak celebrates (brags) about engineering the SARS coronavirus to attack human cells

Also from TheBulletin.org:

Shi set out to create novel coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity for human cells. Her plan was to take genes that coded for spike proteins possessing a variety of measured affinities for human cells, ranging from high to low. She would insert these spike genes one by one into the backbone of a number of viral genomes (“reverse genetics” and “infectious clone technology”), creating a series of chimeric viruses. These chimeric viruses would then be tested for their ability to attack human cell cultures (“in vitro”) and humanized mice (“in vivo”).

On December 9, 2019, before the outbreak of the pandemic became generally known, Daszak gave an interview in which he talked in glowing terms of how researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been reprogramming the spike protein and generating chimeric coronaviruses capable of infecting humanized mice.

“And we have now found, you know, after 6 or 7 years of doing this, over 100 new SARS-related coronaviruses, very close to SARS,” Daszak says around minute 28 of the interview. “Some of them get into human cells in the lab, some of them can cause SARS disease in humanized mice models and are untreatable with therapeutic monoclonals and you can’t vaccinate against them with a vaccine. So, these are a clear and present danger….

“Daszak: Well I think…coronaviruses?—?you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily. Spike protein drives a lot of what happen with coronavirus, in zoonotic risk. So you can get the sequence, you can build the protein, and we work a lot with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this. Insert into the backbone of another virus and do some work in the lab.

In disjointed style, Daszak is referring to the fact that once you have generated a novel coronavirus that can attack human cells, you can take the spike protein and make it the basis for a vaccine.

Full details in today’s length Situation Update podcast

Today’s podcast provides the full details, covering the origins of covid, the cover-up attempt and the collapse of the cover-up. Now we know that the spike protein used in covid vaccines is actually a communist Chinese military bioweapon.

We also therefore know that covid-19 vaccines are biological weapons designed to exterminate humanity, since they contain the weaponized spike protein that was specifically engineered to attack human ACE2 receptors, which exist all over the body (not just the lungs).

Remember, Fauci and Daszak helped fund the development of genetically engineered “humanized mice” — mice with human lung tissue — in order to maximize the ability of the virus to infect human beings. This is all now admitted.

Hear the full podcast on Brighteon.com:

 

COVID Vaccine Spike Protein Travels From Injection Site, Can Cause Organ Damage

‘We Made a Big Mistake’ — COVID Vaccine Spike Protein Travels From Injection Site, Can Cause Organ Damage

Research obtained by a group of scientists shows the COVID vaccine spike protein can travel from the injection site and accumulate in organs and tissues including the spleen, bone marrow, the liver, adrenal glands and in “quite high concentrations” in the ovaries.

By Megan Redshaw

COVID vaccine researchers had previously assumed mRNA COVID vaccines would behave like traditional vaccines. The vaccine’s spike protein — responsible for infection and its most severe symptoms — would remain mostly in the injection site at the shoulder muscle or local lymph nodes.

But new research obtained by a group of scientists contradicts that theory, a Canadian cancer vaccine researcher said last week.

“We made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now,” said Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist and associate professor at University of Guelph, Ontario. “We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.”

 

Bridle, who was awarded a $230,000 grant by the Canadian government last year for research on COVID vaccine development, said he and a group of international scientists filed a request for information from the Japanese regulatory agency to get access to Pfizer’s “biodistribution study.”

Biodistribution studies are used to determine where an injected compound travels in the body, and which tissues or organs it accumulates in.

“It’s the first time ever scientists have been privy to seeing where these messenger RNA [mRNA] vaccines go after vaccination,” Bridle said in an interview with Alex Pierson where he first disclosed the data. “Is it a safe assumption that it stays in the shoulder muscle? The short answer is: absolutely not. It’s very disconcerting.”

The Sars-CoV-2 has a spike protein on its surface. That spike protein is what allows it to infect our bodies, Bridle explained. “That is why we have been using the spike protein in our vaccines,” Bridle said. “The vaccines we’re using get the cells in our bodies to manufacture that protein. If we can mount an immune response against that protein, in theory we could prevent this virus from infecting the body. That is the theory behind the vaccine.”

“However, when studying the severe COVID-19, […] heart problems, lots of problems with the cardiovascular system, bleeding and clotting, are all associated with COVID-19,”  he added. “In doing that research, what has been discovered by the scientific community, the spike protein on its own is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation.”

When the purified spike protein is injected into the blood of research animals, they experience damage to the cardiovascular system and the protein can cross the blood-brain barrier and cause damage to the brain, Bridle explained.

The biodistribution study obtained by Bridle shows the COVID spike protein gets into the blood where it circulates for several days post-vaccination and then accumulates in organs and tissues including the spleen, bone marrow, the liver, adrenal glands and in “quite high concentrations” in the ovaries.

“We have known for a long time that the spike protein is a pathogenic protein, Bridle said. “It is a toxin. It can cause damage in our body if it gets into circulation.”

A large number of studies have shown the most severe effects of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, such as blood clotting and bleeding, are due to the effects of the spike protein of the virus itself.

A recent study in Clinical and Infectious Diseases led by researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Harvard Medical School measured longitudinal plasma samples collected from 13 recipients of the Moderna vaccine 1 and 29 days after the first dose and 1-28 days after the second dose.

Out of these individuals, 11 had detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 protein in blood plasma as early as one day after the first vaccine dose, including three who had detectable levels of spike protein. A “subunit” protein called S1, part of the spike protein, was also detected.

Spike protein was detected an average of 15 days after the first injection, and one patient had spike protein detectable on day 29 — one day after a second vaccine dose — which disappeared two days later.

The results showed S1 antigen production after the initial vaccination can be detected by day one and is present beyond the injection site and the associated regional lymph nodes.

Assuming an average adult blood volume of approximately 5 liters, this corresponds to peak levels of approximately 0.3 micrograms of circulating free antigen for a vaccine designed only to express membrane-anchored antigen.

In a study published in Nature Neuroscience, lab animals injected with purified spike protein into their bloodstream developed cardiovascular problems. The spike protein also crossed the blood-brain barrier and caused damage to the brain.

It was a grave mistake to believe the spike protein would not escape into the blood circulation, according to Bridle. “Now, we have clear-cut evidence that the vaccines that make the cells in our deltoid muscles manufacture this protein — that the vaccine itself, plus the protein — gets into blood circulation,” he said.

Bridle said the scientific community has discovered the spike protein, on its own, is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation.

Once in circulation, the spike protein can attach to specific ACE2 receptors that are on blood platelets and the cells that line blood vessels, Bridle said. “When that happens it can do one of two things. It can either cause platelets to clump, and that can lead to clotting — that’s exactly why we’ve been seeing clotting disorders associated with these vaccines. It can also lead to bleeding,” he added.

Both clotting and bleeding are associated with vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). Bridle also said the spike protein in circulation would explain recently reported heart problems in vaccinated teens.

Stephanie Seneff, senior research scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is now clear vaccine content is being delivered to the spleen and the glands, including the ovaries and the adrenal glands, and is being shed into the medium and then eventually reaches the bloodstream causing systemic damage.

“ACE2 receptors are common in the heart and brain,” she added. “And this is how the spike protein causes cardiovascular and cognitive problems.”

Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist, warned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December mRNA vaccines could cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways not assessed in safety trials.

In a public submission, Whelan sought to alert the FDA to the potential for vaccines designed to create immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to instead cause injuries.

Whelan was concerned the mRNA vaccine technology utilized by Pfizer and Moderna had “the potential to cause microvascular injury (inflammation and small blood clots called microthrombi) to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in the safety trials.”

More Deaths Reported After J&J, AstraZeneca Vaccines, Plus Researchers Link AstraZeneca to Strokes in Young Adults

More Deaths Reported After J&J, AstraZeneca Vaccines, Plus Researchers Link AstraZeneca to Strokes in Young Adults

The AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccines came under scrutiny again this week as more reports of deaths — largely due to blood clot disorders — surfaced in Belgium, Canada and Greece, and a new report linked the AstraZeneca vaccine to strokes in young adults.

By Megan Redshaw

The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the dayIt’s free.

The AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccines came under scrutiny again this week as more reports of deaths — largely due to blood clot disorders — surfaced in Belgium, Canada and Greece.

Adding to the vaccine makers’ woes is a new report out of London from researchers who identified the first cases of strokes occurring in young adults who received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which was co-developed by the University of Oxford University in the UK.

Belgium suspends use of J&J vaccine

Belgium said Wednesday it was suspending vaccinations with J&J vaccine, for people under the age of 41, following the death of a woman from blood clots after she received the shot. This is the second time Belgium has paused the one-shot vaccine.

“The Inter-ministerial conference has decided to temporarily administer Janssen’s vaccine to the general population from the age of 41 years, pending a more detailed benefit-risk analysis by the EMA,” said a statement issued by Belgium’s federal health minister and seven regional counterparts.

The woman, who was under the age of 40, died May 21 after being admitted to the hospital with severe thrombosis and platelet deficiency, Reuters reported.

The government asked for urgent advice from the European Union’s drug regulator, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), before it would consider lifting the suspension.

The EMA said it is reviewing the death of the woman in Belgium, along with other reports of blood clots, with the Belgian and Slovenian medicines agencies, and has asked J&J to carry out a series of additional studies to help assess a possible link between the shot and rare blood clots.

J&J said April 20 it would resume the roll-out in the EU of its COVID vaccine, marketed under the company’s Janssen subsidiary — with a warning on its label — after several countries, including Belgium, first paused the vaccine amid concerns of its possible link to blood clotting disorders.

The EMA confirmed a “possible link,” but concluded the vaccine’s benefits outweighed the risks. The drug regulator’s safety committee (PRAC) said a warning should be added to the product label, but the blood clot-related disorders should be listed as “very rare” side effects of the vaccine.

On April 23, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) voted to resume the use of J&J’s vaccine without restrictions after the vaccine was paused to investigate reports of rare blood clots. The recommendation by the CDC’s advisory panel said the link between blood clots and J&J’s COVID vaccine was “plausible,” but concluded the vaccine’s benefits outweighed the risks and recommended use for persons 18 years of age and older in the U.S. under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization.

J&J has said no clear causal relationship has been established between its vaccine and blood clots.

Researchers identify strokes in young adults after AstraZeneca shot

The first cases of large-vessel arterial occlusion strokes in young adults linked to AstraZeneca’s vaccine were described in detail for the first time in a letter published online in the Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

The three cases, one of which was fatal, occurred in two women and one man in their 30s or 40s who developed characteristics of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), a reaction associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

“These are the first detailed reports of arterial stroke believed to be caused by VITT after the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, although stroke has been mentioned previously in the VITT data,” senior author, Dr. David Werring, professor of clinical neurology at the Stroke Research Centre, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, told Medscape Medical News.

“VITT has more commonly presented as CVST (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis) which is stroke caused by a venous thrombosis; these cases are showing that it can also cause stroke caused by an arterial thrombosis,” Werring explained.

Werring noted the reports do not add anything to the overall risk/benefit of the vaccine, as they are describing only three cases. “While VITT is very serious, the benefit of the vaccine still outweighs its risks,” he said.

The first case, a 35-year-old woman, experienced intermittent headaches on the right side and around her eyes for six days after vaccination. Five days later, she awoke feeling drowsy and with weakness to her left face, arm and leg.

Imaging revealed the woman had a blocked right middle cerebral artery with brain infarction and clots in the right portal vein. She underwent brain surgery to reduce the pressure in her skull, plasma removal and replacement, and treatment with anticoagulant and fondaparinux, but suffered brain stem death and subsequently died.

The second case, a 37-year-old woman, presented with headache, confusion, weakness in her left arm and loss of vision on the left side 12 days after vaccination with AstraZeneca. Imaging showed occlusion of both carotid arteries, as well as blood clots in her lungs and brain. She improved clinically with treatment.

The third case occurred in a 43-year-old man who presented 21 days after vaccination with problems speaking. Imaging showed a clot in the left middle cerebral artery. He was treated and remains stable.

The researchers said young patients presenting with ischaemic stroke after receiving AstraZeneca’s vaccine should urgently be evaluated for VITT.

Ontario man dies from ‘rare but real’ blood clot after first dose of AstraZeneca

An Ontario man in his 40s died after receiving his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, public health officials confirmed Tuesday.

Dr. Barbara Yaffe, Ontario’s associate chief medical officer of health, said his death is being investigated, but the man suffered from VITT.

“While the investigation is ongoing and a final cause of death has yet to be officially determined, it has been confirmed that the individual did have VITT at the time of his death,” Yaffe said Tuesday. “The risks associated with this vaccine are [rare], but they are real.”

Chief Medical Officer Dr. David Williams restricted AstraZeneca vaccinations for people who have not yet received the first dose as of May 11, due to a higher-than-expected rate of blood clots.

Greece investigating four cases of blood clots after AstraZeneca shot

Α 63-year-old woman from Greece died of blood clots after vaccination with AstraZeneca. The case was one of four being investigated by the National Organization for Medicines (EOF) for a potential correlation between AstraZeneca’s vaccine and rare blood clots, according to the Greek City Times.

Also in Greece, a 44-year-old woman is in serious condition after experiencing VITT. Her case was the second incident found by EOF to be linked to the vaccine, according to the Greek Reporter.

A third blood clotting incident involved a 35-year-old man from Crete who suffered two blood clots after receiving AstraZeneca’s vaccine. The man was hospitalized after suffering a clot in his leg a few days after getting the jab. He suffered a second blood clot in his brain while hospitalized

As The Defender reported April 7, European regulators said they confirmed a “possible link” between AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine and “very rare” blood clots, but concluded the benefits of the vaccine still outweigh the risks.

The EMA did not recommend restricting use of the vaccine based on age, gender or other risk factors, but did say cases of blood clotting after vaccination “should be” listed as a possible side effect, according to a statement issued by the agency’s safety committee.

The AstraZeneca vaccine is not yet authorized for use in the U.S.

Nobel Prize winner: Mass COVID vaccination an ‘Unacceptable Mistake’ that is ‘Creating the Variants’

Nobel Prize Winner: Mass Vaccination an "Unacceptable Mistake"

In every country, ‘the curve of vaccination is followed by the curve of deaths,’ the famous virologist said

 

As published on LifeSite News by Celeste McGovern

French virologist and Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier called mass vaccination against the coronavirus during the pandemic “unthinkable” and a historical blunder that is “creating the variants” and leading to deaths from the disease.

“It’s an enormous mistake, isn’t it? A scientific error as well as a medical error. It is an unacceptable mistake,” Montagnier said in an interview translated and published by the RAIR Foundation USA yesterday. “The history books will show that, because it is the vaccination that is creating the variants.”

 

Many epidemiologists know it and are “silent” about the problem known as “antibody-dependent enhancement,” Montagnier said.

“It is the antibodies produced by the virus that enable an infection to become stronger,” he said in an interview with Pierre Barnérias of Hold-Up Media earlier this month. 

Vaccination leading to variants

“It is clear that the new variants are created by antibody-mediated selection due to the vaccination.”

Vaccinating during a pandemic is “unthinkable” and is causing deaths, the winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovery

‘Deaths follow vaccination’

“The new variants are a production and result from the vaccination. You see it in each country, it’s the same: in every country deaths follow vaccination,” he said.

A video published last week on YouTube uses data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington to illustrate the spikes in deaths in numerous countries across the globe after the introduction of COVID vaccination, confirming Montagnier’s observation.

The French interviewer pointed to data from the World Health Organization(WHO) showing that since the vaccines were introduced in January, new infections contamination have “exploded,” along with deaths, “notably among young people.”

Image
Image

“Yes,” agreed Montagnier who is a professor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. “With thrombosis, etc.”

Thrombosis – or blood clots — have been an unexpected problem linked to the new coronavirus vaccines and the cause of AstraZeneca’s vaccine being pulled in several countries. The head of Canada’s public health agency, Theresa Tam, told a press conference Tuesday that there are now 21 confirmed cases of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, or VITT, including among three women who died from the blood-clotting disorder potentially linked to AstraZeneca’s vaccine and another 13 cases are under investigation. 

Breakthrough cases

Montagnier said that he is currently conducting research with those who have become infected with the coronavirus after getting the vaccine. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in April that it had received 5,800 reports of people who had “breakthrough” COVID after being vaccinated, including 396 people who required hospitalization and 74 patients who died. 

“I will show you that they are creating the variants that are resistant to the vaccine,” Montagnier said.

Coronavirus made in a lab

The famous French virologist created waves in April 2020 when he told a French television station that he believed SARS-CoV2, the new pandemic coronavirus, was man-made in a laboratory. The “presence of elements of HIV and germ of malaria in the genome of coronavirus is highly suspect and the characteristics of the virus could not have arisen naturally,” he said

Though he was ridiculed by French experts for having “a conspiracy vision that does not relate to the real science,” Montagnier published a paper in July 2020 supporting his claims that the novel coronavirus must have originated from human experimentation in a lab – a theory that has recently resurfaced and is currently considered the most likely origin of the virus.

 

To view the original article, please click here

 

 

 

COVID-Vaccinated Can ‘Shed’ Spike Protein, Harming Unvaccinated

America’s Frontline Doctors: COVID-vaccinated can ‘shed’ spike protein, harming unvaccinated

As these experimental vaccines create ‘spike proteins,’ vaccinated individuals ‘can shed some of these particles to close contacts’ causing disease in them, including in children.

By Patrick Delaney

 

LOS ANGELES, California, May 3, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In their latest issue brief, America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) warned how spike proteins resulting from experimental COVID-19 gene therapy vaccines have the capacity to 1.) pass through the “blood-brain barrier” causing neurological damage, 2.) be “shed” by the vaccinated, bringing about sickness in unvaccinated children and adults, and 3.) cause irregular vaginal bleeding in women.

Released last week and titled “Identifying Post-vaccination Complications & Their Causes: an Analysis of Covid-19 Patient Data,” the stated purpose of the document is “to provide additional information for concerned citizens, health experts, and policymakers about adverse events and other post-vaccination issues resulting from the three experimental COVID-19 vaccines currently administered under EUA (emergency use authorization)” by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The non-profit organization highlighted the thousands of adverse events which are related to these “vaccines” and captured by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). “Yet these complications have received a fraction of the attention paid to J&J’s blood-clotting controversy,” they lamented with dismay, asking, “Why?”

In taking a closer look at this data, AFLDS presents “some major categories of concern as-yet publicly unaddressed by either the FDA or CDC,” asserting that failure of these regulators “to consider these and other ‘known unknowns’ is a dereliction of basic medical research.”

They breakout their general categories of concern as shown below:

First, there are significant fears regarding the wide distribution of these new vaccines, which employ a new technology and remain only experimental without full approval from the FDA. Instead of employing an attenuated antigen response – as happens with conventional vaccines – these experimental agents introduce something called a “spike protein” into one’s system.

“It takes years to be sure something new is safe,” the AFLDS document confirms. “No one knows definitively the long-term health implications for the body and brain, especially among the young, related to this spike protein. In addition, if documented problems with the protein do arise, there will never be any way to reverse the adverse effects in those already vaccinated.”

Second, unlike conventional vaccines, these spike proteins, along with “lipid nanoparticles” have the capacity to pass through the “blood-brain barrier” which provides special protection for these sensitive areas of the body.

“There simply has not been enough time to know what brain problems and how often a brain problem will develop from that,” the document warns.

Risks from such penetration include “chronic inflammation and thrombosis (clotting) in the neurological system, contributing to tremors, chronic lethargy, stroke, Bell’s Palsy and ALS-type symptoms. The lipid nanoparticles can potentially fuse with brain cells, resulting in delayed neuro-degenerative disease. And the mRNA-induced spike protein can bind to brain tissue 10 to 20 times stronger than the spike proteins that are (naturally) part of the original virus.”

Third, as these experimental vaccines produce many trillions of spike proteins in their recipients, these vaccinated individuals “can shed some of these (spike protein) particles to close contacts,” causing disease in them.

In an email correspondence with LifeSiteNews, Dr. Simone Gold, the founder of AFLDS, directed this writer to an April 29 tweet where she posted a document from Pfizer’s experimental trials in which the pharmaceutical giant “acknowledges this mechanism” of potential shedding, she wrote. 

As the document states, one can be “exposed to [the] study intervention due to environmental exposure,” including “by inhalation or skin contact” with someone involved in the study, or with another who has been exposed in the same way.

And this, according to AFLDS, can be dangerous. As the issues brief continues, “the spike proteins are pathogenic (‘disease causing’) just like the full virus.” Furthermore, these “spike proteins bind more tightly than the fully intact virus” and thus cases around the world of “pericarditis, shingles, pneumonia, blood clots in the extremities and brain, Bell’s Palsy, vaginal bleeding and miscarriages have been reported in persons who are near persons who have been vaccinated.” Such shedding also “appears to be causing wide variety of autoimmune disease (where the body attacks its own tissue) in some persons.”

In addition, other more serious dangers to even the unvaccinated are possible due to the fact that these “spike proteins can cross the blood brain barrier, unlike traditional vaccines.”

Fourth, such shedding leaves children vulnerable if they are in proximity to parents and teachers who have received these experimental vaccines. While the threat of COVID-19 to the young is rightly described as “irrelevant,” including a 99.997% survival rate for those under 20 years of age, AFLDS is concerned some children may become symptomatic due to such proximity to the vaccinated. At such point there is a danger that “public health bureaucrats” might use such cases to “speculate that a child’s illness is related to a SARS-CoV-2 ‘variant,’” when it is a result of contact with vaccinated adults.

“Our other concern is that children could develop long-term chronic autoimmune disease including neurological problems due to the fact that children have decades ahead of them and trillions of the spike proteins mentioned above.”

Fifth, “AFLDS is aware of thousands of reports involving vaginal bleeding, post-menopausal vaginal bleeding, and miscarriages following COVID-19 vaccination as well as anecdotal reports of similar adverse events among those in close contact with the vaccinated.” While at this point the independent physicians organization “cannot comment definitively on the close contacts” other than to mention they “have heard reports of this worldwide,” the many reported incidents of post-vaccination vaginal bleeding establishes a clear “connection between the vaccine and irregular bleeding.”

“Despite this clear-cut evidence, menstrual-cycle changes were not listed among the FDA’s common side effects in its phase-three clinical participants. Women’s reproductive health needs to be taken seriously rather than waved away by agenda-driven public health officials,” the brief reads.

Finally, acknowledging the “irrepressible economic incentive among pharmaceutical companies” to market unnecessary and dangerous childhood COVID vaccinesboosters, and the like, AFLDS insists “Public health experts should stop and assess data on possible vaccine side effects and related post-vaccination questions before it is too late.”

 

Systemically Flawed Mortality Statistics Should Not Be Guiding Science, Medicine or Public Policy

Systemically Flawed mortality statistics should not be guiding science, medicine or public policy

An evidence based position presented by a former death certificate clerk
By Joy Fritz

In An article published on LifeSiteNews:

“Being a former death certificate clerk, and having spent nearly 7 years in the funeral home industry ushering thousands of death certificates from digital creation to final registration, I am appalled that death certificate data is codified for use as our national mortality statistics. Aside from some basic demographic tracking of age, place and gender of the deceased, using death certificates for anything beyond closing bank accounts is a disservice to society.

With the rare exception of a medical certifier that has independently chosen to be conscientious and thorough in their certificate completion practices, or the special circumstances of car accidents, overdose, suicides and homicide deaths that lend themselves to robust investigation and reporting protocols, the average natural cause of death reporting on death certificates and the mortality statistics extrapolated from them are not the product of careful investigation, are known to have a 20-60% inaccuracy rate according to the peer-reviewed literature, and are, by definition, variable medical opinions, not facts.

It’s an extremely uncomfortable truth when you look around us at a world enslaved by the daily COVID mortality tallies being reported from every outlet. It’s especially disconcerting if you’ve assumed mortality statistics were somehow exempt from the Twain-ism about statistics being lesser in value to both lies and damn lies. But both the nature and the nurture of cause-of-death data capture flies in the face of any reliability in mortality statistics as structurally sound pillars of objective fact.

However, unlike the entrenched modern-day mores that demand unquestioning homage to those with special knowledge, I will not ask that you believe me simply because of my professional experience. I am here to offer you three considerations to help you develop your own understanding of cause-of-death data capture so as to create an independence in your own pursuit of truth regarding this underlying societal assumption about the infallibility of mortality data. Perhaps you will find, as I have, that mortality statistics tabulated from death certificates have no business steering public health recommendations or medical decisions, and using them as a metric for scientific research or public policy is about as prudent as building a skyscraper on a sand box.

 

The Harsh Realities of Death Certification

 

 

The first harsh reality we need to come to terms with is that even though causes of death provided on death certificates are treated like gavel-dropping legal facts, especially with their prima facie status in a court of lawthere’s not actually much scientific investigation happening behind the scenes as to what has caused a death.

The best way to describe the culture I witnessed being the middle-woman in the death recording process for nearly 5,000 death certificates, was not a culture of careful, unbiased scientific investigation but rather a demoralizing, bureaucratic game of hot potato.

The funeral home directors want the record registered ASAP so the family they are serving won’t have their burial or cremation services delayed and the next-of-kin can get their certified copies so as to start settling affairs (close bank accounts, access life insurance, etc.).

The doctor’s office, hospice or hospital decedent affairs staff wanted me (the mortuary representative) to stop calling them with urgent messages about the upcoming burial or cremation service and the need for doctor’s expedient cooperation in the multi-step process for record approval and attestation.

The doctor wants the request for causes of death off his/her desk and doesn’t want to deal with multiple rejections from either the mortuary or the vital records registrars if he/she put causes or contributory factors that don’t fit the narrow allowances under the “natural” manner of death umbrella.

The coroner/medical examiner office doesn’t want to take cases that they don’t absolutely have to, when they are understaffed and already up to their ears in car accident deaths, drug overdoses, suicides and homicide death investigations.

The local vital records registrars don’t want to approve a cause of death that will get flagged by their bosses at the state registrar office after the record has been sent for final registration, causing a whole mess of paperwork to fix the problem.

This bureaucratic tumbling machine results in bland, simple, broad brushstroke causes of death that are an easy ‘pass’ in the electronic system becoming the gold standard in death recording. Any time-intensive investigation is avoided at all costs. The system isn’t built to allow for investigation anyway. In fact, in the state where I worked, doctors are supposed to provide causes of death within 15 hours of the death occurring, and all the multi-step information gathering and verification process between the family, doctor, coroner and state registrar is supposed to be finalized within 7 days after the death.

Towards this end, I was regularly advised by the local registrar’s office to coach the doctors in submitting causes that passed the registrar’s easy filters for natural manners of death, despite the physician’s uncertainty.

The doctor doesn’t know why the person died? Just ask the doctor if the patient was on any medications (insinuating that the cause for a medication prescription, such as hypertension, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, etc. is an easy pass for the cause of death).

Oh, the doctor hasn’t physically seen the patient in over six months? They can still sign the death certificate; just ask them if a refill prescription was sent to the pharmacy for their patient in the past six months, then they are still the “attending” physician.

A 60 year old patient died unexpectedly at home? No autopsy needed, it’ll just be a coroner sign-out case.

A sign-out case, at least here in Los Angeles County, means that the local coroner/medical examiner just needs to stop by the mortuary and take a couple of pictures of the outside of the body to make sure there’s no evidence of physical trauma. Then, the last doctor to order a prescription refill can sign the death certificate with their best guess as to why the patient died, or if the doctor won’t cooperate, the coroner/medical examiner will just slap a catch-all diagnosis like “atherosclerotic heart disease” on the death certificate and call it good.

Everyone involved in death recording gets used to (read:demoralized by) the system, especially for those who died in hospice care or in long-term care facilities. Their causes of death will typically default to the primary diagnosis for which they were put in the nursing home or on hospice in the first place.

Some of the facilities I worked with had a cause-of-death worksheet sent to me minutes after the death occurred because the worksheet had been pre-filled out and was waiting in the patient’s file weeks or months before the person actually died.

For very few deceased, some scientific-ish investigation does occur, although that has dramatically trended down since the 1940s. Postmortem autopsy investigation has dramatically dropped from 20-50% postmortem autopsy rate as late as the 1970s to only 4-8% in our current postmortem protocols.

Because of a shortage in those who specialize in this type of investigation, combined with the requirement that a medical examiner/coroner must be involved in the death recording process for any unnatural or iatrogenic factors impacting the death, you probably shouldn’t expect your loved one’s doctor to be including any medical complications after medication or a medical intervention (such as vaccination) as a cause of death on the death certificate.

In fact, even if your doctor is bold enough to concede that your loved one’s health deteriorated significantly after a medical intervention, the death certificate process would then have to come to a screeching halt.

That’s an unnatural cause of death. Now the case gets bumped to the medical examiner/coroner. But even then, 30% of doctors have reported being instructed by the coroner to put an inaccurate cause of death on purpose so that the medical examiner/coroner office won’t need to take the case. And the metaphorical potato game continues.

However, if the case is accepted by the medical examiner/coroner office, things start getting really messy for the family and the funeral home. The medical examiner/coroner office can be likened to the DMV for death recording. The grieving family is now extremely likely to experience delays in what date the funeral or cremation services can be arranged. When I was a mortuary employee I personally saw situations where the doctor sent causes that required coroner involvement but the services had already been scheduled, and traveling family and friends had already flown in from across the country for the burial. The service schedule needed to be completely rearranged sometimes by up to two weeks out to allow for autopsy and death certificate completion before we could get the permit to bury (or cremate).

On top of that inconvenience, there’s hundreds of dollars in fees from the coroner investigation and post-autopsy body reconstruction services the mortuary must perform if the family had a viewing service in their wishes. Even after the burial, the traffic jam imposed on settling affairs and having closure can last up to a year while the coroner takes the time to determine the manner and cause of death.

What’s the understanding to take away from this behind-the-scenes look at death recording? A thorough picture of what impacted the health of your loved one is de-incentivized in a bureaucratic system, and the carefully investigated truth that ought to guide science research, public policy and medical decision-making for future generations becomes no more reliable than pulling a lever on a slot machine.

Causes of Death are Medical Opinions and are Often Disputed

 

But what many don’t realize, and the second of my three offered considerations on this matter, is that the causes of death listed on a death certificate were never designed to be the immovable pillars of science, medicine or law in the first place. As laid out by the CDC, both the physician handbook and medical examiner/coroner’s handbook state that causes of death are a medical opinion, and that these opinions can change from provider to provider.

Let me tell you, they sure did change from provider to provider. When I worked as a death certificate clerk, I occasionally would send death certificate worksheets to multiple doctors involved in a patient’s care if we had a rush to bury or cremate. In these situations we needed to cast a wider net to find a rapidly responding doctor to accomplish the record before final disposition. Many times each physician would send me back a different cause of death. Same patient. Different opinions. Different causes of death.

In general, if someone died in a hospital, the hospitalist would put the acute condition they treated the patient for while leaving out pre-existing chronic conditions. The primary care or hospice physician would put a chronic condition like heart disease, diabetes or hypertension that they prescribed regular meds for, with very little information about the past few weeks or days of health decline. And a specialist would put the specific condition they were managing as the cause of death, such as stage 4 kidney disease and any disease-specific complications that, in their opinion, could explain the demise.

Occasionally there was some consensus on the causes of death between the worksheets sent back from different providers, but thoroughness of the contributory factors or the logical sequence of conditions that led to the decline was almost always lacking or inconsistent in the majority of worksheets received.

These data capture “captains,” who are in charge of supplying us with some of the most valuable data, exercise very little care or consistency in how they fill out these records. Yet their output is blindly guiding scientific assumptions, research funding, public health policy and clinical risk estimation for generations to come.

And I don’t think we can quite blame them. Physicians have received little-to-no education on the importance of death certification and most are unaware that this data is simply repackaged and regurgitated back to them in the news media, scientific literature or public health policy. In medical schools there is not much more than a couple of hours of discussion on death certificate completion, and sometimes the education is as basic as watching this 20 minute slideshow and being quizzed with a handful of questions. Doctors have no thorough or standardized training, and at time of a patient’s death they are not taking enough time to review each patient’s complete medical record and clinical course carefully before completing the causes-of-death worksheet. And even the few who are more thoughtful in the information they provide can still have a varying opinion on what qualifies to be reported as a cause.

 

Peer-reviewed Literature Suggests Unreliability of Death Certificates for Guiding Policy

 

Does this culture of data capture really support the weight of science, medicine and public health policy with any confidence? As my third and final consideration for you, let’s take a look at what the peer-reviewed literature shows us as to how this bureaucratic data tumbler spits out.

Here’s an international study of COPD patients, where 42% of clinical trial patients whose death certificates were analyzed by an independent committee did not have COPD listed anywhere on their death certificate. These were patients enrolled in a clinical trial for COPD therapy.

Then, in Norway, 17.6% of investigated death certificates required amendmentsto change the underlying cause of death.

study out of Pakistan shows 62% of death certificates have errors that significantly changed the death certificate interpretation.

Missouri DHSS 2009-2012 study found 45.8% of the underlying cause of death reporting inaccurate.

A blinded study based on reviewing medical records vs. death certificates in Vermont showed 60% as needing a change in the underlying cause of death.

Another Vermont study with a similar methodology found that 34% of hospital death certificates were wrong in the cause or manner of death.

This meta-analysis comparing clinical diagnoses against autopsy findings states: “At least a third of death certificates are likely to be incorrect and 50% of autopsies produce findings unsuspected before death.”

And how about 25% of adults dying within 30 days of being hospitalized with a Clostridium difficile infection in the UK? According to this study, if you were to die soon after being hospitalized for a C. diff infection, there’s only a 17% chance C. diff will be listed as the underlying cause of your death, and only a 31% chance it will be mentioned on your death certificate at all.

And did you know that even though tuberculosis is believed to be the leading infectious disease killer cited by global authorities to be taking 1.5 million lives every year, this South Africa’s study found 63% of decedents who were autopsied after receiving a tuberculosis diagnosis on their death certificate didn’t even test positive for TB by smear or culture. Whichever disease or situation that is killing the people falsely diagnosed with TB is not getting the research funding it deserves.

And the death certificates for infants bring this truth home about the lack of accuracy in causes of death even more:

This study found 48% of infant deaths in Mexico were not reported accurately compared to the patient’s medical chart. And 71% of those inaccurate death certificates had failed to mention an infectious, parasitic, or respiratory disease as either contributory or underlying factor.

This Ohio study of infant death certificates found 56.5% of death certificates were discordant with autopsy findings.

So across the board, reported causes of death are wrong 20-60% of the time. With the exception of a couple of cancer types, studies done on every continent have found an incompetence in death certificate data recording that is so shocking, it’s a wonder it hasn’t taken up enough headlines to actually effect change.

But there was a change made this past year. Not a data capture reform for all the erroneous death diagnoses, and not even a data capture reform to improve reporting for ALL the infections that significantly impact our health before death. The CDC’s National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) rolled out the data capture red carpet for one – and only one – disease-causing pathogen: SARS-CoV-2.

On March 24th, 2020, only 11 days after the first lockdown started, and well before widespread testing was available, the NVSS gave hand-holding guidance to the medical certifiers, local registrars and mortality statistics coders on precisely how they ought to spotlight COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death on death certificates. They boldly declared that COVID should be the underlying cause on a death certificate “more often than not” even without laboratoryconfirmation of infection. What’s crazier still, is that when they created this COVID alert in March and followed up by releasing this COVID death recording guidance a few days later, we couldn’t have possibly had enough country-specific statistics to justify such a drastic departure in coding COVID deaths compared to how other infectious disease fatalities are ascertained.

So the NVSS actually dictated a belief to the community of death certificate medical certifiers and vital records registrars (who are our cause-of-death approval “gate keepers”), before having any reasonable disease surveillance infrastructure established to support their claim of probability of undiagnosed COVID being the cause of death, thus greatly amplifying the perception of COVID mortality. This may have even been against Federal law on data collection changes, as this peer-reviewed research paper suggests, stating “Federal agencies that make changes to how they collect, publish, and analyze data without alerting the Federal Register and OMB [Office of Management and Budget] as a result, are in violation of federal law.”

Furthermore, their COVID-19 death certifying guidance, changed the death certification long-standing protocols when it declared: “…reporting “COVID–19” due to “chronic obstructive pulmonary disease” in Part I would be an illogical sequence as COPD cannot cause an infection, although it may increase susceptibility to or exacerbate an infection. In this instance, COVID–19 would be reported in Part I as the UCOD [underlying cause of death] and the COPD in Part II [as the contributory factor].

The UCOD on a death certificate is what’s reported and tallied in our national mortality statistics as the reason that the death occurred. It is found on the last line of Part 1 on a death certificate. What needs to be provided for a death certificate is a logical sequence of conditions that explain why the death has occurred, not a logical sequence as to why an infection has occurred. So relegating an important chronic condition that logically explains why someone has died of an infection that most people survive is a drastic departure from previous cause-of-death guidance.

Here are four examples given to medical certifiers in the CDC training module and the CDC handbook on proper death certification of cases with infection-related deaths in patients with pre-existing conditions. (UCOD is shown in bold and the infection that has immediately led to death is italicized.) :

From slide 43 of the CDC training module on Improving Cause of Death Reporting: Cause of Death Reporting Assessment – Answer 3 of

The correct sequence of conditions in Question #3 is:

  • (a) Enterobacter aerogenes sepsis

  • (b) Bilateral lower lobe pneumonia due to Enterobacter aerogenes

  • (c) Chronic respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation

  • (d) Quadriplegia due to C4 spinal cord injury

From the CDC handbook on death certification: Example 5:

  • (a) Pseudomonas aeruginosa sepsis

  • (b) Pseudomonas aeruginosa urinary tract infection

  • (c) In-dwelling bladder catheter

  • (d) Left hemiparesis

  • (e) Old cerebrovascular accident

Example 6:

  • (a) Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia

  • (b) Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

  • (c) HIV infection

Example 10:

  • (a) Escherichia coli meningitis

  • (b) Cystic fibrosis

In all these examples it is the pre-existing condition that made the patient susceptible to death from an infection (i.e., quadriplegia, stroke (cerebrovascular accident), HIV or cystic fibrosis) that is advised by regulatory bodies to be reported as the underlying cause of death (UCOD) which is then subsequently tallied in our mortality statistics as the reason for the death.

But the new COVID-19 guidance advises the exact opposite: medical certifiers are now to report the infection as the UCOD and tally it in our mortality statistics, while simultaneously demoting the previously revered underlying chronic condition (e.g., COPD) into a section of the death certificate that doesn’t impact mortality statistics and holds less sway in science, medicine, public health and law.

Here’s an example from the Hawaii Vital Records website showing how the COVID death certificate is supposed to look:

Image

As you can see, reporting death in this way will naturally highlight the short term COVID illness resulting in death, instead of reporting the chronic illness like we have done in the past. This is another way how COVID mortality is being artificially amplified over any other infectious cause of death.

Flawed System of PCR Testing for COVID, Even After Death

Finally, yet another biased standard of boosting COVID mortality specific to this year’s very odd death tallying was PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 carriage performed after death, including on those whose cause of death was suicide or car accidents and obviously not COVID-related at all. Testing for pathogen carriage after accidental death would have never been performed in the past. Similarly, any at-home deaths that used to be chalked up to “atherosclerotic heart disease” without any investigation were now presumed COVID deaths. Andnursing home clusters of deaths in the elderly – which, by the way, I used to regularly witness multiple times a year in my capacity as a death recording clerk from 2013-2019 – were now opportunities to swab the dead to contribute to the COVID death toll in 2020, even without evidence of symptoms in the deceased.

As I mentioned previously, deaths that occurred in nursing homes and under hospice care almost always were attributed to the chronic condition that explained their decline in health – regardless of what final infection they suffered from… until now.

This year has provided an undue cause-of-death spotlighting for one pathogen, bolstered by a biased infrastructure of mortality statistics tabulation that has greatly skewed the scientific process of data capture needed to steer medicine, public policy and public perceptions rationally. Without consistent guidance from accurately reported cause-of-death information, science and medicine cannot apply their resources and recommendations wisely to save the highest number of lives. Our rights and freedoms are being lost because public policy and perceptions are being built on a foundation of risk estimation that is so erroneous that it crumbles under even the slightest academic examination. It’s time to have better conversations and create real solutions to the data capture crisis misleading our world. This year has shown us just how horrifically misled we can be by a set of fallacious assumptions.

Families look at the death certificate information of their deceased loved ones to steer their own medical decision-making when it comes to forming their beliefs about genealogical susceptibility to disease and perceptions of risk. Scientific, medical and legislative bodies are influenced by apparent conclusions drawn from the death certificate data and affect the well-being of nations around the globe. Cause of death reporting changes the world on a micro- and macro-scale for better or worse; thus, accuracy matters.

To this end, I’m personally stepping out of my comfort zone, and into the world of grassroots social impact. Many others are concerned about the issue of accuracy in death certification and we are starting a nonprofit to help families, funeral homes and medical certifiers amend death certificates so as to provide an accurate reporting of underlying and contributory health factors that played a role in a patient’s demise.

If you are interested in being involved in effecting change in death certificate accuracy by volunteering these next few months with website, budget and strategic planning, or if you have skills and time to lend in the Officer or Board member capacity, please reach out to me at JoyFritz@protonmail.com.