• CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway
    Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness

    World Council for Health
    This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.

    cdc masks ineffective covid feature
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker.

    The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness.

    During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus.

    If this content is important to you, share it!

    Share

    However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker.

    “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender.

    To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote.

    CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness

    According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.”

    In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.”

    The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two.

    The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong.

    “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said.

    The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.”

    More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks.

    According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness.

    Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children.

    According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.”

    “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted.

    Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science

    Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.”


    twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1378462317109731334
    That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19.

    However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote.

    “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks.

    “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted.


    twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1256655451195715585
    According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control.

    In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.”



    According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies.

    “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.”

    The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said.

    Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said.

    “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote.

    Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.”

    Risch said:

    “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective.

    “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.”

    Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others.

    “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.”

    “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added.

    In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness.

    A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness.

    According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.”

    A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer.

    A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

    According to the findings of the meta-analysis:

    “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions.

    “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.”

    Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy.

    Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.”

    In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.”

    A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.”

    Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.”

    “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.”

    “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said.

    Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America.

    “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said.

    “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added.

    Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.”

    “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender.

    “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said.

    If this content is important to you, share it with your network!

    Share

    This article was written by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. and originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.


    If you find value in this Substack and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you.

    Upgrade to Paid Subscription

    Refer a friend

    Donate Subscriptions

    Give Direct to WCH

    https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks-ineffective

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks_16.html
    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness World Council for Health This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website. cdc masks ineffective covid feature The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker. The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness. During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus. If this content is important to you, share it! Share However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker. “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender. To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote. CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.” In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.” The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two. The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.” According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong. “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said. The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.” More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks. According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness. Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children. According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.” “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted. Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.” twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1378462317109731334 That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19. However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote. “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks. “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted. twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1256655451195715585 According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control. In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.” According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies. “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.” The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said. Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said. “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.” Risch said: “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.” According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective. “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.” Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others. “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.” “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added. In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness. A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness. According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.” A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer. A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). According to the findings of the meta-analysis: “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions. “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.” Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy. Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.” In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.” A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.” Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.” “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.” “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said. Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America. “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said. “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added. Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.” “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender. “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said. If this content is important to you, share it with your network! Share This article was written by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. and originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense. If you find value in this Substack and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you. Upgrade to Paid Subscription Refer a friend Donate Subscriptions Give Direct to WCH https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks-ineffective https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks_16.html
    WORLDCOUNCILFORHEALTH.SUBSTACK.COM
    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway
    Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness
    0 Comments 0 Shares 5575 Views
  • CDC'S own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by Paul D. Thacker.


    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for COVID — But Agency Recommended Them Anyway
    According to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker published this week in The Disinformation Chronicle, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness

    Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
    cdc masks ineffective covid feature
    Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker.

    The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness.

    During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus.

    However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker.

    “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender.

    To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote.

    CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness

    According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.”

    In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.”

    The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two.

    The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong.

    “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said.

    The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.”

    More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks.

    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax
    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax”

    Order Now

    According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness.

    Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children.

    According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.”

    “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted.

    Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science

    Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.”


    That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19.

    However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote.

    “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks.

    “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted.


    According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control.

    In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.”



    According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies.

    “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.”

    The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said.

    Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said.

    “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote.

    Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.”

    Risch said:

    “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective.

    “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.”

    Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others.

    “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.”

    “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added.

    In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness.

    A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness.

    According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.”

    A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer.

    A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

    According to the findings of the meta-analysis:

    “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions.

    “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.”

    Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy.

    Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.”

    In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.”

    A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.”

    Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.”

    “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.”

    “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said.

    Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America.

    “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said.

    “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added.

    Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.”

    “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender.

    “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said.

    DETAILS ⬇️
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-scientists-masks-ineffective-covid-agency-recommended/

    Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks.html
    CDC'S own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by Paul D. Thacker. CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for COVID — But Agency Recommended Them Anyway According to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker published this week in The Disinformation Chronicle, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. cdc masks ineffective covid feature Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker. The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness. During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus. However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker. “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender. To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote. CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.” In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.” The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two. The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.” According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong. “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said. The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.” More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness. Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children. According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.” “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted. Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.” That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19. However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote. “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks. “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted. According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control. In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.” According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies. “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.” The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said. Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said. “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.” Risch said: “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.” According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective. “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.” Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others. “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.” “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added. In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness. A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness. According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.” A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer. A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). According to the findings of the meta-analysis: “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions. “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.” Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy. Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.” In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.” A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.” Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.” “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.” “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said. Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America. “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said. “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added. Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.” “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender. “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said. DETAILS ⬇️ https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-scientists-masks-ineffective-covid-agency-recommended/ Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks.html
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for COVID — But Agency Recommended Them Anyway
    According to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker published this week in The Disinformation Chronicle, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 7126 Views
  • 62% of Nursing Home Residents REFUSE COVID-19 Injections
    Even though according to HHS, seniors are 5 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than the flu, the CDC reports that 62% of nursing home residents are REFUSING COVID-19 boosters.

    January 30, 2024: While COVID-19 shots made their way onto the CDC’s recommended childhood vaccine schedule and some colleges are still mandating the mRNA injections for the healthiest demographic of adults, the majority of nursing home residents across America are refusing to take the COVID-19 mRNA injections.



    https://karenkingston.substack.com/p/62-of-nursing-home-residents-refuse
    62% of Nursing Home Residents REFUSE COVID-19 Injections Even though according to HHS, seniors are 5 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than the flu, the CDC reports that 62% of nursing home residents are REFUSING COVID-19 boosters. January 30, 2024: While COVID-19 shots made their way onto the CDC’s recommended childhood vaccine schedule and some colleges are still mandating the mRNA injections for the healthiest demographic of adults, the majority of nursing home residents across America are refusing to take the COVID-19 mRNA injections. https://karenkingston.substack.com/p/62-of-nursing-home-residents-refuse
    KARENKINGSTON.SUBSTACK.COM
    62% of Nursing Home Residents REFUSE COVID-19 Injections
    Even though according to HHS, seniors are 5 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than the flu, the CDC reports that 62% of nursing home residents are REFUSING COVID-19 boosters.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 999 Views
  • The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 2: Studies Link the Vaccines to Neurological, Autoimmune Disorders
    Researchers who looked closely into the Gardasil HPV vaccine concluded the risks from the vaccine seem to significantly outweigh the as-yet-unproven long-term benefits.

    The Epoch Times

    Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

    By Dr. Yuhong Dong

    Editor’s Note: This second installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine examines studies that link the vaccines to increased risk of serious neurological and autoimmune disorders. Read Part 1 here.

    Summary of key facts

    A Danish review of 79,102 female and 16,568 male subjects, found human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines had significantly increased rates of serious nervous system disorders. Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and complex regional pain syndrome were judged “definitely associated” with the HPV vaccine.
    A large Danish and Swedish study including nearly 300,000 girls found a significant association between the HPV vaccine and increased rates of Bechet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37), Raynaud’s disease (1.67) and type 1 diabetes (1.29).
    A large study including 3 million Danish and Swedish women aged 18 to 44, identified seven adverse events with statistically significant increased risks following HPV vaccination: Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, celiac disease, lupus erythematosus, pemphigus vulgaris, Addison’s disease, Raynaud’s disease and encephalitis, myelitis, or encephalomyelitis.
    A 2017 French study of over 2.2 million young girls found evidence of a 3.78-fold increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). A 2011 U.S. study found nearly a two-and-a-half to 10 times greater risk of acquiring GBS within six weeks post-Gardasil vaccination.
    While the underlying mechanisms causing these autoimmune reactions are not yet fully understood, some researchers speculate that the sizable overlap in protein sequences between the HPV and the human genome may cause the immune system to attack itself. Others are concerned that the adjuvants (such as aluminum) used to attract the attention of the immune system may be causing harm.
    Neurological and autoimmune disorders

    Danish review found increased nervous system disorder

    In 2020, a group of Danish scientists conducted a systematic review of the overall benefits and harms of HPV vaccines.

    Twenty-four eligible randomized controlled clinical studies were obtained, with a total of 95,670 participants, mostly women, and 49 months mean weighted follow-up.

    Almost all controls were given an active comparator vaccine (typically a hepatitis vaccine with a comparable aluminum-based adjuvant).

    Given that the adjuvant is highly immunogenic by design (it is meant to grab the attention of the immune system), this trial design makes it difficult to detect an excess risk with the HPV vaccines.

    Without true controls (such as a saline placebo), the real risks of HPV vaccination cannot be accurately assessed.

    In the vaccine group, 367 cancers were detected, compared to 490 in the comparator group.

    Younger participants (15 to 29) seemed to benefit more from the vaccine concerning preventing moderate HPV-related intraepithelial neoplasia compared to older participants (ages 21 to 72). Younger participants also had fewer fatal harms.

    Even though the studies were flawed in their design, at four years post-vaccination, those who had received the HPV vaccines had significantly increased rates of serious nervous system disorders: 49%, as well as general harms totaling 7%.

    The serious harms that were judged “definitely associated” with HPV vaccines were postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. POTS had a nearly twofold increase in the vaccinated group.

    By July 2017, only two-thirds of the results from HPV vaccine trials had been published, and only about half the results had been posted, due to manuscript length limitations, reporting bias and confounding journal articles offering a limited view of trial outcomes.

    This Danish systematic review compiled data from all the HPV trials to offer a summary of the evidence thus far.

    Nevertheless, the investigators acknowledged that despite three years of work, the limitations of their analysis remained. These included reporting bias, incomplete reporting, data fragmentation and limited trial follow-up.

    These investigators similarly note that the trials were powered to assess the benefits of HPV vaccination, not rare harms. The degree to which benefits outweigh risks is therefore unknown.

    They concluded that future research should carefully evaluate the harms following Gardasil 9 compared to Gardasil because the former contains more than double the virus proteins and aluminum-containing adjuvant than the same dose of Gardasil.

    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax
    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax”

    Order Now

    Large studies reveal autoimmune events

    In 2009, the HPV4 vaccine was integrated into the Danish childhood vaccination program. Since then, two large cohort studies on the HPV4 vaccine adverse events have been carried out using the hospital-based healthcare registries of Denmark and Sweden.

    The first study in Denmark and Sweden included 296,826 girls aged 10 to 17 who received a total of 696,420 HPV4 vaccine doses.

    The scientists evaluated rate ratios for autoimmune events and found no significant association for 20 out of 23 events.

    They found a significant association between the HPV4 vaccine and Bechet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37), Raynaud’s disease (1.67) and type 1 diabetes (1.29).

    But after further review, they concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a causal association, because of the weakness of the signal and the lack of an underlying mechanism to explain biological plausibility.

    In a second large cohort study, the same team expanded their research to more than 3 million Danish and Swedish adult women aged 18 to 44.

    The authors identified seven adverse events with statistically significant increased risks following HPV4 vaccination: Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, celiac disease, lupus erythematosus, pemphigus vulgaris, Addison’s disease, Raynaud’s disease and encephalitis, myelitis or encephalomyelitis.

    After sensitivity analyses, the association between HPV4 vaccination and celiac disease was the most robust finding.

    Celiac disease is a condition where a person’s immune system attacks the body’s own gut after eating gluten.

    As the graph below shows, the scientists used two risk periods after HPV4 vaccination: the first 180 days and after.

    1 time since first dose HPV4 vaccine coeliac cases
    Time since the first dose of the HPV4 vaccine for vaccinated coeliac cases in a cohort of Danish and Swedish women. Credit: Journal of Internal Medicine
    The authors noted that the observed 56% increased risk of celiac disease “was strong, and the increase was strikingly similar in both risk periods after vaccination.”

    Celiac disease is underdiagnosed in Denmark.

    So one possible explanation is that vaccination visits allow a chance for this and other conditions to be diagnosed and explored.

    This explanation suggests that the association between the HPV vaccine and autoimmune disorders may be coincidental.

    However, given the lack of any real control groups in these studies, as well as the growing body of scientific literature from countries around the world showing problems with the HPV vaccine, dismissing these safety signals as coincidence seems short-sighted.

    Large French study and U.S. VAERS study identify risks of Guillain-Barré Syndrome

    The concern about autoimmune disease adverse events has contributed to low HPV vaccination uptake in France.

    A 2017 study of over 2.2 million young girls in France found troubling evidence of a link with Guillain-Barré syndrome. GBS is a condition that arises when our own antibodies attack the nerves.

    The incidence of GBS was found to be 1.4 per 100,000 person-years among the vaccinated girls compared to 0.4 per 100,000 among the unvaccinated, resulting in an increased risk of GBS of more than 200%.

    The association appeared to be “particularly marked in the first months following vaccination.”

    This finding is corroborated by the pattern of adverse reactions reported worldwide. Data from a large number of case reports document similar serious adverse events associated with Gardasil administration, with nervous system disorders of autoimmune origin being the most frequently reported.

    A 2011 U.S. study found that the estimated weekly reporting rate of post-Gardasil GBS within the first six weeks (6.6 per 10,000,000) was higher than in the general population, and higher than post-Menactra and post-influenza vaccinations.

    In particular, there was nearly a two-and-a-half to 10 times greater risk of acquiring GBS within six weeks after vaccination, compared to the general population.

    Additionally, the study found Gardasil vaccination was associated with approximately eight-and-a-half times more emergency department visits, 12.5 times more hospitalizations, 10 times more life-threatening events and 26.5 times more disability than the Menactra vaccination.

    Plausible mechanisms of harm

    Despite the conflicting data in the scientific literature to date, it is clear that the HPV vaccines can cause autoimmune disorders in susceptible people. But how?

    Autoimmunity has been reported as a complication of natural infection as well as virus vaccination. This phenomenon has been observed with many viruses, including the Epstein-Barr virus, COVID-19 and HPV.

    According to a 2019 study, the HPV vaccine contains epitopes — portions of the virus proteins — that overlap with the human proteins.

    This means that if we develop antibodies to those viruses, we may also generate autoantibodies to our own cells, which is the root cause of autoimmune dysfunction.

    The study showed that most of the immunoreactive HPV L1 epi­topes are overlapping peptides present in human proteins.

    The authors explained that this “unexpected enormous size of the peptide overlap between the HPV epitopes and human proteins” is relevant, and may be why a wide variety of autoimmune diseases have been reported post-HPV vaccination, including ovarian failure, systemic lupus erythematosus, breast cancer and sudden death, among others.

    Why some people develop these conditions and others do not is unclear.

    The authors suggest that vaccines should target the few peptides that do not overlap with human proteins, but which do overlap with the other HPVs.

    Despite this overlap and the potential for causing autoimmune disease, medical doctors usually ignore or dismiss the connection. We are told that these diseases are rare.

    The human body has something called immune tolerance. This protects a person’s immune system against attacking itself. Therefore, HPV infection is also “immune tolerated,” which means it lays dormant for some time until it becomes cancerous.

    HPV vaccination was actually designed with this immune tolerance in mind.

    Given the human body’s built-in defenses against autoimmune conditions, vaccinology requires an immunogenic catalyst to get the body’s attention. This is the job of an adjuvant.

    An adjuvant is an ingredient used in a vaccine that the body recognizes as foreign. It is added to vaccines so that the body will mount a stronger immune response.

    The idea is that in attacking the adjuvant, the body will also recognize other vaccine ingredients (in this case, purified HPV proteins).

    In addition, the antigen dose is much higher than in natural infections and the capsids in the vaccine are directly exposed to systemic immune responses as opposed to the virus staying relatively hidden within the natural barrier of the skin following infection.

    The vaccine was well-designed to trigger an immune response, but this advantage may come at a cost: Generating antibodies to HPV proteins through vaccination could, theoretically, set the stage for an autoimmune attack.

    Link between HPV-vaccine-associated nervous system dysfunction and autoimmunity

    A December 2022 Danish and German study was designed to elucidate a possible mechanism of harm.

    The lead author, Dr. Jesper Mehlsen, a specialist in treating autoimmune conditions, noted that the HPV major capsid L1s antigen resembles human autonomic nerve receptors, including G-protein coupled receptors (GPCR).

    According to the researchers, in the past several years, case series of suspected vaccination side effects have pointed to three disease entities: POTS, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and complex regional pain syndrome. These syndromes may be associated with neuroendocrine GPCR antibodies.

    From 2011 to 2018, researchers saw 845 patients (839 females, six males) with suspected side effects following the HPV4 vaccine. The control group included vaccinated people without side effects.

    Moderate to severe fatigue was recorded in 83.3% of the patients but in none of the controls.

    A high prevalence of symptoms, such as dizziness (91%), heart palpitations (71%), nausea (80%) and hyperactive bladder suggested that the patients were experiencing some kind of autonomic dysfunction.

    Autonomic dysfunction occurs when the part of the nervous system that controls well-being and balance does not function properly.

    2 most frequent symptoms hpv vaccine
    Most frequent symptoms reported by 612 patients in Denmark. Credit: Journal of Autoimmunity
    Twenty-four percent higher antinuclear antibodies (ANA, a common type of autoantibodies) were found in patients, suggesting possible autoimmunity.

    3 antinuclear antibodies HPV vaccines
    A larger proportion of the symptomatic patients were found with a common type of autoantibodies compared to healthy controls. Credit: Journal of Autoimmunity
    Antibodies against the adrenergic ß-2-receptor and muscarinic M-2 receptors were also found significantly higher in patients.

    Many of the symptoms, including immune activation and autonomic dysregulation, could be mediated or aggravated by dysregulated autoantibodies against adrenergic receptors and impaired peripheral adrenergic function.

    The authors suggested that girls and women with probable side effects of HPV vaccination have symptoms and biological markers compatible with an autoimmune disease closely resembling that seen in ME/CFS.

    Interestingly, people who already had HPV infections at some point appeared to be at greater risk for adverse events following vaccination.

    The authors noted that “prior disease may precondition some individuals for vaccine-related adverse events.”

    They also noted that some of the adverse events resembled long-COVID symptoms.

    Universal HPV vaccination called into question

    Academic researcher at the University of British Columbia, Lucija Tomljenovic, and neuroscientist Christopher Shaw, who have closely looked into Gardasil, have argued that the risks from the vaccine seem to significantly outweigh the as-yet-unproven long-term benefits.

    In a 2012 comment published in the American Journal of Public Health, they took issue with “incomplete and inaccurate” data and poorly designed trials.

    Vaccination is unjustified if the vaccine carries any substantial risk, as healthy teenagers face little to no risk of dying from cervical cancer.

    Risk-benefit analyses must be conducted to ascertain the overall balance of benefits and harms on both individual and societal levels.

    Reprinted with permission from The Epoch Times. Dr. Yuhong Dong, a medical doctor who also holds a doctorate in infectious diseases in China, is the chief scientific officer and co-founder of a Swiss biotech company and former senior medical scientific expert for antiviral drug development at Novartis Pharma in Switzerland.

    If you or your child suffered harm after receiving the Gardasil HPV vaccine, you may have a legal claim. Please visit Wisner Baum for a free case evaluation. Click here to watch a Gardasil litigation update interview with Wisner Baum Senior Partner Bijan Esfandiari.

    The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/truth-hpv-vaccine-part-2-et/

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-2.html
    The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 2: Studies Link the Vaccines to Neurological, Autoimmune Disorders Researchers who looked closely into the Gardasil HPV vaccine concluded the risks from the vaccine seem to significantly outweigh the as-yet-unproven long-term benefits. The Epoch Times Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. By Dr. Yuhong Dong Editor’s Note: This second installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine examines studies that link the vaccines to increased risk of serious neurological and autoimmune disorders. Read Part 1 here. Summary of key facts A Danish review of 79,102 female and 16,568 male subjects, found human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines had significantly increased rates of serious nervous system disorders. Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and complex regional pain syndrome were judged “definitely associated” with the HPV vaccine. A large Danish and Swedish study including nearly 300,000 girls found a significant association between the HPV vaccine and increased rates of Bechet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37), Raynaud’s disease (1.67) and type 1 diabetes (1.29). A large study including 3 million Danish and Swedish women aged 18 to 44, identified seven adverse events with statistically significant increased risks following HPV vaccination: Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, celiac disease, lupus erythematosus, pemphigus vulgaris, Addison’s disease, Raynaud’s disease and encephalitis, myelitis, or encephalomyelitis. A 2017 French study of over 2.2 million young girls found evidence of a 3.78-fold increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). A 2011 U.S. study found nearly a two-and-a-half to 10 times greater risk of acquiring GBS within six weeks post-Gardasil vaccination. While the underlying mechanisms causing these autoimmune reactions are not yet fully understood, some researchers speculate that the sizable overlap in protein sequences between the HPV and the human genome may cause the immune system to attack itself. Others are concerned that the adjuvants (such as aluminum) used to attract the attention of the immune system may be causing harm. Neurological and autoimmune disorders Danish review found increased nervous system disorder In 2020, a group of Danish scientists conducted a systematic review of the overall benefits and harms of HPV vaccines. Twenty-four eligible randomized controlled clinical studies were obtained, with a total of 95,670 participants, mostly women, and 49 months mean weighted follow-up. Almost all controls were given an active comparator vaccine (typically a hepatitis vaccine with a comparable aluminum-based adjuvant). Given that the adjuvant is highly immunogenic by design (it is meant to grab the attention of the immune system), this trial design makes it difficult to detect an excess risk with the HPV vaccines. Without true controls (such as a saline placebo), the real risks of HPV vaccination cannot be accurately assessed. In the vaccine group, 367 cancers were detected, compared to 490 in the comparator group. Younger participants (15 to 29) seemed to benefit more from the vaccine concerning preventing moderate HPV-related intraepithelial neoplasia compared to older participants (ages 21 to 72). Younger participants also had fewer fatal harms. Even though the studies were flawed in their design, at four years post-vaccination, those who had received the HPV vaccines had significantly increased rates of serious nervous system disorders: 49%, as well as general harms totaling 7%. The serious harms that were judged “definitely associated” with HPV vaccines were postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. POTS had a nearly twofold increase in the vaccinated group. By July 2017, only two-thirds of the results from HPV vaccine trials had been published, and only about half the results had been posted, due to manuscript length limitations, reporting bias and confounding journal articles offering a limited view of trial outcomes. This Danish systematic review compiled data from all the HPV trials to offer a summary of the evidence thus far. Nevertheless, the investigators acknowledged that despite three years of work, the limitations of their analysis remained. These included reporting bias, incomplete reporting, data fragmentation and limited trial follow-up. These investigators similarly note that the trials were powered to assess the benefits of HPV vaccination, not rare harms. The degree to which benefits outweigh risks is therefore unknown. They concluded that future research should carefully evaluate the harms following Gardasil 9 compared to Gardasil because the former contains more than double the virus proteins and aluminum-containing adjuvant than the same dose of Gardasil. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now Large studies reveal autoimmune events In 2009, the HPV4 vaccine was integrated into the Danish childhood vaccination program. Since then, two large cohort studies on the HPV4 vaccine adverse events have been carried out using the hospital-based healthcare registries of Denmark and Sweden. The first study in Denmark and Sweden included 296,826 girls aged 10 to 17 who received a total of 696,420 HPV4 vaccine doses. The scientists evaluated rate ratios for autoimmune events and found no significant association for 20 out of 23 events. They found a significant association between the HPV4 vaccine and Bechet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37), Raynaud’s disease (1.67) and type 1 diabetes (1.29). But after further review, they concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a causal association, because of the weakness of the signal and the lack of an underlying mechanism to explain biological plausibility. In a second large cohort study, the same team expanded their research to more than 3 million Danish and Swedish adult women aged 18 to 44. The authors identified seven adverse events with statistically significant increased risks following HPV4 vaccination: Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, celiac disease, lupus erythematosus, pemphigus vulgaris, Addison’s disease, Raynaud’s disease and encephalitis, myelitis or encephalomyelitis. After sensitivity analyses, the association between HPV4 vaccination and celiac disease was the most robust finding. Celiac disease is a condition where a person’s immune system attacks the body’s own gut after eating gluten. As the graph below shows, the scientists used two risk periods after HPV4 vaccination: the first 180 days and after. 1 time since first dose HPV4 vaccine coeliac cases Time since the first dose of the HPV4 vaccine for vaccinated coeliac cases in a cohort of Danish and Swedish women. Credit: Journal of Internal Medicine The authors noted that the observed 56% increased risk of celiac disease “was strong, and the increase was strikingly similar in both risk periods after vaccination.” Celiac disease is underdiagnosed in Denmark. So one possible explanation is that vaccination visits allow a chance for this and other conditions to be diagnosed and explored. This explanation suggests that the association between the HPV vaccine and autoimmune disorders may be coincidental. However, given the lack of any real control groups in these studies, as well as the growing body of scientific literature from countries around the world showing problems with the HPV vaccine, dismissing these safety signals as coincidence seems short-sighted. Large French study and U.S. VAERS study identify risks of Guillain-Barré Syndrome The concern about autoimmune disease adverse events has contributed to low HPV vaccination uptake in France. A 2017 study of over 2.2 million young girls in France found troubling evidence of a link with Guillain-Barré syndrome. GBS is a condition that arises when our own antibodies attack the nerves. The incidence of GBS was found to be 1.4 per 100,000 person-years among the vaccinated girls compared to 0.4 per 100,000 among the unvaccinated, resulting in an increased risk of GBS of more than 200%. The association appeared to be “particularly marked in the first months following vaccination.” This finding is corroborated by the pattern of adverse reactions reported worldwide. Data from a large number of case reports document similar serious adverse events associated with Gardasil administration, with nervous system disorders of autoimmune origin being the most frequently reported. A 2011 U.S. study found that the estimated weekly reporting rate of post-Gardasil GBS within the first six weeks (6.6 per 10,000,000) was higher than in the general population, and higher than post-Menactra and post-influenza vaccinations. In particular, there was nearly a two-and-a-half to 10 times greater risk of acquiring GBS within six weeks after vaccination, compared to the general population. Additionally, the study found Gardasil vaccination was associated with approximately eight-and-a-half times more emergency department visits, 12.5 times more hospitalizations, 10 times more life-threatening events and 26.5 times more disability than the Menactra vaccination. Plausible mechanisms of harm Despite the conflicting data in the scientific literature to date, it is clear that the HPV vaccines can cause autoimmune disorders in susceptible people. But how? Autoimmunity has been reported as a complication of natural infection as well as virus vaccination. This phenomenon has been observed with many viruses, including the Epstein-Barr virus, COVID-19 and HPV. According to a 2019 study, the HPV vaccine contains epitopes — portions of the virus proteins — that overlap with the human proteins. This means that if we develop antibodies to those viruses, we may also generate autoantibodies to our own cells, which is the root cause of autoimmune dysfunction. The study showed that most of the immunoreactive HPV L1 epi­topes are overlapping peptides present in human proteins. The authors explained that this “unexpected enormous size of the peptide overlap between the HPV epitopes and human proteins” is relevant, and may be why a wide variety of autoimmune diseases have been reported post-HPV vaccination, including ovarian failure, systemic lupus erythematosus, breast cancer and sudden death, among others. Why some people develop these conditions and others do not is unclear. The authors suggest that vaccines should target the few peptides that do not overlap with human proteins, but which do overlap with the other HPVs. Despite this overlap and the potential for causing autoimmune disease, medical doctors usually ignore or dismiss the connection. We are told that these diseases are rare. The human body has something called immune tolerance. This protects a person’s immune system against attacking itself. Therefore, HPV infection is also “immune tolerated,” which means it lays dormant for some time until it becomes cancerous. HPV vaccination was actually designed with this immune tolerance in mind. Given the human body’s built-in defenses against autoimmune conditions, vaccinology requires an immunogenic catalyst to get the body’s attention. This is the job of an adjuvant. An adjuvant is an ingredient used in a vaccine that the body recognizes as foreign. It is added to vaccines so that the body will mount a stronger immune response. The idea is that in attacking the adjuvant, the body will also recognize other vaccine ingredients (in this case, purified HPV proteins). In addition, the antigen dose is much higher than in natural infections and the capsids in the vaccine are directly exposed to systemic immune responses as opposed to the virus staying relatively hidden within the natural barrier of the skin following infection. The vaccine was well-designed to trigger an immune response, but this advantage may come at a cost: Generating antibodies to HPV proteins through vaccination could, theoretically, set the stage for an autoimmune attack. Link between HPV-vaccine-associated nervous system dysfunction and autoimmunity A December 2022 Danish and German study was designed to elucidate a possible mechanism of harm. The lead author, Dr. Jesper Mehlsen, a specialist in treating autoimmune conditions, noted that the HPV major capsid L1s antigen resembles human autonomic nerve receptors, including G-protein coupled receptors (GPCR). According to the researchers, in the past several years, case series of suspected vaccination side effects have pointed to three disease entities: POTS, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and complex regional pain syndrome. These syndromes may be associated with neuroendocrine GPCR antibodies. From 2011 to 2018, researchers saw 845 patients (839 females, six males) with suspected side effects following the HPV4 vaccine. The control group included vaccinated people without side effects. Moderate to severe fatigue was recorded in 83.3% of the patients but in none of the controls. A high prevalence of symptoms, such as dizziness (91%), heart palpitations (71%), nausea (80%) and hyperactive bladder suggested that the patients were experiencing some kind of autonomic dysfunction. Autonomic dysfunction occurs when the part of the nervous system that controls well-being and balance does not function properly. 2 most frequent symptoms hpv vaccine Most frequent symptoms reported by 612 patients in Denmark. Credit: Journal of Autoimmunity Twenty-four percent higher antinuclear antibodies (ANA, a common type of autoantibodies) were found in patients, suggesting possible autoimmunity. 3 antinuclear antibodies HPV vaccines A larger proportion of the symptomatic patients were found with a common type of autoantibodies compared to healthy controls. Credit: Journal of Autoimmunity Antibodies against the adrenergic ß-2-receptor and muscarinic M-2 receptors were also found significantly higher in patients. Many of the symptoms, including immune activation and autonomic dysregulation, could be mediated or aggravated by dysregulated autoantibodies against adrenergic receptors and impaired peripheral adrenergic function. The authors suggested that girls and women with probable side effects of HPV vaccination have symptoms and biological markers compatible with an autoimmune disease closely resembling that seen in ME/CFS. Interestingly, people who already had HPV infections at some point appeared to be at greater risk for adverse events following vaccination. The authors noted that “prior disease may precondition some individuals for vaccine-related adverse events.” They also noted that some of the adverse events resembled long-COVID symptoms. Universal HPV vaccination called into question Academic researcher at the University of British Columbia, Lucija Tomljenovic, and neuroscientist Christopher Shaw, who have closely looked into Gardasil, have argued that the risks from the vaccine seem to significantly outweigh the as-yet-unproven long-term benefits. In a 2012 comment published in the American Journal of Public Health, they took issue with “incomplete and inaccurate” data and poorly designed trials. Vaccination is unjustified if the vaccine carries any substantial risk, as healthy teenagers face little to no risk of dying from cervical cancer. Risk-benefit analyses must be conducted to ascertain the overall balance of benefits and harms on both individual and societal levels. Reprinted with permission from The Epoch Times. Dr. Yuhong Dong, a medical doctor who also holds a doctorate in infectious diseases in China, is the chief scientific officer and co-founder of a Swiss biotech company and former senior medical scientific expert for antiviral drug development at Novartis Pharma in Switzerland. If you or your child suffered harm after receiving the Gardasil HPV vaccine, you may have a legal claim. Please visit Wisner Baum for a free case evaluation. Click here to watch a Gardasil litigation update interview with Wisner Baum Senior Partner Bijan Esfandiari. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/truth-hpv-vaccine-part-2-et/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-2.html
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 2: Studies Link the Vaccines to Neurological, Autoimmune Disorders
    Researchers who looked closely into the Gardasil HPV vaccine concluded the risks from the vaccine seem to significantly outweigh the as-yet-unproven long-term benefits.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 9444 Views
  • The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 1: How Safe Is It, Really?
    This first installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine explores peer-reviewed scientific literature that reveals serious safety concerns about a vaccine widely regarded as safe.

    The Epoch Times

    Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

    By Yuhong Dong

    The decline of public trust in COVID-19 vaccines significantly impacts vaccination rates against routine childhood diseases. This multiple-part series explores the international research done over the past two decades on the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine — believed to be one of the most effective vaccines developed to date.

    Summary of Key Facts

    This multiple-part series offers a thorough analysis of concerns raised about HPV vaccination following the global HPV campaign, which commenced in 2006.
    In the U.S., the HPV vaccine was reported to have a disproportionately higher percentage of adverse events of fainting and blood clots in the veins. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acknowledges that fainting can happen following the HPV vaccine, and recommends sitting or lying down to get the shot, then waiting for 15 minutes afterward.
    International scientists found that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) logged a substantial increase in reports of premature ovarian failure from 1.4 per year before 2006 to 22.2 per year after the HPV vaccine approval, yielding a Proportional Reporting Ratio of 46.1.
    The HPV vaccine is widely regarded as one of the most effective vaccines developed to date. Nevertheless, safety issues have been raised following its approval, and in response, additional research has been published and litigation has been brought on behalf of those with a vaccine injury.

    In this HPV vaccine series, Parts I and II explain how the vaccine works and the evidence suggesting there may be legitimate safety concerns. The remaining parts present questions about real-world vaccine effectiveness and identify specific ingredients which may pose harm.

    The information presented here is drawn from peer-reviewed scientific literature from the U.S., Australia, Denmark, Sweden, France and Japan, as well as statistics published by public health agencies in each of these countries.

    More than 100 hours of research and internal peer review among scientists with experience in infectious diseases, virology, clinical trials and vaccine epidemiology have been invested in presenting this summary of the evidence.

    Large registry-based studies have identified plausible associations between HPV vaccination and autoimmune conditions, including premature ovarian insufficiency or premature ovarian failure, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and chronic regional pain syndrome.

    While it is easy to be enthusiastic about recent advances in human vaccine technology, we should keep in mind that achieving real and lasting good health is much more than just the absence of a certain virus.

    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax
    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax”

    Order Now

    What is HPV?

    According to the CDC, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S.

    HPV is a small DNA virus infecting human cutaneous epithelial cells in the mucosa and skin. More than 150 strains of the HPV virus have been identified.

    HPV infection is so common that the majority of sexually active people will get it at some point in their lives, even if they have only one or very few sexual partners. It can spread through sexual intercourse and oral sex. It can also pass between people through skin-to-skin contact, even by people who have no symptoms.

    HPV infection causes genital warts, some of which can turn into cancer. For the most part, however, HPV infection is benign. More than 90% of HPV infections cause no clinical symptoms and are self-limited, meaning the virus is cleared by the body via natural immunological defenses.

    HPV-associated cancers

    High-risk HPV types (types 16, 18 and others) can cause cervical cell abnormalities that are precursors to cancers.

    Type 16 is associated with approximately 50% of cervical cancers worldwide, and types 16 and 18 together are linked to 66% of cervical cancers.

    An additional five high-risk types, 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58, are linked with another 15% of cervical cancers and 11% of all HPV-associated cancers.

    Infection with a high-risk HPV type is associated with a higher chance of the development of cervical cancer but, by itself, HPV infection is not the sole risk factor to cause cancer. There are many other reasons, as discussed in this paper.

    Given the prevalence of infection, it is unsurprising that globally, cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women. In 2018, an estimated 570,000 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer worldwide and more than 300,000 died of the disease.

    In the U.S., nearly 50,000 new HPV-associated cancers occur annually, with women infected at a slightly higher rate than men.

    But in 9 out of 10 cases, HPV goes away within two years without causing health problems.

    Only persistent HPV infections may lead to cancer. These infections evade the immune system’s innate cell-mediated defenses.

    The incidence of cervical cancer can be controlled as a result of the implementation of routine testing and screening, including Pap and DNA tests.

    HPV vaccines

    Three HPV vaccines — bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix, 2vHPV), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil, 4vHPV or HPV4) and 9-valent HPV vaccine (Gardasil 9, 9vHPV) — have been licensed by the FDA.

    The HPV vaccine uses recombinant technology to assemble the shell of the virus — L1 capsid protein. These viral-like particles do not contain the virus genome and are not infectious.

    Cervarix, developed by GlaxoSmithKline, is a bivalent vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18, that was pulled from the U.S. market in 2016 due to “very low market demand.”

    Merck’s original Gardasil vaccine was designed to prevent infections from four strains (types 6, 11, 16 and 18).

    On June 8, 2006, after the FDA’s fast-tracked review, Gardasil was approved for use in females ages 9 to 26 for the prevention of cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers.

    According to the label accompanying the vaccine, the ingredients in Merck’s first Gardasil vaccine were proteins of HPV, amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, yeast protein, sodium chloride, L-histidine, polysorbate 80, sodium borate and water for injection.

    On Oct. 16, 2009, the FDA approved Gardasil (HPV4) for use in boys ages 9 through 26 for the prevention of genital warts caused by HPV types 6 and 11, but not for cancer.

    In 2010, it approved Gardasil for the prevention of anal cancer in males and females ages 9 to 26.

    Four years later, the FDA approved an updated vaccine, Merck’s Gardasil 9, for use in girls ages 9 to 26 and boys ages 9 to 15 for the prevention of cervical, vaginal and anal cancers.

    Gardasil 9 contains the same ingredients as Gardasil, but offers protection against nine HPV strains, adding five additional types (HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58).

    The current HPV vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC is two doses for both boys and girls aged 11 or 12. However, it is approved for children as young as 9. The second dose is given 6 to 12 months after the first.

    For those aged 15 and above, a three-dose schedule is implemented at one- to two-month and six-month intervals, although antibody-level studies suggest that two doses are sufficient.

    The vaccine prompts the body to produce neutralizing antibodies against HPV. Antibody responses appear to peak seven months after the first dose (or one month after the third dose). The vaccine-induced antibody levels appear to be 10 to 100 times higher than those after natural infection.

    The high vaccine effectiveness (90 to 98%) against the fast-growing, abnormal cells which may cause precancerous lesions in people ages 16 to 26 suggested that the best timing for vaccination was to give it to patients before they became sexually active.

    HPV VAERS reports from 2 large countries

    U.S. HPV vaccine adverse events

    On Aug. 19, 2009, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article authored by scientists from the FDA and CDC that reviewed the safety data for Gardasil for adverse events reported to VAERS between June 2006 through December 2008.

    During that time, there were 12,424 reports of adverse events. Of these, 772 (6.2%) were serious.

    VAERS is a passive surveillance system, which is subject to multiple limitations, including underreporting, unconfirmed diagnosis, lack of denominator data and no unbiased comparison groups.

    Nevertheless, it is a useful and important tool for detecting postmarket safety issues with vaccines.

    A disproportionately high percentage of Gardasil VAERS reports were of syncope (fainting) and venous thromboembolic events (blood clots in the veins) compared with other vaccines. There were 8.2 syncope events per 100,000 HPV doses and 0.2 venous thromboembolic events per 100,000 HPV doses reported, respectively.

    The Gardasil package insert includes a warning about fainting, fever, dizziness, nausea and headaches (page 1) and notes at least the following adverse reactions reported during postmarketing surveillance (section 6.2): Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis, motor neuron disease, venous thromboembolic events, pancreatitis and autoimmune disorders.

    Australia HPV vaccines adverse events

    In 2007, Australia reported an annual adverse drug reaction rate of 7.3/100,000, the highest since 2003, representing an 85% increase from 2006.

    Per the analysis of the Adverse Drug Reactions System database by the Australian Department of Health and Aging, this increase was “almost entirely due to” reports following the national rollout of the three-dose HPV vaccination program for young females in April 2007; 705 of the 1,538 adverse drug reactions reported that year were from the Gardasil vaccine.

    1 vaccine adverse events australia chart
    In Australia, the ADR increase in 2007 was almost entirely due to the three-dose HPV vaccination program for females aged 12 to 26 years in April 2007. Credit: Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care.
    Moreover, though people may take different vaccines other than HPV, the HPV vaccine was the only suspected vaccine to cause adverse reactions in 96% of records. Twenty-nine percent had causality ratings of “certain” or “probable” and 6% were defined as “serious.”

    2 vaccine types vaccine suspected chart
    In these HPV-induced ADRs, 674 were suspected to be related to HPV vaccines, 203 had causality ratings of “certain” or “probable,” and 43 were defined as “serious.” Credit: Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care.
    Japan withdraws recommendation, vaccine acceptance plunged

    In 2013, the Japanese raised concerns about a variety of widely reported post-vaccination serious adverse events. This led the government to suspend recommending the HPV vaccine for six years. Vaccine acceptance of HPV in Japan plunged significantly after 2013, from 42.9% to 14.3%, or from 65.4% to 3.9%.

    Researchers around the world also started to investigate HPV safety. A World Health Organization (WHO) position paper released on July 14, 2017, concluded that the HPV vaccines were “extremely safe.”

    The same report estimated approximately 1.7 cases of anaphylaxis per million HPV doses, that no association with GBS was found, and that syncope (fainting) was “established as a common anxiety or stress-related reaction to the injection.”

    In the spring of 2022, Japan announced it was relaunching its HPV vaccination drive. Mainstream news outlets reported that for thousands of women, the cost of caution may have led to preventable HPV-induced cancers and an estimated 5,000 to 5,700 deaths.

    However, a true risk-benefit analysis would also consider the number of serious adverse events prevented by putting the program on hold. The question remains: Was Japan’s caution warranted, or should their national vaccination program have continued?

    Ovarian insufficiency

    Concerns that the vaccine may be negatively affecting fertility have been detailed in the scientific literature.

    In 2014, a peer-reviewed case series describing premature ovarian failure among Australian women following HPV vaccination was published in the Journal of Investigative Medicine.

    This prompted other researchers to systematically examine the VAERS data to see if there was a connection between premature ovarian failure and Gardasil. Their study found a “potential safety signal” and concluded that “further investigations are warranted.”

    VAERS analysis on ovarian failure

    Two recent publications based on VAERS reports (first study, second study) found that events with a probable autoimmune background were significantly more frequent after HPV vaccination compared to other vaccinations.

    The team of international scientists that did the second study evaluated reports between 1990 and 2018. They found that among the 228,341 premature ovarian failure reports, 0.1% was considered to be associated with HPV vaccination with a median age of 15 years and the time to onset was 20.5 days following vaccination.

    The primary symptoms were amenorrhea (80.4%) and premature menopause (15.3%).

    Most strikingly, the mean number of premature ovarian failure cases increased significantly from 1.4 per year prior to 2006 to 22.2 per year after the HPV vaccine was approved, with a proportional reporting ratio of 46.

    The investigators noted that the WHO and CDC declared the HPV vaccine safe regardless of lacking adequate research into safety concerns.

    For example, the authors note that in a CDC-sponsored VAERS study, 17 cases of premature ovarian failure were identified but 15 were excluded due to insufficient information to confirm the diagnosis. A separate observational study using the Vaccine Safety Datalink found no increased risk.

    But this study was too underpowered to detect a signal. In addition, a cross-sectional survey study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data relied on an inaccurate measurement of premature ovarian failure and self-reported HPV vaccination.

    In summary, the researchers detected a strong safety signal even after accounting for a potential upswing in reports due to media coverage after the product launch (they refer to this as “notoriety bias”).

    Because VAERS is a passive reporting system, the data may be incomplete and are often unconfirmed by physicians. Therefore, this study cannot provide a definitive link between HPV vaccination and premature ovarian insufficiency or premature ovarian failure but does generate a hypothetical link.

    The authors of the second study conclude by insisting that “this signal warrants well-designed and appropriate epidemiological research.” They note that “if the signal is confirmed, the risk is small compared to the lifetime risk of cervical cancer.”

    However, the benefit-risk profile on an individual level is not uniform.

    Given the health impacts of premature ovarian insufficiency and premature ovarian failure — some of which may be irreversible — and the declining mortality rate for cervical cancer even in the prevaccine era, the risk-benefit profile for HPV vaccination remains unclear.

    3 case reports on ovarian insufficiency

    In the 2014 investigation mentioned above, a general practitioner in Australia noticed that three girls developed premature ovarian insufficiency following HPV4 vaccination.

    As a result of vaccination, each of the girls (ages 16, 16 and 18) had been prescribed oral contraception to treat menstrual cycle irregularities. Typically, women present with amenorrhea (no periods) or oligomenorrhea (infrequent periods) as the initial symptom of premature ovarian insufficiency.

    One girl had irregular periods following three doses of HPV vaccination. She then became amenorrheic and was diagnosed with premature ovarian insufficiency.

    Another girl’s periods were “like clockwork” until after the third HPV dose, which she received at age 15. Her first cycle after being vaccinated for the third time started two weeks late, and her next cycle was two months late. The final cycle began nine months later. The patient had no family history of early menopause.

    She was diagnosed with premature ovarian failure at 16. Lab work found hormone levels consistent with those of postmenopausal women, but her bone mineral density was normal.

    The authors of this case series noted that in preclinical studies of HPV4, the five-week-old rats only conceived one litter and the only available toxicology studies appear to be on the male rodent reproductive system.

    However, only two of three doses were administered prior to mating, and the overall fecundity was 95%, slightly lower than the control rats (98%) that received no vaccination prior to mating.

    The dose tolerance recommendations were based on an average weight of 50 kilograms for an adolescent girl but failed to take into account that HPV4 is administered to girls ages 9 to 13 years, who range in weight from 28 to 46 kilograms.

    Danish retrospective cohort study finds no link

    A 2021 study also evaluated premature ovarian insufficiency in a nationwide cohort of nearly 1 million Danish females ages 11 to 34 years.

    The researchers used Cox proportional hazard regression to detect an increased risk of premature ovarian insufficiency diagnosis by HPV4 vaccination status during the years 2007-2016. The hazard ratio for premature ovarian insufficiency (vaccinated versus unvaccinated) was 0.96.

    One limitation was that data on age at menarche (first menstruation) and oral contraceptive use were not available. Girls who had not yet reached menarche would not be at risk for premature ovarian insufficiency, of course.

    The authors excluded girls under age 15 in a sensitivity analysis and still found no signal, concluding that no association was found between HPV4 vaccination and premature ovarian insufficiency.

    Reprinted with permission from The Epoch Times. Dr. Yuhong Dong, a medical doctor who also holds a doctorate in infectious diseases from China, is the chief scientific officer and co-founder of a Swiss biotech company and a former senior medical scientific expert for antiviral drug development at Novartis Pharma in Switzerland.

    If you or your child suffered harm after receiving the Gardasil HPV vaccine, you may have a legal claim. Please visit Wisner Baum for a free case evaluation. Click here to watch a Gardasil litigation update interview with Wisner Baum Senior Partner Bijan Esfandiari.

    The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/hpv-vaccine-safety-concerns-part-1-et/


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-1.html
    The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 1: How Safe Is It, Really? This first installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine explores peer-reviewed scientific literature that reveals serious safety concerns about a vaccine widely regarded as safe. The Epoch Times Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. By Yuhong Dong The decline of public trust in COVID-19 vaccines significantly impacts vaccination rates against routine childhood diseases. This multiple-part series explores the international research done over the past two decades on the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine — believed to be one of the most effective vaccines developed to date. Summary of Key Facts This multiple-part series offers a thorough analysis of concerns raised about HPV vaccination following the global HPV campaign, which commenced in 2006. In the U.S., the HPV vaccine was reported to have a disproportionately higher percentage of adverse events of fainting and blood clots in the veins. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acknowledges that fainting can happen following the HPV vaccine, and recommends sitting or lying down to get the shot, then waiting for 15 minutes afterward. International scientists found that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) logged a substantial increase in reports of premature ovarian failure from 1.4 per year before 2006 to 22.2 per year after the HPV vaccine approval, yielding a Proportional Reporting Ratio of 46.1. The HPV vaccine is widely regarded as one of the most effective vaccines developed to date. Nevertheless, safety issues have been raised following its approval, and in response, additional research has been published and litigation has been brought on behalf of those with a vaccine injury. In this HPV vaccine series, Parts I and II explain how the vaccine works and the evidence suggesting there may be legitimate safety concerns. The remaining parts present questions about real-world vaccine effectiveness and identify specific ingredients which may pose harm. The information presented here is drawn from peer-reviewed scientific literature from the U.S., Australia, Denmark, Sweden, France and Japan, as well as statistics published by public health agencies in each of these countries. More than 100 hours of research and internal peer review among scientists with experience in infectious diseases, virology, clinical trials and vaccine epidemiology have been invested in presenting this summary of the evidence. Large registry-based studies have identified plausible associations between HPV vaccination and autoimmune conditions, including premature ovarian insufficiency or premature ovarian failure, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and chronic regional pain syndrome. While it is easy to be enthusiastic about recent advances in human vaccine technology, we should keep in mind that achieving real and lasting good health is much more than just the absence of a certain virus. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now What is HPV? According to the CDC, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S. HPV is a small DNA virus infecting human cutaneous epithelial cells in the mucosa and skin. More than 150 strains of the HPV virus have been identified. HPV infection is so common that the majority of sexually active people will get it at some point in their lives, even if they have only one or very few sexual partners. It can spread through sexual intercourse and oral sex. It can also pass between people through skin-to-skin contact, even by people who have no symptoms. HPV infection causes genital warts, some of which can turn into cancer. For the most part, however, HPV infection is benign. More than 90% of HPV infections cause no clinical symptoms and are self-limited, meaning the virus is cleared by the body via natural immunological defenses. HPV-associated cancers High-risk HPV types (types 16, 18 and others) can cause cervical cell abnormalities that are precursors to cancers. Type 16 is associated with approximately 50% of cervical cancers worldwide, and types 16 and 18 together are linked to 66% of cervical cancers. An additional five high-risk types, 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58, are linked with another 15% of cervical cancers and 11% of all HPV-associated cancers. Infection with a high-risk HPV type is associated with a higher chance of the development of cervical cancer but, by itself, HPV infection is not the sole risk factor to cause cancer. There are many other reasons, as discussed in this paper. Given the prevalence of infection, it is unsurprising that globally, cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women. In 2018, an estimated 570,000 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer worldwide and more than 300,000 died of the disease. In the U.S., nearly 50,000 new HPV-associated cancers occur annually, with women infected at a slightly higher rate than men. But in 9 out of 10 cases, HPV goes away within two years without causing health problems. Only persistent HPV infections may lead to cancer. These infections evade the immune system’s innate cell-mediated defenses. The incidence of cervical cancer can be controlled as a result of the implementation of routine testing and screening, including Pap and DNA tests. HPV vaccines Three HPV vaccines — bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix, 2vHPV), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil, 4vHPV or HPV4) and 9-valent HPV vaccine (Gardasil 9, 9vHPV) — have been licensed by the FDA. The HPV vaccine uses recombinant technology to assemble the shell of the virus — L1 capsid protein. These viral-like particles do not contain the virus genome and are not infectious. Cervarix, developed by GlaxoSmithKline, is a bivalent vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18, that was pulled from the U.S. market in 2016 due to “very low market demand.” Merck’s original Gardasil vaccine was designed to prevent infections from four strains (types 6, 11, 16 and 18). On June 8, 2006, after the FDA’s fast-tracked review, Gardasil was approved for use in females ages 9 to 26 for the prevention of cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers. According to the label accompanying the vaccine, the ingredients in Merck’s first Gardasil vaccine were proteins of HPV, amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, yeast protein, sodium chloride, L-histidine, polysorbate 80, sodium borate and water for injection. On Oct. 16, 2009, the FDA approved Gardasil (HPV4) for use in boys ages 9 through 26 for the prevention of genital warts caused by HPV types 6 and 11, but not for cancer. In 2010, it approved Gardasil for the prevention of anal cancer in males and females ages 9 to 26. Four years later, the FDA approved an updated vaccine, Merck’s Gardasil 9, for use in girls ages 9 to 26 and boys ages 9 to 15 for the prevention of cervical, vaginal and anal cancers. Gardasil 9 contains the same ingredients as Gardasil, but offers protection against nine HPV strains, adding five additional types (HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58). The current HPV vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC is two doses for both boys and girls aged 11 or 12. However, it is approved for children as young as 9. The second dose is given 6 to 12 months after the first. For those aged 15 and above, a three-dose schedule is implemented at one- to two-month and six-month intervals, although antibody-level studies suggest that two doses are sufficient. The vaccine prompts the body to produce neutralizing antibodies against HPV. Antibody responses appear to peak seven months after the first dose (or one month after the third dose). The vaccine-induced antibody levels appear to be 10 to 100 times higher than those after natural infection. The high vaccine effectiveness (90 to 98%) against the fast-growing, abnormal cells which may cause precancerous lesions in people ages 16 to 26 suggested that the best timing for vaccination was to give it to patients before they became sexually active. HPV VAERS reports from 2 large countries U.S. HPV vaccine adverse events On Aug. 19, 2009, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article authored by scientists from the FDA and CDC that reviewed the safety data for Gardasil for adverse events reported to VAERS between June 2006 through December 2008. During that time, there were 12,424 reports of adverse events. Of these, 772 (6.2%) were serious. VAERS is a passive surveillance system, which is subject to multiple limitations, including underreporting, unconfirmed diagnosis, lack of denominator data and no unbiased comparison groups. Nevertheless, it is a useful and important tool for detecting postmarket safety issues with vaccines. A disproportionately high percentage of Gardasil VAERS reports were of syncope (fainting) and venous thromboembolic events (blood clots in the veins) compared with other vaccines. There were 8.2 syncope events per 100,000 HPV doses and 0.2 venous thromboembolic events per 100,000 HPV doses reported, respectively. The Gardasil package insert includes a warning about fainting, fever, dizziness, nausea and headaches (page 1) and notes at least the following adverse reactions reported during postmarketing surveillance (section 6.2): Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis, motor neuron disease, venous thromboembolic events, pancreatitis and autoimmune disorders. Australia HPV vaccines adverse events In 2007, Australia reported an annual adverse drug reaction rate of 7.3/100,000, the highest since 2003, representing an 85% increase from 2006. Per the analysis of the Adverse Drug Reactions System database by the Australian Department of Health and Aging, this increase was “almost entirely due to” reports following the national rollout of the three-dose HPV vaccination program for young females in April 2007; 705 of the 1,538 adverse drug reactions reported that year were from the Gardasil vaccine. 1 vaccine adverse events australia chart In Australia, the ADR increase in 2007 was almost entirely due to the three-dose HPV vaccination program for females aged 12 to 26 years in April 2007. Credit: Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. Moreover, though people may take different vaccines other than HPV, the HPV vaccine was the only suspected vaccine to cause adverse reactions in 96% of records. Twenty-nine percent had causality ratings of “certain” or “probable” and 6% were defined as “serious.” 2 vaccine types vaccine suspected chart In these HPV-induced ADRs, 674 were suspected to be related to HPV vaccines, 203 had causality ratings of “certain” or “probable,” and 43 were defined as “serious.” Credit: Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. Japan withdraws recommendation, vaccine acceptance plunged In 2013, the Japanese raised concerns about a variety of widely reported post-vaccination serious adverse events. This led the government to suspend recommending the HPV vaccine for six years. Vaccine acceptance of HPV in Japan plunged significantly after 2013, from 42.9% to 14.3%, or from 65.4% to 3.9%. Researchers around the world also started to investigate HPV safety. A World Health Organization (WHO) position paper released on July 14, 2017, concluded that the HPV vaccines were “extremely safe.” The same report estimated approximately 1.7 cases of anaphylaxis per million HPV doses, that no association with GBS was found, and that syncope (fainting) was “established as a common anxiety or stress-related reaction to the injection.” In the spring of 2022, Japan announced it was relaunching its HPV vaccination drive. Mainstream news outlets reported that for thousands of women, the cost of caution may have led to preventable HPV-induced cancers and an estimated 5,000 to 5,700 deaths. However, a true risk-benefit analysis would also consider the number of serious adverse events prevented by putting the program on hold. The question remains: Was Japan’s caution warranted, or should their national vaccination program have continued? Ovarian insufficiency Concerns that the vaccine may be negatively affecting fertility have been detailed in the scientific literature. In 2014, a peer-reviewed case series describing premature ovarian failure among Australian women following HPV vaccination was published in the Journal of Investigative Medicine. This prompted other researchers to systematically examine the VAERS data to see if there was a connection between premature ovarian failure and Gardasil. Their study found a “potential safety signal” and concluded that “further investigations are warranted.” VAERS analysis on ovarian failure Two recent publications based on VAERS reports (first study, second study) found that events with a probable autoimmune background were significantly more frequent after HPV vaccination compared to other vaccinations. The team of international scientists that did the second study evaluated reports between 1990 and 2018. They found that among the 228,341 premature ovarian failure reports, 0.1% was considered to be associated with HPV vaccination with a median age of 15 years and the time to onset was 20.5 days following vaccination. The primary symptoms were amenorrhea (80.4%) and premature menopause (15.3%). Most strikingly, the mean number of premature ovarian failure cases increased significantly from 1.4 per year prior to 2006 to 22.2 per year after the HPV vaccine was approved, with a proportional reporting ratio of 46. The investigators noted that the WHO and CDC declared the HPV vaccine safe regardless of lacking adequate research into safety concerns. For example, the authors note that in a CDC-sponsored VAERS study, 17 cases of premature ovarian failure were identified but 15 were excluded due to insufficient information to confirm the diagnosis. A separate observational study using the Vaccine Safety Datalink found no increased risk. But this study was too underpowered to detect a signal. In addition, a cross-sectional survey study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data relied on an inaccurate measurement of premature ovarian failure and self-reported HPV vaccination. In summary, the researchers detected a strong safety signal even after accounting for a potential upswing in reports due to media coverage after the product launch (they refer to this as “notoriety bias”). Because VAERS is a passive reporting system, the data may be incomplete and are often unconfirmed by physicians. Therefore, this study cannot provide a definitive link between HPV vaccination and premature ovarian insufficiency or premature ovarian failure but does generate a hypothetical link. The authors of the second study conclude by insisting that “this signal warrants well-designed and appropriate epidemiological research.” They note that “if the signal is confirmed, the risk is small compared to the lifetime risk of cervical cancer.” However, the benefit-risk profile on an individual level is not uniform. Given the health impacts of premature ovarian insufficiency and premature ovarian failure — some of which may be irreversible — and the declining mortality rate for cervical cancer even in the prevaccine era, the risk-benefit profile for HPV vaccination remains unclear. 3 case reports on ovarian insufficiency In the 2014 investigation mentioned above, a general practitioner in Australia noticed that three girls developed premature ovarian insufficiency following HPV4 vaccination. As a result of vaccination, each of the girls (ages 16, 16 and 18) had been prescribed oral contraception to treat menstrual cycle irregularities. Typically, women present with amenorrhea (no periods) or oligomenorrhea (infrequent periods) as the initial symptom of premature ovarian insufficiency. One girl had irregular periods following three doses of HPV vaccination. She then became amenorrheic and was diagnosed with premature ovarian insufficiency. Another girl’s periods were “like clockwork” until after the third HPV dose, which she received at age 15. Her first cycle after being vaccinated for the third time started two weeks late, and her next cycle was two months late. The final cycle began nine months later. The patient had no family history of early menopause. She was diagnosed with premature ovarian failure at 16. Lab work found hormone levels consistent with those of postmenopausal women, but her bone mineral density was normal. The authors of this case series noted that in preclinical studies of HPV4, the five-week-old rats only conceived one litter and the only available toxicology studies appear to be on the male rodent reproductive system. However, only two of three doses were administered prior to mating, and the overall fecundity was 95%, slightly lower than the control rats (98%) that received no vaccination prior to mating. The dose tolerance recommendations were based on an average weight of 50 kilograms for an adolescent girl but failed to take into account that HPV4 is administered to girls ages 9 to 13 years, who range in weight from 28 to 46 kilograms. Danish retrospective cohort study finds no link A 2021 study also evaluated premature ovarian insufficiency in a nationwide cohort of nearly 1 million Danish females ages 11 to 34 years. The researchers used Cox proportional hazard regression to detect an increased risk of premature ovarian insufficiency diagnosis by HPV4 vaccination status during the years 2007-2016. The hazard ratio for premature ovarian insufficiency (vaccinated versus unvaccinated) was 0.96. One limitation was that data on age at menarche (first menstruation) and oral contraceptive use were not available. Girls who had not yet reached menarche would not be at risk for premature ovarian insufficiency, of course. The authors excluded girls under age 15 in a sensitivity analysis and still found no signal, concluding that no association was found between HPV4 vaccination and premature ovarian insufficiency. Reprinted with permission from The Epoch Times. Dr. Yuhong Dong, a medical doctor who also holds a doctorate in infectious diseases from China, is the chief scientific officer and co-founder of a Swiss biotech company and a former senior medical scientific expert for antiviral drug development at Novartis Pharma in Switzerland. If you or your child suffered harm after receiving the Gardasil HPV vaccine, you may have a legal claim. Please visit Wisner Baum for a free case evaluation. Click here to watch a Gardasil litigation update interview with Wisner Baum Senior Partner Bijan Esfandiari. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/hpv-vaccine-safety-concerns-part-1-et/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-1.html
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 1: How Safe Is It, Really?
    This first installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine explores peer-reviewed scientific literature that reveals serious safety concerns about a vaccine widely regarded as safe.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 11241 Views
  • Scientists Call for Global Moratorium on mRNA Vaccines, Immediate Removal From Childhood Schedule
    A review paper published last week in the journal Cureus is the first peer-reviewed paper to call for a global moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The authors say that reanalyzed data from the vaccine makers’ trials and high rates of serious post-injection injuries indicate the mRNA gene therapy vaccines should not have been authorized for use.

    Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
    global moratorium mrna covid vaccine feature
    Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

    Governments should endorse a global moratorium on mRNA vaccines until all questions about their safety have been thoroughly investigated, according to the authors of a new, peer-reviewed article on the COVID-19 vaccine trials and the global vaccination campaign published last week in Cureus, Journal of Medical Science.

    Cureus is a web-based peer-reviewed open-access general medical journal using prepublication peer review.

    The authors surveyed published research on the pharmaceutical companies’ vaccine trials and related adverse events. They also called for the COVID-19 vaccines to be removed immediately from the childhood immunization schedule.

    After the first reports from vaccine trials claimed they were 95% effective in preventing COVID-19, serious problems with method, execution and reporting in the trials became public, which the paper reviewed in detail.

    Evidence also shows the products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing, and since the vaccine rollout, researchers have identified a significant number of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs).

    Authors M. Nathaniel Mead, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., Russ Wolfinger, Ph.D., Jessica Rose, Ph.D., Kris Denhaerynck, Ph.D., Steve Kirsch and Dr. Peter McCullough detailed the vaccines’ potential serious harms to humans, vaccine control and processing issues, the mechanisms behind AEs, the immunological reasons for vaccine inefficacy and the mortality data from the registrational trials.

    They concluded, “Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA injectable products on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits.”

    They also called for the vaccines to be immediately removed from the childhood immunization schedule and for the suspension of the boosters.

    “It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 (IFR, 0.0003%) but a well-established 2.2% risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available,” they wrote.

    Finally, the authors called for a full investigation into misconduct by the pharmaceutical companies and the regulatory agencies.

    It is the first peer-reviewed study to call for a moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA products, Rose told The Defender.

    “Once a proper assessment of the safety and efficacy claims was made herein — upon which the emergency use authorization (EUA)’s and ultimate final authorizations were granted — it was found that the COVID-19 injectable products were neither safe nor effective,” she added.

    According to McCollough, “mRNA should never have been authorized for human use.”

    Lead author Mead told The Defender, “Our view is that any risk-benefit analysis must consider how much the presumed benefit in terms of reduced COVID-19 related mortality is offset by the potential increase in vaccine-induced mortality.”

    Here are six takeaways from the review:

    1. The COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are reclassified gene therapies that were rushed through the regulatory process in a historically unprecedented manner

    Before the seven-month authorization process for the mRNA vaccines, no vaccine had ever gone to market without undergoing testing of at least four years, with typical timelines averaging 10 years.

    To speed the process, the companies skipped preclinical studies of potential toxicity from multiple doses and cut the typical 6-12 month observation period for identifying longer-term adverse effects and the established 10-15-year period for monitoring for long-term effects such as cancer and autoimmune disorders, the authors wrote.

    The trials prioritized documenting effective symptom reduction over SAE and mortality. This was particularly concerning, the authors argued, because mRNA products are gene therapy products reclassified as vaccines and then given EUA for the first time ever for use against a viral disease.

    However, the gene therapies’ components have not been thoroughly evaluated for safety for use as vaccines.

    There is an uninvestigated and major concern that the mRNA could transform body cells into viral protein factories — with no off-switch — that produce the spike protein for a prolonged period causing chronic systemic inflammation and immune dysfunction.

    The spike protein in the vaccine, the authors said, is associated with more severe immunopathology and other AEs than the spike protein in the virus itself.

    The authors suggested that massive government investment in mRNA technology, including hundreds of millions before the pandemic and tens of billions once it began, meant, “U.S. federal agencies were strongly biased toward successful outcomes for the registrational trials.”

    The financial incentives along with political pressures to deliver a rapid solution likely influenced a series of flawed decisions that compromised the integrity of the trials and downplayed serious scientific concerns about risks with the technology, they added.

    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax
    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax”

    Order Now

    2. Steps were taken in trials to overestimate vaccine efficacy

    Because the trials were designed to assess whether the mRNA vaccine reduced symptoms, they did not measure whether the vaccines prevented severe disease and death. Yet the vaccine makers repeatedly claimed that they do.

    “No large randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials have ever demonstrated reductions in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, hospitalization, or death,” the authors wrote.

    Additionally, the number of people who contracted clinical COVID-19 in both the placebo and intervention groups was “too small to draw meaningful, pragmatic, or broad-sweeping conclusions with regard to COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.”

    Pfizer’s 95 % efficacy claims were based on 162 of 22,000 placebo recipients contracting PCR-confirmed COVID-19 compared to eight of 22,000 in the vaccine group. None of the placebo recipients died from COVID-19. In the Moderna trials, only one placebo death was attributed to COVID-19.

    There was also a much larger percentage of “suspected COVID-19 cases” in both groups, with participants showing COVID-19 symptoms but a negative PCR test. When factoring in those cases, measures of vaccine efficacy drop to about 19%.

    The trial subject pool was comprised of largely young and healthy individuals, excluding key groups — children, pregnant women, elderly and immunocompromised people — which can also obscure the vaccine’s actual efficacy and safety.

    Findings from reanalyses of data from the Pfizer trials can be interpreted as showing the vaccines made “no significant difference” in reducing all-cause mortality in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups at 20 weeks into the trial, the authors wrote.

    Even the six-month post-marketing data Pfizer presented to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) showed no reduction in all-cause mortality from the vaccine.

    The authors reanalyzed that data, adjusting the analysis of deaths to better account for the fact that when Pfizer unblinded the study people from the placebo group took the vaccine, and found the vaccine group had a higher mortality rate (0.105%) than the unvaccinated group (0.0799%), which they said was a conservative estimate.

    One of the most glaring issues with the registrational trials, they noted, was that they exclusively focused on measuring risk reduction — the ratio of COVID-19 symptom rates in the vaccine group versus the placebo group — rather than measuring absolute risk reduction, which is the likelihood someone will show COVID-19 symptoms relative to people in the population at large.

    According to FDA guidelines, accounting for both approaches is crucial to avoid the misguided use of pharmaceutical products — but the data were omitted, leading to an overestimation of an intervention’s clinical utility.

    While both vaccines touted an approximately 95% risk reduction figure as their efficacy figure, the absolute risk reductions for Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines were 0.7% and 1.1% respectively.

    “A substantial number of individuals would need to be injected in order to prevent a single mild-to-moderate case of COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

    As an example, using a conservative estimate that 119 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent infection, and assuming that COVID-19 had a 0.23% infection fatality rate, they wrote that approximately 52,000 vaccinations would be necessary to prevent a single COVID-19-related death.

    However, “Given trial misconduct and data integrity problems … the true benefit is likely to be much lower,” they wrote.

    And, they added, one would need to assess that benefit along with harms, which they estimate to be 27 deaths per 100,000 doses of Pfizer. That means, using the most conservative estimates, “for every life saved, there were 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”

    They also noted that post-rollout evidence confirmed the efficacy claims were overstated. For example, two large cohort Cleveland clinic studies showed the vaccine could not confer protection against COVID-19 — instead, in those trials, more vaccinated people were more likely to contract COVID-19.

    One study showed the risk of “breakthrough” infection was significantly higher among people who were boosted and that more vaccinations resulted in a greater risk of COVID-19.

    A second study showed adults who were not “up-to-date” with their shots had a 23% lower incidence of COVID-19 than their “up-to-date” colleagues.

    3. The trials underestimated the adverse events, including death, despite evidence in the data.

    Harms were also underreported and underestimated for a number of reasons, according to the authors, a practice that tends to be common in randomized industry-sponsored vaccine trials in general and “exceptionally evident” here.

    First, because Pfizer unblinded the trial within just a few weeks of the emergency use authorization and allowed people in the placebo group to take the vaccine, there was not sufficient time to identify late-occurring harms because there was no longer a control group.

    “Was this necessary, given that none of the deaths in the Pfizer trial were attributed to COVID-19 as the primary cause, and given the very low IFR [infection fatality rate] for a relatively healthy population?” they asked.

    Also, trial coordinators were “haphazard” in their approach to monitoring AEs. They prioritized documenting events thought to be related to COVID-19 rather than to the vaccines for the first seven days and only recorded “unsolicited” AEs for 30-60 days. After that period, even very SAEs, like death, were not recorded. Even for the AEs recorded in the first seven days, they only solicited data from 20% of the population.

    None of the trial data was independently verified. “Such secrecy may have enabled the industry to more easily present an inflated and distorted estimate of the genetic injections’ benefits, along with a gross underestimation of potential harms,” they wrote.

    Subsequent analysis by Michels et al. revealed that deaths and other SAEs — like life-threatening conditions, inpatient hospitalization or extension of hospitalization, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, a congenital anomaly, or a medically significant event — did occur after the cutoff period and before the FDA advisory meeting where emergency authorization was recommended.

    During the first 33 weeks of the Pfizer trials, 38 subjects died, according to Pfizer’s own data, although independent research by Michels et al. estimated that that number is only approximately 17% of the actual projected number due to missing data.

    And after that, the rate of deaths continued to increase. Michaels et al. found Pfizer failed to report a substantial increase in the number of deaths due to cardiovascular events. They also found a consistent pattern of reporting delays on the date of the death on subjects’ case reports.

    Overall, the review authors reported that there were “twice as many cardiac deaths proportionately among vaccinated compared to unvaccinated subjects in the Pfizer trials.”

    In their discussion, the authors wrote “Based on the extended Pfizer trial findings, our person-years estimate yielded a 31% increase in overall mortality among vaccine recipients, a clear trend in the wrong direction.”

    This raises serious red flags about how the registrational trials were conducted, Mead said. “Assessments of the safety profile of the COVID-19 modified mRNA injections warrant an objective precautionary perspective, any substantial upward trend in all cause mortality within the intervention arm of the trial population reflects badly on the intervention.”

    4. Numbers of SAEs in the trials and post-rollout reporting are well-documented, despite claims to the contrary.

    Both Pfizer and Moderna found about 125 SAEs per 100,000 vaccine recipients, or one SAE for every 800 vaccines. However, because the trials excluded more vulnerable people, the authors note, even higher proportions of SAEs would be expected in the general population.

    The Fraiman et al. reanalysis of the Pfizer trial data found a significant 36% higher risk of SAEs, which included deaths and many life-threatening conditions in the vaccinated participants.

    Official SAEs for other vaccines average around only 1-2 per million. Fraiman et alestimated 1,250 SEAs per million vaccines, exceeding that benchmark by “at least 600-fold.”

    After the vaccine rollout, analyses of two large drug safety reporting systems in the U.S. and Europe identified signals for myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, cardio-respiratory arrest, cerebral infarction, and cerebral hemorrhage associated with both mRNA vaccines, along with ischemic stroke.

    And millions of AEs have been reported to those systems.

    Another study by Skidmore et al. estimated the total number of fatalities from the vaccines in 2021 alone was 289,789. Autopsy studies have also provided additional evidence of serious harms, including evidence that most COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-related deaths resulted from injury to the cardiovascular system.

    In multiple autopsy studies, German pathologist Aren Burkhardt documented the presence of vaccine-mRNA-produced spike proteins in blood vessel walls and brain tissues. This research helps to explain documented vaccine-induced toxicities affecting the nervous, immune, reproductive and other systems.

    The Pfizer data also showed an overwhelming number of adverse effects. According to a confidential document released in August 2022, Pfizer had documented approximately 1.6 million AEs affecting nearly every organ system, and one-third of them were classified as serious.

    In Pfizer’s trial, Michels and colleagues found a nearly 4-fold increase (OR 3.7, 95%CI 1.02-13.2, p = 0.03) in serious cardiac events (e.g., heart attack, acute coronary syndrome) in the vaccine group. Neither the original trial report nor Pfizer’s Summary Clinical Safety report acknowledged or commented on this safety signal.

    “The serious adverse events are all well documented,” Mead said. “Yet it’s surprising to see so many in the medical field continue to ignore or dismiss outright the latter half of the equation when considering all cause mortality trends.”

    5. The failure to appropriately test for safety and toxicity poses serious problems.

    Researchers have raised concerns that the mRNA technology is inherently unstable and difficult to store, which leads to batch variability and contamination linked to different rates of AEs.

    Recent findings by McKernan et al. that found Pfizers’ mRNA vaccines are contaminated with plasmid DNA that shouldn’t be present — and wasn’t present in the vaccines used in the trials – raising serious safety issues.

    That’s because “Process 1,” used in the trials to generate the vaccines involved in vitro transcription of synthetic DNA — essentially a “clean” process. However, that process isn’t viable for mass production, so the manufacturers used “Process 2,” which involves using E. coli bacteria to replicate the plasmids.

    Removing plasmids E coli. can result in residual plasmids in the vaccines and the effects of their presence is unknown.

    McKernan’s work also revealed the presence of DNA from simian virus 40 (SV40), an oncogenic DNA virus originally isolated in 1960 from contaminated polio vaccines, induces lymphomas, brain tumors, and other malignancies in laboratory animals, raising other safety concerns.

    Researchers from Cambridge published a paper in Nature in December 2023, where they found an inherent defect in the modified RNA instructions for the spike protein in COVID-19 immunizations that causes the machinery that translates the gene to the spike protein to “slip” about 10% of the time

    This process creates “frameshifts” that cause cells to produce “off-target” proteins in addition to the spike. These proteins, which developers either failed to look for or did not report to regulators, cause undesirable immune responses whose long-term effects are unknown.

    6. There are many different possible biological mechanisms that cause AEs and vaccine ineffectiveness.

    The review points readers to a series of papers that explain a number of different theories to explain the high number of AEs from the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

    “The mechanisms of molecular mimicry, antigen cross-reactivity, pathogenic priming, viral reactivation, immune exhaustion, and other factors related to immune dysfunction all reinforce the biological plausibility for vaccine-induced pathogenesis of malignant and autoimmune diseases,” they wrote. And these mechanisms of immune activation are distinct from the body’s response to a viral infection.

    They also note the toxic effects of the primary adjuvant, PEG, and of the spike protein itself.

    They close their analysis of the vaccines with a complex explanation for the different immunological basis for protection provided by the vaccines versus natural immunity through infection. They explain the mechanisms for vaccine failure and problems generated by the ability for the mRNA vaccines to perpetuate the emergence of new variants.

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/scientists-global-moratorium-mrna-vaccines-removal-childhood-schedule/


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/scientists-call-for-global-moratorium.html
    Scientists Call for Global Moratorium on mRNA Vaccines, Immediate Removal From Childhood Schedule A review paper published last week in the journal Cureus is the first peer-reviewed paper to call for a global moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The authors say that reanalyzed data from the vaccine makers’ trials and high rates of serious post-injection injuries indicate the mRNA gene therapy vaccines should not have been authorized for use. Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. global moratorium mrna covid vaccine feature Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. Governments should endorse a global moratorium on mRNA vaccines until all questions about their safety have been thoroughly investigated, according to the authors of a new, peer-reviewed article on the COVID-19 vaccine trials and the global vaccination campaign published last week in Cureus, Journal of Medical Science. Cureus is a web-based peer-reviewed open-access general medical journal using prepublication peer review. The authors surveyed published research on the pharmaceutical companies’ vaccine trials and related adverse events. They also called for the COVID-19 vaccines to be removed immediately from the childhood immunization schedule. After the first reports from vaccine trials claimed they were 95% effective in preventing COVID-19, serious problems with method, execution and reporting in the trials became public, which the paper reviewed in detail. Evidence also shows the products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing, and since the vaccine rollout, researchers have identified a significant number of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Authors M. Nathaniel Mead, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., Russ Wolfinger, Ph.D., Jessica Rose, Ph.D., Kris Denhaerynck, Ph.D., Steve Kirsch and Dr. Peter McCullough detailed the vaccines’ potential serious harms to humans, vaccine control and processing issues, the mechanisms behind AEs, the immunological reasons for vaccine inefficacy and the mortality data from the registrational trials. They concluded, “Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA injectable products on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits.” They also called for the vaccines to be immediately removed from the childhood immunization schedule and for the suspension of the boosters. “It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 (IFR, 0.0003%) but a well-established 2.2% risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available,” they wrote. Finally, the authors called for a full investigation into misconduct by the pharmaceutical companies and the regulatory agencies. It is the first peer-reviewed study to call for a moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA products, Rose told The Defender. “Once a proper assessment of the safety and efficacy claims was made herein — upon which the emergency use authorization (EUA)’s and ultimate final authorizations were granted — it was found that the COVID-19 injectable products were neither safe nor effective,” she added. According to McCollough, “mRNA should never have been authorized for human use.” Lead author Mead told The Defender, “Our view is that any risk-benefit analysis must consider how much the presumed benefit in terms of reduced COVID-19 related mortality is offset by the potential increase in vaccine-induced mortality.” Here are six takeaways from the review: 1. The COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are reclassified gene therapies that were rushed through the regulatory process in a historically unprecedented manner Before the seven-month authorization process for the mRNA vaccines, no vaccine had ever gone to market without undergoing testing of at least four years, with typical timelines averaging 10 years. To speed the process, the companies skipped preclinical studies of potential toxicity from multiple doses and cut the typical 6-12 month observation period for identifying longer-term adverse effects and the established 10-15-year period for monitoring for long-term effects such as cancer and autoimmune disorders, the authors wrote. The trials prioritized documenting effective symptom reduction over SAE and mortality. This was particularly concerning, the authors argued, because mRNA products are gene therapy products reclassified as vaccines and then given EUA for the first time ever for use against a viral disease. However, the gene therapies’ components have not been thoroughly evaluated for safety for use as vaccines. There is an uninvestigated and major concern that the mRNA could transform body cells into viral protein factories — with no off-switch — that produce the spike protein for a prolonged period causing chronic systemic inflammation and immune dysfunction. The spike protein in the vaccine, the authors said, is associated with more severe immunopathology and other AEs than the spike protein in the virus itself. The authors suggested that massive government investment in mRNA technology, including hundreds of millions before the pandemic and tens of billions once it began, meant, “U.S. federal agencies were strongly biased toward successful outcomes for the registrational trials.” The financial incentives along with political pressures to deliver a rapid solution likely influenced a series of flawed decisions that compromised the integrity of the trials and downplayed serious scientific concerns about risks with the technology, they added. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now 2. Steps were taken in trials to overestimate vaccine efficacy Because the trials were designed to assess whether the mRNA vaccine reduced symptoms, they did not measure whether the vaccines prevented severe disease and death. Yet the vaccine makers repeatedly claimed that they do. “No large randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials have ever demonstrated reductions in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, hospitalization, or death,” the authors wrote. Additionally, the number of people who contracted clinical COVID-19 in both the placebo and intervention groups was “too small to draw meaningful, pragmatic, or broad-sweeping conclusions with regard to COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.” Pfizer’s 95 % efficacy claims were based on 162 of 22,000 placebo recipients contracting PCR-confirmed COVID-19 compared to eight of 22,000 in the vaccine group. None of the placebo recipients died from COVID-19. In the Moderna trials, only one placebo death was attributed to COVID-19. There was also a much larger percentage of “suspected COVID-19 cases” in both groups, with participants showing COVID-19 symptoms but a negative PCR test. When factoring in those cases, measures of vaccine efficacy drop to about 19%. The trial subject pool was comprised of largely young and healthy individuals, excluding key groups — children, pregnant women, elderly and immunocompromised people — which can also obscure the vaccine’s actual efficacy and safety. Findings from reanalyses of data from the Pfizer trials can be interpreted as showing the vaccines made “no significant difference” in reducing all-cause mortality in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups at 20 weeks into the trial, the authors wrote. Even the six-month post-marketing data Pfizer presented to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) showed no reduction in all-cause mortality from the vaccine. The authors reanalyzed that data, adjusting the analysis of deaths to better account for the fact that when Pfizer unblinded the study people from the placebo group took the vaccine, and found the vaccine group had a higher mortality rate (0.105%) than the unvaccinated group (0.0799%), which they said was a conservative estimate. One of the most glaring issues with the registrational trials, they noted, was that they exclusively focused on measuring risk reduction — the ratio of COVID-19 symptom rates in the vaccine group versus the placebo group — rather than measuring absolute risk reduction, which is the likelihood someone will show COVID-19 symptoms relative to people in the population at large. According to FDA guidelines, accounting for both approaches is crucial to avoid the misguided use of pharmaceutical products — but the data were omitted, leading to an overestimation of an intervention’s clinical utility. While both vaccines touted an approximately 95% risk reduction figure as their efficacy figure, the absolute risk reductions for Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines were 0.7% and 1.1% respectively. “A substantial number of individuals would need to be injected in order to prevent a single mild-to-moderate case of COVID-19,” the authors wrote. As an example, using a conservative estimate that 119 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent infection, and assuming that COVID-19 had a 0.23% infection fatality rate, they wrote that approximately 52,000 vaccinations would be necessary to prevent a single COVID-19-related death. However, “Given trial misconduct and data integrity problems … the true benefit is likely to be much lower,” they wrote. And, they added, one would need to assess that benefit along with harms, which they estimate to be 27 deaths per 100,000 doses of Pfizer. That means, using the most conservative estimates, “for every life saved, there were 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.” They also noted that post-rollout evidence confirmed the efficacy claims were overstated. For example, two large cohort Cleveland clinic studies showed the vaccine could not confer protection against COVID-19 — instead, in those trials, more vaccinated people were more likely to contract COVID-19. One study showed the risk of “breakthrough” infection was significantly higher among people who were boosted and that more vaccinations resulted in a greater risk of COVID-19. A second study showed adults who were not “up-to-date” with their shots had a 23% lower incidence of COVID-19 than their “up-to-date” colleagues. 3. The trials underestimated the adverse events, including death, despite evidence in the data. Harms were also underreported and underestimated for a number of reasons, according to the authors, a practice that tends to be common in randomized industry-sponsored vaccine trials in general and “exceptionally evident” here. First, because Pfizer unblinded the trial within just a few weeks of the emergency use authorization and allowed people in the placebo group to take the vaccine, there was not sufficient time to identify late-occurring harms because there was no longer a control group. “Was this necessary, given that none of the deaths in the Pfizer trial were attributed to COVID-19 as the primary cause, and given the very low IFR [infection fatality rate] for a relatively healthy population?” they asked. Also, trial coordinators were “haphazard” in their approach to monitoring AEs. They prioritized documenting events thought to be related to COVID-19 rather than to the vaccines for the first seven days and only recorded “unsolicited” AEs for 30-60 days. After that period, even very SAEs, like death, were not recorded. Even for the AEs recorded in the first seven days, they only solicited data from 20% of the population. None of the trial data was independently verified. “Such secrecy may have enabled the industry to more easily present an inflated and distorted estimate of the genetic injections’ benefits, along with a gross underestimation of potential harms,” they wrote. Subsequent analysis by Michels et al. revealed that deaths and other SAEs — like life-threatening conditions, inpatient hospitalization or extension of hospitalization, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, a congenital anomaly, or a medically significant event — did occur after the cutoff period and before the FDA advisory meeting where emergency authorization was recommended. During the first 33 weeks of the Pfizer trials, 38 subjects died, according to Pfizer’s own data, although independent research by Michels et al. estimated that that number is only approximately 17% of the actual projected number due to missing data. And after that, the rate of deaths continued to increase. Michaels et al. found Pfizer failed to report a substantial increase in the number of deaths due to cardiovascular events. They also found a consistent pattern of reporting delays on the date of the death on subjects’ case reports. Overall, the review authors reported that there were “twice as many cardiac deaths proportionately among vaccinated compared to unvaccinated subjects in the Pfizer trials.” In their discussion, the authors wrote “Based on the extended Pfizer trial findings, our person-years estimate yielded a 31% increase in overall mortality among vaccine recipients, a clear trend in the wrong direction.” This raises serious red flags about how the registrational trials were conducted, Mead said. “Assessments of the safety profile of the COVID-19 modified mRNA injections warrant an objective precautionary perspective, any substantial upward trend in all cause mortality within the intervention arm of the trial population reflects badly on the intervention.” 4. Numbers of SAEs in the trials and post-rollout reporting are well-documented, despite claims to the contrary. Both Pfizer and Moderna found about 125 SAEs per 100,000 vaccine recipients, or one SAE for every 800 vaccines. However, because the trials excluded more vulnerable people, the authors note, even higher proportions of SAEs would be expected in the general population. The Fraiman et al. reanalysis of the Pfizer trial data found a significant 36% higher risk of SAEs, which included deaths and many life-threatening conditions in the vaccinated participants. Official SAEs for other vaccines average around only 1-2 per million. Fraiman et alestimated 1,250 SEAs per million vaccines, exceeding that benchmark by “at least 600-fold.” After the vaccine rollout, analyses of two large drug safety reporting systems in the U.S. and Europe identified signals for myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, cardio-respiratory arrest, cerebral infarction, and cerebral hemorrhage associated with both mRNA vaccines, along with ischemic stroke. And millions of AEs have been reported to those systems. Another study by Skidmore et al. estimated the total number of fatalities from the vaccines in 2021 alone was 289,789. Autopsy studies have also provided additional evidence of serious harms, including evidence that most COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-related deaths resulted from injury to the cardiovascular system. In multiple autopsy studies, German pathologist Aren Burkhardt documented the presence of vaccine-mRNA-produced spike proteins in blood vessel walls and brain tissues. This research helps to explain documented vaccine-induced toxicities affecting the nervous, immune, reproductive and other systems. The Pfizer data also showed an overwhelming number of adverse effects. According to a confidential document released in August 2022, Pfizer had documented approximately 1.6 million AEs affecting nearly every organ system, and one-third of them were classified as serious. In Pfizer’s trial, Michels and colleagues found a nearly 4-fold increase (OR 3.7, 95%CI 1.02-13.2, p = 0.03) in serious cardiac events (e.g., heart attack, acute coronary syndrome) in the vaccine group. Neither the original trial report nor Pfizer’s Summary Clinical Safety report acknowledged or commented on this safety signal. “The serious adverse events are all well documented,” Mead said. “Yet it’s surprising to see so many in the medical field continue to ignore or dismiss outright the latter half of the equation when considering all cause mortality trends.” 5. The failure to appropriately test for safety and toxicity poses serious problems. Researchers have raised concerns that the mRNA technology is inherently unstable and difficult to store, which leads to batch variability and contamination linked to different rates of AEs. Recent findings by McKernan et al. that found Pfizers’ mRNA vaccines are contaminated with plasmid DNA that shouldn’t be present — and wasn’t present in the vaccines used in the trials – raising serious safety issues. That’s because “Process 1,” used in the trials to generate the vaccines involved in vitro transcription of synthetic DNA — essentially a “clean” process. However, that process isn’t viable for mass production, so the manufacturers used “Process 2,” which involves using E. coli bacteria to replicate the plasmids. Removing plasmids E coli. can result in residual plasmids in the vaccines and the effects of their presence is unknown. McKernan’s work also revealed the presence of DNA from simian virus 40 (SV40), an oncogenic DNA virus originally isolated in 1960 from contaminated polio vaccines, induces lymphomas, brain tumors, and other malignancies in laboratory animals, raising other safety concerns. Researchers from Cambridge published a paper in Nature in December 2023, where they found an inherent defect in the modified RNA instructions for the spike protein in COVID-19 immunizations that causes the machinery that translates the gene to the spike protein to “slip” about 10% of the time This process creates “frameshifts” that cause cells to produce “off-target” proteins in addition to the spike. These proteins, which developers either failed to look for or did not report to regulators, cause undesirable immune responses whose long-term effects are unknown. 6. There are many different possible biological mechanisms that cause AEs and vaccine ineffectiveness. The review points readers to a series of papers that explain a number of different theories to explain the high number of AEs from the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. “The mechanisms of molecular mimicry, antigen cross-reactivity, pathogenic priming, viral reactivation, immune exhaustion, and other factors related to immune dysfunction all reinforce the biological plausibility for vaccine-induced pathogenesis of malignant and autoimmune diseases,” they wrote. And these mechanisms of immune activation are distinct from the body’s response to a viral infection. They also note the toxic effects of the primary adjuvant, PEG, and of the spike protein itself. They close their analysis of the vaccines with a complex explanation for the different immunological basis for protection provided by the vaccines versus natural immunity through infection. They explain the mechanisms for vaccine failure and problems generated by the ability for the mRNA vaccines to perpetuate the emergence of new variants. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/scientists-global-moratorium-mrna-vaccines-removal-childhood-schedule/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/scientists-call-for-global-moratorium.html
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    Scientists Call for Global Moratorium on mRNA Vaccines, Immediate Removal From Childhood Schedule
    A review paper published last week in the journal Cureus is the first peer-reviewed paper to call for a global moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The authors say that reanalyzed data from the vaccine makers’ trials and high rates of serious post-injection injuries indicate the mRNA gene therapy vaccines should not have been authorized for use.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 10098 Views
  • MMR Vaccine Debate Heats Up as Media Claim ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ to Blame for Recent Outbreaks
    As major news outlets linked reports of measles cases in the U.S. and U.K. to declining vaccine rates, experts told The Defender that case numbers in the U.S. have been extremely low for decades and the very minor variations in vaccination rates do not make a difference.

    Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
    mmr vaccine media outbreaks feature
    Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

    Measles outbreaks are in the news again.

    In the U.S., local health departments and media reported about 16 cases of measles between December 2023 and January. The outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Georgia and Washington.

    In the United Kingdom, the UK Health Security Agency reported 209 cases between January and November 2023 and about 319 cases between October 2023 and the present.

    Media blamed international travel and declining vaccination rates among children as “probably” behind the outbreaks.

    But Dr. Liz Mumper, a pediatrician, told The Defender it doesn’t make sense to assume the unvaccinated are to blame. She said cyclical outbreaks still occur even in populations with nearly 100% vaccination, such as college students.

    Dr. Paul Thomas, a retired pediatrician and author of “The Vaccine-Friendly Plan: Dr. Paul’s Safe and Effective Approach to Immunity and Health-from Pregnancy Through Your Child’s Teen Years Paperback,” told The Defender some cases of measles are reported every year. Despite the hype around the recent outbreaks, he said, “There have not been any significant measles outbreaks in the U.S. for decades.”

    The largest recent national spike in measles cases occurred in 2019 when 1,274 cases were reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It was the worst year for measles in the U.S. since 1992.

    Since 2019, the number of cases reported has been significantly lower: In 2020, there were 13 cases, in 2021, 49 cases, in 2022 there were 121 cases and in 2023, there were 56 cases. The post-2019 numbers also tend to be lower than the numbers from 2000-2018, which averaged around 200 per year.


    Credit: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    Measles is a contagious childhood viral disease characterized by a cough, runny nose and fever, followed by a generalized rash.

    It was declared to be eliminated in the U.S. in 2000 — meaning there was no continuous transmission.

    Mortality from measles in the U.S. declined significantly during the 20th century — 98% from 1900 to 1963, before the measles vaccine was introduced — due to advances in living conditions, healthcare and nutrition, according to Physicians for Informed Consent.

    Since 2000, there have been only four measles deaths in the Americas — three in 2000 and one in 2022, according to a November 2023 CDC report.

    The overwhelming majority of the approximately 130,000 measles deaths annually occur in countries in the global south that have weak health infrastructures, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Those deaths, along with measles hospitalizations in the global north, are associated with vitamin A deficiency.

    “Measles can be deadly if a child does not have access to safe water and medical care,” Mumper said. “In developed countries, fatalities from measles are very rare.”

    Effective treatments include vitamin A in high doses and attention to hydration status, Mumper said.

    “Many natural methods to help the body fight viruses, like extra vitamin D and vitamin C are effective but not widely recommended by mainstream medicine,” she added.

    Prior to the introduction of the vaccine in the U.S. in 1963, most people contracted measles and gained lifetime immunity, and the number of deaths had dropped to 0.9 per 100,000 for children under age 10.

    The vaccines significantly reduced the number of reported measles cases, with efficacy rates that can be upwards of 95%, Thomas said. However, he added immunity from the vaccines wanes over time.

    “From a mechanistic standpoint, the lifelong 100% natural immunity comes when measles is caught through respiratory spread. Giving a vaccine by injection may be an inherently poor substitute for Mother Nature,” Mumper said.

    Approximately 83% of children globally received one dose of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine by their first birthday in 2022.

    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax
    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax”

    Order Now

    Hotez, Offit blame the ‘anti-vaxers’ for measles outbreaks

    Although case numbers have declined in the U.S. since 2020, and the recently reported cases were either among adults or children who may be too young to have completed the MMR vaccine schedule, news reports about the outbreaks consistently link them to lower post-pandemic vaccination rates among kindergarteners.

    The CDC recommends two doses of the MMR vaccine, with the first dose at 12 to 15 months old and the second dose between ages 4 and 6.

    The agency reported that from the 2019-20 school year to the 2021-22 school year vaccination rates for state-required vaccines among kindergarten children declined from approximately 95% to approximately 93%, and the exemption rate increased to 3.0%.

    CDC data going back to 2011 show that rates typically vary from year-to-year, but consistently stay above 93%.

    Thomas said the drop has been minimal and “given the loss of immunity in both children and adults in the vaccinated, this minor reduction in MMR uptake by children is not going to make a difference [in infection rates].”

    Dr. Peter Hotez, a go-to “expert” for mainstream media on vaccines — and a vaccine developer and patent holder himself, who has repeatedly smeared vaccine safety advocates as “anti-science aggressors” — told ABC and CBS News that he thought the sporadic outbreaks were likely a result of lowered vaccination rates and that they were going to get worse.

    “We’re just seeing now, this is the tip of the iceberg,” Hotez said. “We’re going to be seeing this in communities across the United States in the coming weeks and months because of the spillover of the U.S. anti-vaccine movement of childhood immunizations.”

    According to ABC — quoting Hotez, Dr. Paul Offit and the Mayo Clinic’s Dr. Gregory Poland — this is due to vaccine “misinformation” linking vaccines and autism, combined with the politicization of the COVID-19 vaccines, which Hotez said caused “an acceleration of anti-vaccine sentiments.”

    Hotez has been making these arguments for years, writing a New York Times op-ed in 2020 claiming there is no link between vaccines and autism and blaming unvaccinated people for infectious disease outbreaks.

    Offit said given the vaccine’s efficacy, it was “unconscionable” for parents to forgo vaccination for their children.

    But there is a significant and growing body of evidence suggesting the MMR vaccine can cause autism in certain susceptible children. That includes evidence that U.S. Department of Justice lawyers suppressed testimony by their own expert witness making the link, and evidence from whistleblower William Thompson, Ph.D., that the CDC covered up its own data showing a link between vaccines and autism.

    In a Substack post from 2022, Dr. Peter McCullough evaluated a study on the “Association Between Vaccine Refusal and Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States,” namely measles and pertussis.

    The study indicated that since measles was declared eradicated in 2000, there have been 18 published studies of 1,416 measles cases — 43.2% of the cases occurred in vaccinated people and no hospitalizations or deaths were reported.

    McCullough concluded:

    “Large fractions of ‘preventable disease outbreaks’ involving measles and pertussis occur because vaccines fail to provide adequate protection. Given the neuropsychiatric concerns over the MMR vaccine and the stochastic risk of allergic/immunologic reactions to any injection including components of (DTaP, Tdap) or MMR, the parental movement for vaccine choice is well justified.

    “For measles and pertussis, the vaccines convey imperfect protection and breakthrough infection (vaccine failure) should receive considerable ‘blame’ by public health researchers.”

    Mumper said the vaccine schedule has changed, lowering efficacy. “Vaccine efficacy was calculated to be ~94% when the first dose was given at 15 months,” she said.

    “Now babies are scheduled to get the first dose at 12 months (only 85% efficacy) and their second dose at kindergarten.”

    Mumper added, “People with different genotypes respond differently to MMR vaccines, so there is variable measles transmission depending on the individual’s immune response. Up to 10% of the population does not develop enough protective antibodies.”

    New outbreaks lead push for adults to get another MMR

    Derek Gatherer, Ph.D., a lecturer in biomedical and life sciences at Lancaster University who is funded by the U.K. government to study “vaccine hesitancy,” said the solution to the problem of measles outbreaks is more vaccination — for adults.

    Gatherer published a recent article in The Conversation blaming the vaccine-hesitant for the outbreaks. He argued that even adults who are already vaccinated should consider getting more MMR jabs.

    “Measles is the most infectious disease known to science — adults should consider getting another MMR vaccine,” he declared.

    Gatherer conceded that the measles risk to adults is extremely small, but said “adult MMR is still worthwhile as it goes beyond just protecting the person who receives the vaccination,” stopping asymptomatic infections from spreading.

    Thomas said it is not common to recommend booster shots to adults for illnesses they were vaccinated for as children. “However,” he added, “the pharmaceutical industry, backed by the CDC, has been looking at the adult population as an untapped resource to expand market share and penetration.”

    Reports of cases rising in the UK

    In the U.K., measles was considered eliminated in 2016, but it resurfaced in 2018.

    U.K. MMR vaccination rates average 85%, down from a peak of 88.6% in 2014, with some locations reporting rates as low as 74%.

    According to The Guardian, “Most experts agree that misinformation about the MMR jab is very unlikely to play a significant role in declining vaccination rates.

    “It is too easy to blame anti-vaccine sentiment for the measles outbreaks,” Helen Bedford, professor of children’s health at the University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health told the paper. “Although some mistrust of vaccines may play a small part, research shows that parental vaccine confidence remains high.”

    Experts there pointed to pandemic disruptions in vaccination, concerns among Muslim and Jewish communities about the use of porcine gelatin in the vaccine, and also the fact that because the disease is so rare, people are less concerned about possible risks.

    England’s National Health Service is launching an MMR vaccination campaign, the BBC reported, contacting 4 million parents via text, email or letter to inform them their child has not had one or two doses of the vaccine.




    🚨 MMR Vaccine Debate Heats Up as Media Claim ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ to Blame for Recent Outbreaks
    “Many natural methods to help the body fight viruses, like extra vitamin D + vitamin C are effective but not widely recommended by mainstream medicine." — Dr. Liz Mumper
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mmr-vaccine-media-measles-outbreaks
    MMR Vaccine Debate Heats Up as Media Claim ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ to Blame for Recent Outbreaks As major news outlets linked reports of measles cases in the U.S. and U.K. to declining vaccine rates, experts told The Defender that case numbers in the U.S. have been extremely low for decades and the very minor variations in vaccination rates do not make a difference. Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. mmr vaccine media outbreaks feature Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. Measles outbreaks are in the news again. In the U.S., local health departments and media reported about 16 cases of measles between December 2023 and January. The outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Georgia and Washington. In the United Kingdom, the UK Health Security Agency reported 209 cases between January and November 2023 and about 319 cases between October 2023 and the present. Media blamed international travel and declining vaccination rates among children as “probably” behind the outbreaks. But Dr. Liz Mumper, a pediatrician, told The Defender it doesn’t make sense to assume the unvaccinated are to blame. She said cyclical outbreaks still occur even in populations with nearly 100% vaccination, such as college students. Dr. Paul Thomas, a retired pediatrician and author of “The Vaccine-Friendly Plan: Dr. Paul’s Safe and Effective Approach to Immunity and Health-from Pregnancy Through Your Child’s Teen Years Paperback,” told The Defender some cases of measles are reported every year. Despite the hype around the recent outbreaks, he said, “There have not been any significant measles outbreaks in the U.S. for decades.” The largest recent national spike in measles cases occurred in 2019 when 1,274 cases were reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It was the worst year for measles in the U.S. since 1992. Since 2019, the number of cases reported has been significantly lower: In 2020, there were 13 cases, in 2021, 49 cases, in 2022 there were 121 cases and in 2023, there were 56 cases. The post-2019 numbers also tend to be lower than the numbers from 2000-2018, which averaged around 200 per year. Credit: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Measles is a contagious childhood viral disease characterized by a cough, runny nose and fever, followed by a generalized rash. It was declared to be eliminated in the U.S. in 2000 — meaning there was no continuous transmission. Mortality from measles in the U.S. declined significantly during the 20th century — 98% from 1900 to 1963, before the measles vaccine was introduced — due to advances in living conditions, healthcare and nutrition, according to Physicians for Informed Consent. Since 2000, there have been only four measles deaths in the Americas — three in 2000 and one in 2022, according to a November 2023 CDC report. The overwhelming majority of the approximately 130,000 measles deaths annually occur in countries in the global south that have weak health infrastructures, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Those deaths, along with measles hospitalizations in the global north, are associated with vitamin A deficiency. “Measles can be deadly if a child does not have access to safe water and medical care,” Mumper said. “In developed countries, fatalities from measles are very rare.” Effective treatments include vitamin A in high doses and attention to hydration status, Mumper said. “Many natural methods to help the body fight viruses, like extra vitamin D and vitamin C are effective but not widely recommended by mainstream medicine,” she added. Prior to the introduction of the vaccine in the U.S. in 1963, most people contracted measles and gained lifetime immunity, and the number of deaths had dropped to 0.9 per 100,000 for children under age 10. The vaccines significantly reduced the number of reported measles cases, with efficacy rates that can be upwards of 95%, Thomas said. However, he added immunity from the vaccines wanes over time. “From a mechanistic standpoint, the lifelong 100% natural immunity comes when measles is caught through respiratory spread. Giving a vaccine by injection may be an inherently poor substitute for Mother Nature,” Mumper said. Approximately 83% of children globally received one dose of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine by their first birthday in 2022. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now Hotez, Offit blame the ‘anti-vaxers’ for measles outbreaks Although case numbers have declined in the U.S. since 2020, and the recently reported cases were either among adults or children who may be too young to have completed the MMR vaccine schedule, news reports about the outbreaks consistently link them to lower post-pandemic vaccination rates among kindergarteners. The CDC recommends two doses of the MMR vaccine, with the first dose at 12 to 15 months old and the second dose between ages 4 and 6. The agency reported that from the 2019-20 school year to the 2021-22 school year vaccination rates for state-required vaccines among kindergarten children declined from approximately 95% to approximately 93%, and the exemption rate increased to 3.0%. CDC data going back to 2011 show that rates typically vary from year-to-year, but consistently stay above 93%. Thomas said the drop has been minimal and “given the loss of immunity in both children and adults in the vaccinated, this minor reduction in MMR uptake by children is not going to make a difference [in infection rates].” Dr. Peter Hotez, a go-to “expert” for mainstream media on vaccines — and a vaccine developer and patent holder himself, who has repeatedly smeared vaccine safety advocates as “anti-science aggressors” — told ABC and CBS News that he thought the sporadic outbreaks were likely a result of lowered vaccination rates and that they were going to get worse. “We’re just seeing now, this is the tip of the iceberg,” Hotez said. “We’re going to be seeing this in communities across the United States in the coming weeks and months because of the spillover of the U.S. anti-vaccine movement of childhood immunizations.” According to ABC — quoting Hotez, Dr. Paul Offit and the Mayo Clinic’s Dr. Gregory Poland — this is due to vaccine “misinformation” linking vaccines and autism, combined with the politicization of the COVID-19 vaccines, which Hotez said caused “an acceleration of anti-vaccine sentiments.” Hotez has been making these arguments for years, writing a New York Times op-ed in 2020 claiming there is no link between vaccines and autism and blaming unvaccinated people for infectious disease outbreaks. Offit said given the vaccine’s efficacy, it was “unconscionable” for parents to forgo vaccination for their children. But there is a significant and growing body of evidence suggesting the MMR vaccine can cause autism in certain susceptible children. That includes evidence that U.S. Department of Justice lawyers suppressed testimony by their own expert witness making the link, and evidence from whistleblower William Thompson, Ph.D., that the CDC covered up its own data showing a link between vaccines and autism. In a Substack post from 2022, Dr. Peter McCullough evaluated a study on the “Association Between Vaccine Refusal and Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States,” namely measles and pertussis. The study indicated that since measles was declared eradicated in 2000, there have been 18 published studies of 1,416 measles cases — 43.2% of the cases occurred in vaccinated people and no hospitalizations or deaths were reported. McCullough concluded: “Large fractions of ‘preventable disease outbreaks’ involving measles and pertussis occur because vaccines fail to provide adequate protection. Given the neuropsychiatric concerns over the MMR vaccine and the stochastic risk of allergic/immunologic reactions to any injection including components of (DTaP, Tdap) or MMR, the parental movement for vaccine choice is well justified. “For measles and pertussis, the vaccines convey imperfect protection and breakthrough infection (vaccine failure) should receive considerable ‘blame’ by public health researchers.” Mumper said the vaccine schedule has changed, lowering efficacy. “Vaccine efficacy was calculated to be ~94% when the first dose was given at 15 months,” she said. “Now babies are scheduled to get the first dose at 12 months (only 85% efficacy) and their second dose at kindergarten.” Mumper added, “People with different genotypes respond differently to MMR vaccines, so there is variable measles transmission depending on the individual’s immune response. Up to 10% of the population does not develop enough protective antibodies.” New outbreaks lead push for adults to get another MMR Derek Gatherer, Ph.D., a lecturer in biomedical and life sciences at Lancaster University who is funded by the U.K. government to study “vaccine hesitancy,” said the solution to the problem of measles outbreaks is more vaccination — for adults. Gatherer published a recent article in The Conversation blaming the vaccine-hesitant for the outbreaks. He argued that even adults who are already vaccinated should consider getting more MMR jabs. “Measles is the most infectious disease known to science — adults should consider getting another MMR vaccine,” he declared. Gatherer conceded that the measles risk to adults is extremely small, but said “adult MMR is still worthwhile as it goes beyond just protecting the person who receives the vaccination,” stopping asymptomatic infections from spreading. Thomas said it is not common to recommend booster shots to adults for illnesses they were vaccinated for as children. “However,” he added, “the pharmaceutical industry, backed by the CDC, has been looking at the adult population as an untapped resource to expand market share and penetration.” Reports of cases rising in the UK In the U.K., measles was considered eliminated in 2016, but it resurfaced in 2018. U.K. MMR vaccination rates average 85%, down from a peak of 88.6% in 2014, with some locations reporting rates as low as 74%. According to The Guardian, “Most experts agree that misinformation about the MMR jab is very unlikely to play a significant role in declining vaccination rates. “It is too easy to blame anti-vaccine sentiment for the measles outbreaks,” Helen Bedford, professor of children’s health at the University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health told the paper. “Although some mistrust of vaccines may play a small part, research shows that parental vaccine confidence remains high.” Experts there pointed to pandemic disruptions in vaccination, concerns among Muslim and Jewish communities about the use of porcine gelatin in the vaccine, and also the fact that because the disease is so rare, people are less concerned about possible risks. England’s National Health Service is launching an MMR vaccination campaign, the BBC reported, contacting 4 million parents via text, email or letter to inform them their child has not had one or two doses of the vaccine. 🚨 MMR Vaccine Debate Heats Up as Media Claim ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ to Blame for Recent Outbreaks “Many natural methods to help the body fight viruses, like extra vitamin D + vitamin C are effective but not widely recommended by mainstream medicine." — Dr. Liz Mumper https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mmr-vaccine-media-measles-outbreaks
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    MMR Vaccine Debate Heats Up as Media Claim ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ to Blame for Recent Outbreaks
    As major news outlets linked reports of measles cases in the U.S. and U.K. to declining vaccine rates, experts told The Defender that case numbers in the U.S. have been extremely low for decades and the very minor variations in vaccination rates do not make a difference.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 6458 Views
  • U.S. Government Still Requires COVID Shots for Legal Immigrants — Even Kids
    With the COVID-19 shots long proven unable to prevent infection or transmission, why does U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services still mandate them for anyone legally immigrating to the U.S.?

    Jeffrey A. Tucker

    Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

    It’s helpful to think of a COVID-19 experience as a never-ending house of horrors, with room after room of scandal and outrage, so much so that you never quite get through it. There simply are not enough researchers or column inches to cover it all.

    In the past, any one of these outrages would be enough to call forth enormous public debate. Introduce them all at once — starting March 2020 — and gradually unfold and codify them over a few years and many features slip through the cracks.

    Consider, for example, the continued requirement that any legally immigrating person coming to the U.S. from another country and seeking residency is absolutely required to get the COVID-19 vaccine, a shot widely admitted not to protect against infection or spread and is associated with injury on a scale without pharmaceutical precedent.

    And yet the U.S. government requires it. The evidence is here from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.



    Note the language: “To prevent the following diseases.”

    That is completely untrue. You cannot make it true simply by claiming that it prevents something. It does nothing of the kind, despite its moniker of being a vaccine.

    All the others are indeed vaccines that generally prevent the disease because they are sterilizing shots. The COVID-19 shot is not. And yet there it is, riding the coattails of public health valor from past ages.

    It is generally not possible to avoid the requirement.

    You can appeal for a religious exemption, which involves several rounds of correspondence and documentation. They have variously been granted after much headache, bureaucracy and expense. Very few will go to the trouble.

    Meanwhile, the U.S. is currently experiencing a wave of immigration from asylum seekers which this country has never seen in raw numbers before.

    There is no requirement that these people coming across the Southern border and then shipped around the country face any such requirement of COVID-19 vaccination. That only kicks in if you seek to immigrate the old-fashioned way, which is to say, by seeking legal permission.

    Based on reports from archive.org, it appears that the addition of the COVID-19 shot was in the first week of October 2021. It was not there and then it was, by pure bureaucratic edict. Edit file, submit, done.

    This was long after it was well known that the vaccine did not stop infection or transmission, and long after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was aware of the health risks of the vaccine.

    It was also a time when vaccine uptake was dramatically dropping from the levels of the initial enthusiasm from earlier that year.

    By this time, vast numbers had grown skeptical and were willing to take their chances. The market for shots was headed south.

    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax
    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax”

    Order Now

    It appears that immigrant populations — who had not been required to get it for the first 10 months of 2021 — were roped into the market as mandates began to invade private workplaces and cities.

    In other words, this was a forced recruitment of immigrant populations to boost the demand for the shots.

    The Biden administration attempted to impose such mandates on the whole of the private sector. The Supreme Court blocked that measure in January 2022. So most were repealed. But the one for legal immigration stayed and has not been challenged in court.

    There is a darker way to understand this policy move too. It serves as a filtering mechanism. Many people around the world were fleeing shot mandates from their home countries.

    Adding this one to the list of required injections was a way to signal to the world: the U.S. would not provide any sanctuary to shot refuseniks, so don’t bother even trying.

    It also operates as a culling mechanism against anti-lockdown and anti-mandate opinions. It assured that the U.S. would not be allowing people to work here who think for themselves, look at the evidence or otherwise refuse to bow to the pharma agenda.

    The CDC further elaborates on the regulation: it must be within 12 months and it does pertain to children too. There is a narrow range of exemptions for repeated shots but that requires additional paperwork.



    There is simply no basis for this mandate at all. The vaccine is not efficacious in the normal sense of that term. Nor is it necessary for healthy adults, much less children, who face a near-zero risk of medically significant outcomes.

    There is the additional peculiarity that whatever immune response occurs from the shot fades quickly, and even less pertains to the existing strain in the community of this fast-mutating virus.

    In other words, there is nothing defensible about this policy at all. It is keeping untold families apart and preventing U.S. citizens from moving to the U.S. with children and spouses from other countries who decline the shots.

    They have worked to get back but the vaccine mandate here bars them from doing so. Sadly, there are few in Congress willing to take up the causes and do something about this.

    It’s the sort of rule that is enforced with no rationality at all but which benefits powerful pharmaceutical companies.

    The issue has been barely covered in the media at all, and there are currently no real efforts ongoing to push back because the victims are powerless and much of the world has moved on.

    Meanwhile, this COVID-19 vaccine is being gradually added to every list of requirements that is available, from immigration to the childhood schedule to school attendance.

    This is despite how the shot has completely failed to perform up to the promise of the first year.

    This is fully known by vast swaths of the world’s population, and yet U.S. bureaucracies persist in their impositions without the slightest sense that they ought to acquiesce to the reality that everyone knows.

    Originally published by Brownstone Institute.

    The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.

    🚨 U.S Government Still Requires COVID Shots for Legal Immigrants — Even Kids

    Meanwhile, the U.S. is currently experiencing a wave of immigration from asylum seekers which this country has never seen in raw numbers before.

    There is no requirement that these people coming across the Southern border and then shipped around the country face any such requirement of COVID-19 vaccination.

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/u-s-government-covid-shots-legal-immigrants/

    Join 👉 @DrPaulMarik
    U.S. Government Still Requires COVID Shots for Legal Immigrants — Even Kids With the COVID-19 shots long proven unable to prevent infection or transmission, why does U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services still mandate them for anyone legally immigrating to the U.S.? Jeffrey A. Tucker Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. It’s helpful to think of a COVID-19 experience as a never-ending house of horrors, with room after room of scandal and outrage, so much so that you never quite get through it. There simply are not enough researchers or column inches to cover it all. In the past, any one of these outrages would be enough to call forth enormous public debate. Introduce them all at once — starting March 2020 — and gradually unfold and codify them over a few years and many features slip through the cracks. Consider, for example, the continued requirement that any legally immigrating person coming to the U.S. from another country and seeking residency is absolutely required to get the COVID-19 vaccine, a shot widely admitted not to protect against infection or spread and is associated with injury on a scale without pharmaceutical precedent. And yet the U.S. government requires it. The evidence is here from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Note the language: “To prevent the following diseases.” That is completely untrue. You cannot make it true simply by claiming that it prevents something. It does nothing of the kind, despite its moniker of being a vaccine. All the others are indeed vaccines that generally prevent the disease because they are sterilizing shots. The COVID-19 shot is not. And yet there it is, riding the coattails of public health valor from past ages. It is generally not possible to avoid the requirement. You can appeal for a religious exemption, which involves several rounds of correspondence and documentation. They have variously been granted after much headache, bureaucracy and expense. Very few will go to the trouble. Meanwhile, the U.S. is currently experiencing a wave of immigration from asylum seekers which this country has never seen in raw numbers before. There is no requirement that these people coming across the Southern border and then shipped around the country face any such requirement of COVID-19 vaccination. That only kicks in if you seek to immigrate the old-fashioned way, which is to say, by seeking legal permission. Based on reports from archive.org, it appears that the addition of the COVID-19 shot was in the first week of October 2021. It was not there and then it was, by pure bureaucratic edict. Edit file, submit, done. This was long after it was well known that the vaccine did not stop infection or transmission, and long after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was aware of the health risks of the vaccine. It was also a time when vaccine uptake was dramatically dropping from the levels of the initial enthusiasm from earlier that year. By this time, vast numbers had grown skeptical and were willing to take their chances. The market for shots was headed south. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now It appears that immigrant populations — who had not been required to get it for the first 10 months of 2021 — were roped into the market as mandates began to invade private workplaces and cities. In other words, this was a forced recruitment of immigrant populations to boost the demand for the shots. The Biden administration attempted to impose such mandates on the whole of the private sector. The Supreme Court blocked that measure in January 2022. So most were repealed. But the one for legal immigration stayed and has not been challenged in court. There is a darker way to understand this policy move too. It serves as a filtering mechanism. Many people around the world were fleeing shot mandates from their home countries. Adding this one to the list of required injections was a way to signal to the world: the U.S. would not provide any sanctuary to shot refuseniks, so don’t bother even trying. It also operates as a culling mechanism against anti-lockdown and anti-mandate opinions. It assured that the U.S. would not be allowing people to work here who think for themselves, look at the evidence or otherwise refuse to bow to the pharma agenda. The CDC further elaborates on the regulation: it must be within 12 months and it does pertain to children too. There is a narrow range of exemptions for repeated shots but that requires additional paperwork. There is simply no basis for this mandate at all. The vaccine is not efficacious in the normal sense of that term. Nor is it necessary for healthy adults, much less children, who face a near-zero risk of medically significant outcomes. There is the additional peculiarity that whatever immune response occurs from the shot fades quickly, and even less pertains to the existing strain in the community of this fast-mutating virus. In other words, there is nothing defensible about this policy at all. It is keeping untold families apart and preventing U.S. citizens from moving to the U.S. with children and spouses from other countries who decline the shots. They have worked to get back but the vaccine mandate here bars them from doing so. Sadly, there are few in Congress willing to take up the causes and do something about this. It’s the sort of rule that is enforced with no rationality at all but which benefits powerful pharmaceutical companies. The issue has been barely covered in the media at all, and there are currently no real efforts ongoing to push back because the victims are powerless and much of the world has moved on. Meanwhile, this COVID-19 vaccine is being gradually added to every list of requirements that is available, from immigration to the childhood schedule to school attendance. This is despite how the shot has completely failed to perform up to the promise of the first year. This is fully known by vast swaths of the world’s population, and yet U.S. bureaucracies persist in their impositions without the slightest sense that they ought to acquiesce to the reality that everyone knows. Originally published by Brownstone Institute. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense. 🚨 U.S Government Still Requires COVID Shots for Legal Immigrants — Even Kids Meanwhile, the U.S. is currently experiencing a wave of immigration from asylum seekers which this country has never seen in raw numbers before. There is no requirement that these people coming across the Southern border and then shipped around the country face any such requirement of COVID-19 vaccination. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/u-s-government-covid-shots-legal-immigrants/ Join 👉 @DrPaulMarik
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    U.S. Government Still Requires COVID Shots for Legal Immigrants — Even Kids
    With the COVID-19 shots long proven unable to prevent infection or transmission, why does U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services still mandate them for anyone legally immigrating to the U.S.?
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4287 Views
  • The life of (my) life, soul of my soul

    I have been calling my daughter what translates from Hebrew as "the life of life" or "love of love" for some years now; this is a modern, Israeli take of an Arabic use of language.

    I grew up in a very Zionist place and time. But I was lucky enough to grow among Mizrahi, Arab Jews; both my father and my beloved uncle spoke Arabic as their first language, and the two, childhood friends, marries two sisters, my mom ant aunt, born in Morocco to Jewish parents.

    Arab music was part of the soundtrack of my childhood, and from a young age I knew the names and would recognize the voices of legends such as Farid al-Atrash, Abdel Halim Hafez, Warda, Umm Kulthum, Fairuz and others. My father would also take me with him to work occacionally (he was am aluminum worker in construction), and his teammate Isaa, an Arab from Nazareth, was almost a family friend. We all knew him, and loved and welcomed him whoever we would meet.

    I never forgot how one cold winter morning, when I tagged along with my father on a work day, Issa's wife made us coffee and tea, accompanied by sweet, delicious sugar powder-covered cookies, as they wouldn't let us just pick Issa up and go (I certainly can't speak for all Arabs homes but I know enough to say with confidence that you don't just pass through an Arab home: you sit and have coffee and eat something and have some small talk. Arabs Jews are also similar in that regard).

    Like many second and 3rd generation Mizrahi Jews, I can't speak Arabic, but I pick up quite a lot of it, and the musicality of the language always sounds a little like home to me.

    fortunate to have been exposed to Arabs, Jews and just Arabs, from a young age, I was never intimidated by anything Arab. On the contrary: I grew immensely fond of the gentleness, the warmth of heart, the humor, the special sweetness of an Arab street, store or home.

    In later years, I was lamenting the forced disconnect between me and my Arab roots created by Israel's paranoid mentality. Like many other Arab Jews of my generation I was not an Arab anymore, but not really an Israeli as well to this day I am not sure what being Israeli means, really, apart from a negation of Jewish experiences and denial of current realities).

    Israeli, just like American or English, connotes whiteness. And white we Mizrahi Jews are not, nor will we ever be.

    Unlike many Mizrahi Jews, I refused to become an empty shell, filled only with the ideological content of the state: A de-Arabized Arab Jew. That I wouldn't be. I chose to be free instead.
    -
    When I heard of the way Nur's grandfather, Khaled, called her, and how similar it was to the way I call my daughter, and when I see the suffering, wounds, burns, pain and death of Gaza's children, the memory and consciousness of me and my roots, both known and simply genetic, springs to life immediately, undeniable and bare. These kids are not foreign or alien to me. They are me and mine, too. I feel their pain and fear, I understand the terms of endearment and the farewells of their grief-stricken parents, even as I really understand but a few words here and there. My soul understands Arabic is the way I'd put it.

    Zionism's message of fear, hate and suspicion towards Arabs and Palestinians is totally and forever lost on me, and I consider it a personal triumph. I will never hate Arab people.

    And I ache the terrible dehumanization of Arab people, societies and communities that have so much beauty, gentleness and love in them. The world will know the truth. I am sure of that, and I will do whatever I can to help bring this day about, which is why I write this.

    (and that's me and my daughter)

    https://twitter.com/alon_mizrahi/status/1748387894685835663?t=Q08CrljUjSZCMXaiGa2rpg&s=19
    The life of (my) life, soul of my soul I have been calling my daughter what translates from Hebrew as "the life of life" or "love of love" for some years now; this is a modern, Israeli take of an Arabic use of language. I grew up in a very Zionist place and time. But I was lucky enough to grow among Mizrahi, Arab Jews; both my father and my beloved uncle spoke Arabic as their first language, and the two, childhood friends, marries two sisters, my mom ant aunt, born in Morocco to Jewish parents. Arab music was part of the soundtrack of my childhood, and from a young age I knew the names and would recognize the voices of legends such as Farid al-Atrash, Abdel Halim Hafez, Warda, Umm Kulthum, Fairuz and others. My father would also take me with him to work occacionally (he was am aluminum worker in construction), and his teammate Isaa, an Arab from Nazareth, was almost a family friend. We all knew him, and loved and welcomed him whoever we would meet. I never forgot how one cold winter morning, when I tagged along with my father on a work day, Issa's wife made us coffee and tea, accompanied by sweet, delicious sugar powder-covered cookies, as they wouldn't let us just pick Issa up and go (I certainly can't speak for all Arabs homes but I know enough to say with confidence that you don't just pass through an Arab home: you sit and have coffee and eat something and have some small talk. Arabs Jews are also similar in that regard). Like many second and 3rd generation Mizrahi Jews, I can't speak Arabic, but I pick up quite a lot of it, and the musicality of the language always sounds a little like home to me. fortunate to have been exposed to Arabs, Jews and just Arabs, from a young age, I was never intimidated by anything Arab. On the contrary: I grew immensely fond of the gentleness, the warmth of heart, the humor, the special sweetness of an Arab street, store or home. In later years, I was lamenting the forced disconnect between me and my Arab roots created by Israel's paranoid mentality. Like many other Arab Jews of my generation I was not an Arab anymore, but not really an Israeli as well to this day I am not sure what being Israeli means, really, apart from a negation of Jewish experiences and denial of current realities). Israeli, just like American or English, connotes whiteness. And white we Mizrahi Jews are not, nor will we ever be. Unlike many Mizrahi Jews, I refused to become an empty shell, filled only with the ideological content of the state: A de-Arabized Arab Jew. That I wouldn't be. I chose to be free instead. - When I heard of the way Nur's grandfather, Khaled, called her, and how similar it was to the way I call my daughter, and when I see the suffering, wounds, burns, pain and death of Gaza's children, the memory and consciousness of me and my roots, both known and simply genetic, springs to life immediately, undeniable and bare. These kids are not foreign or alien to me. They are me and mine, too. I feel their pain and fear, I understand the terms of endearment and the farewells of their grief-stricken parents, even as I really understand but a few words here and there. My soul understands Arabic is the way I'd put it. Zionism's message of fear, hate and suspicion towards Arabs and Palestinians is totally and forever lost on me, and I consider it a personal triumph. I will never hate Arab people. And I ache the terrible dehumanization of Arab people, societies and communities that have so much beauty, gentleness and love in them. The world will know the truth. I am sure of that, and I will do whatever I can to help bring this day about, which is why I write this. (and that's me and my daughter) https://twitter.com/alon_mizrahi/status/1748387894685835663?t=Q08CrljUjSZCMXaiGa2rpg&s=19
    0 Comments 0 Shares 5692 Views
  • Horrific ingredients are in the vaxxines of Pharma in USA
    The Fall of Babylon
    Revelation 18:23
    “Never again will the light of a lamp be seen in you; no more will the voices of brides and grooms be heard in you. Your businessmen were the most powerful in all the world, and with your sorcery (Pharmekia) you deceived all the people of the World !”
    Follow https://t.me/effectsvax
    and share.

    https://rumble.com/v1phne2--dr.-stanley-plotkin-reveals-what-ingredients-are-added-to-childhood-vaccin.html
    Horrific ingredients are in the vaxxines of Pharma in USA The Fall of Babylon Revelation 18:23 “Never again will the light of a lamp be seen in you; no more will the voices of brides and grooms be heard in you. Your businessmen were the most powerful in all the world, and with your sorcery (Pharmekia) you deceived all the people of the World !” Follow https://t.me/effectsvax and share. https://rumble.com/v1phne2--dr.-stanley-plotkin-reveals-what-ingredients-are-added-to-childhood-vaccin.html
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 814 Views
  • UNLOCKED: Spike Proteins and Lipid Nanoparticles are HIGHLY TOXIC per Systemic Review of Scientific Literature
    "People who know about medicine and biology don’t think about it (nanoparticles), which is why they say it’s an 'mRNA vaccine.' Ignorance is bliss. They fell into an infinite hell."

    Karen Kingston
    January 18, 2024: Due to numerous requests from respected colleagues and valued Kingston Report subscribers, I’ve unlocked this article for free. Please share this compelling and critical article with your friends, family and network.

    Share


    January 16, 2024: modRNA, ‘lipid’ nanoparticles, and other gene editing technologies have epically failed at providing any human benefits for decades. Since the unleashing of the mRNA COVID-19 injections on global civilians, these nanoparticle technologies have caused massive increases in disease, disabilities, infertility and death in men, women, and children over the past 3 years.

    The above stated claims were recently confirmed on January 11, 2024, by the Japanese General Incorporated Association Vaccine Issues Study Group. These prestigious scientists and doctors held a press conference to report on their systemic review of thousands of publications of scientific literature from the NIH PubMed database and other global databases on synthetic viruses, mRNA gene editing technologies, and ‘lipid’ nanoparticles.

    During the press conference, Professor Emeritus Masanori Fukushima of Kyoto University stated; “Thousands of papers have reported side effects after vaccination which affect every organ without exception.”

    Professor Emeritus Masayasu Inoue stated, “You will find diseases of the heart, kidney, thyroid, diabetes, liver, skin, eyes, blood, nerves, systemic diseases, brain, lungs… diseases across all medical fields have been reported. As Prof. Fukushima stated, the characteristics of this vaccine is that they occur simultaneously within entire families.”

    The Spike is Toxic

    Professor Yasufami Murakami of the Tokyo University of Science declared; “I believe it (the mRNA COVID-19 injection) should be STOPPED immediately. THE SPIKE IS TOXIC. It is very clear what happens when you administer a toxic gene to a human. Another point is that the lipid nanoparticles are also toxic.”

    Nanoparticles are the World’s #1 Problem

    Professor Emeritus Fukushima went on to explain that;

    “If the problem of ‘off-targets’ is solved, there are still many other problems because these nanoparticles, which are inflammatory and environmental (cause environmental harm), especially the plastic nanoparticles. Nanoparticles are the world’s number one problem.” - Professor Emeritus Fukushima, Kyoto University

    It may surprise you to learn that mRNA gene editing and nanoparticle technologies were considered weapons of mass destruction up until around 2019.

    Share

    mRNA Nanoparticles are Weapons of Mass Destruction and Disruption

    mRNA Nanoparticles are Weapons of Mass Destruction and Disruption
    January 15: 2024: Professor James Giordano is a former US marine and became an advisor to the US intelligence community (IC) and military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 2008 under President Barack Obama. Giordano is currently an advisor to the IC and DARPA.

    Read full story

    I’ve transcribed the summary of the press conference in this article and provided select references to substantiate many of the assertions made by the expert scientific and medical panel.

    The name of the press conference’s moderator is Takeguchi.

    Takeguchi, Moderator

    “Firstly, I would like to take this opportunity to express my condolences to those who have passed away due to health issues after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, I extend my best wishes to those who have suffered health issues and those who are currently struggling with symptoms.”

    Professor Emiritus Masanori Fukushima, Kyoto University

    “A systemic review of the literature has revealed some surprising facts. Thousands of papers have reported side effects after vaccination which affect every organ without exception from ophthalmology to general medicine to psychiatry.

    We have compiled this information into a paper that published yesterday. These documents have been preliminarily investigated by a group of volunteer physicians. They have looked into how many cases have been reported by Japanese academic societies. This kind of reporting on drug side effects or the like is unprecedented.”

    “This reporting on drug side effects is UNPRECEDENTED.”


    “As my specialty is cancer, chemotherapy drugs are plagued with side effects, but the patterns are known and predetermined. The patterns of the side effects caused by this vaccine are not determined. They can occur throughout the body.”

    Note: Many of the Harmful Clinical Effects of COVID-19 mRNA Were Predetermined

    On October 20, 2020, the FDA met with industry to review of “working list” of the known harmful clinical effects of the mRNA lipid nanoparticle injections. IMO, for the most part, the harmful effects of the mRNA injections were known and ‘predetermined’.


    Multiple diseases can occur simultaneously.

    “Multiple diseases can occur simultaneously. Doctors have ‘never seen such a thing’ is a candid opinion of the medical profession.”

    Note: Internal Pfizer records show that Pfizer has been recording multiple harmful clinical outcomes across multiple organ systems individual patients and failed to alert the public.

    In 2022, Pfizer recorded 5 million adverse events across 1.5 million subjects injected with their mRNA ‘vaccines’. On average, each subject experienced 3-4 adverse events across multiple organ systems.


    There are interferences. Censorship is taking place.

    “Japanese doctors are also trying hard, but they face various obstructions. There’s this sentiment of, ‘Why report on something like vaccine damage?’ There are interferences. Such actions themselves hinder academic freedom. In some academic departments, censorship is taking place. Such as in conference presentations and paper publications.”

    “This is happening globally.”

    This is happening globally.

    “Some journals are effectively practicing censorship.

    We are working on a paper that is expected to be published soon. Once published, we will be able to report in detail. For example, the age-adjusted mortality rate for leukemia has increased. And there are significant findings for breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and so on.

    We will share the relevant information with everyone as we advise and request the government on how to proceed.”

    “mRNA LNP injections should be stopped immediately.”

    Professor Yasufami Murakami, Tokyo University of Science

    “One thing I want to say initially is that it is clear how the adverse effects occur, which is still harming many victims today. I believe it (the mRNA COVID-19 injection) should be stopped immediately.”


    The spike proteins and lipid nanoparticles are toxic.

    “The mechanism by which adverse effects occur is well understood; the spike is toxic. It is very clear what happens when you administer a toxic gene to a human. Another point is that the lipid nanoparticles are also toxic.

    The major problem is we are injecting two toxic substances into people, one of which being that human cells are producing spike proteins (modRNA). Since the immune system will attack this, this causes very violent reactions. There are cases that occur within one or two weeks after injections, but there are also many cases that appear after one or two years.”

    Note: In 2014/2015 the FDA issued warning documents on toxic effects of gene-based ‘protein therapies’ that could have lethal consequences.

    In the fall of 2014, the FDA reviewed the auto-immune diseases and artificially induced genetic diseases that can be induced by protein (mRNA) gene therapies, many of which have lethal consequences.


    mRNA vaccines program the immune system to cause disease and death.

    “Additionally there is such a thing as good and bad antibodies in humans, and an antibody called IgG4 actually suppresses immunity. Usually with vaccines, if an IgG4 antibody is induced, it is considered a failure.

    However, with the current messenger-type vaccines, a significant amount of IgG4 is being induced. When this happens, it plays various trick on various immune functions. Therefore, we want to thoroughly investigate what ratio of Japanese people are (having this harmful immune response induced).”

    Note: At the 2021 JP Morgan Conference, Pfizer’s mRNA partner BioNTech published there mission statement to “harness the immune system’s full potential to fight human disease.” That is, “the disease of the human species.”


    Stop the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines immediately.

    “We aim to carefully examine what level of IgG4 that reacts with the spike protein is present in each individual. Of course, the problem is, we already understand these factors.

    Vaccines that have failed are still being administered and the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare recognizes these are failed vaccines. So I would like to stop them immediately.

    Even though I speak out in various places, they do not stop at all. So we will clearly present evidence and publish articles, one-by-one.”

    Professor Emeritus Masayasu Inoue, Osaka City University

    “We are working with Dr. Fukushima to create this database. So far, about 201 types of disease and 3,071 papers on side effects have been reported. It is unprecedented in human history for a single vaccine to have this much (harmful) literature out on it.

    With this, we plan to present to the nation and Japanese government in the form of solid science that one can dispute. You will find diseases of the heart, kidney, thyroid, diabetes, liver, skin, eyes, blood, nerves, systemic diseases, brain, lungs… diseases across all medical fields have been reported. As Prof. Fukushima stated, the characteristics of this vaccine is that they occur simultaneously within entire families.

    As for the data, when diseases such as those of the heart, kidney, endocrine, and liver are taken simultaneously within the range in which they occur, it turns out that a tremendous number of papers are reported over many pages.”

    Professor Emiritus Masanori Fukushima, Kyoto University

    “Mental disorders, psychiatric symptoms, depression, mania, anxiety, came up in abundance and it is endless. It’s about understanding why this is happening. That’s why actually with broader keywords, for example, not just COVID-19 vaccines, but also SARS-CoV-2, messenger RNA vaccines, and the like, when you separate it out into various key words, more and more results come up. So this is just part of it.

    Even with what Dr. Inoue introduced earlier, it’s just a part of what has been done with PubMed database. There are things that won’t be picked-up by PubMed.”

    Creutfeldt-Jakob Disease (CLD)

    “So like ‘Creutfeldt-Jakob Disease (CLD)’ is not caught (by PubMed). However, there are such peer-reviewed papers out there from Dr. Montagnier who discovered HIV and received the Nobel Prize. This is a persuasive paper.


    “So the spike protein sequence within the genes, you know, he (Dr. Montagnier) was warning that if there’s a prion-like sequence it could be very dangerous. Many scientists were warning. I too said it could be hazardous because of the possibility of prions. I discussed it with prion experts.”

    Unwanted ‘Off-Target’ Diseases Throughout the Body

    So, if you inject it (mRNA LNP technology) into the muscle, it will be taken up by the surrounding cells. People who know nothing about medicine and biology don’t think about such specific things, which is why they say it’s an mRNA ‘vaccine’.

    However, if you know biology and medicine, such specific things don’t happen. (Unwanted) specific things are what we call ‘off-target.’ Out of control beyond the target. It doesn’t know where to go. If it goes into the bloodstream, it goes to the brain, liver, and kidneys.

    Note: Pfizer publishes on their website that their mRNA spike proteins are gene editing proteins intended to modify the human genome with the hopes of not inducing off-target effects (autoimmune diseases, cancers and artificially induced genetic diseases).

    “What if it (spike) is made it everywhere? That’s something people don’t think about. So it’s a very vague story about the off-targets. That problem hasn’t been solved.” - Professor Emiritus Masanori Fukushima, Kyoto University


    Nanoparticle are the World’s #1 Problem.

    “If the problem of ‘off-targets’ is solved, there are still many other problems because these nanoparticles, which are inflammatory and environmental (cause environmental harm), especially the plastic nanoparticles. Nanoparticles are the world’s number one problem.”

    "By Hacking Organisms, Elites May Gain the Power to Re-Engineer the Future of Life Itself"

    "By Hacking Organisms, Elites May Gain the Power to Re-Engineer the Future of Life Itself"
    November 9, 2023: It was decided years ago to simply ‘cover-up’ the existence of the synthetic biology industry and the end-goal of converging the digital world with the human body and other life forms. Synthetic Biology is quite literally the science of turning technology into new biological life forms and

    Read full story

    Medical ‘Experts’ Don’t Understand the Basic Principles of Life

    “Those (nanoparticles) enter the brain. However, those who don’t know anything (so they) say, ‘It’s plastic. So it won’t be digested. So it’s okay to eat.’ They pretend to know, (but they don’t). It (PEG nanoparticles) doesn’t get digested. The person has no idea how toxic inorganic substances are attached to the surfaces of those plastic nanoparticles.

    So, with fragments of such knowledge, they exaggerate things and think they can get away with this (saying) “I understand! This (technology) is good!” It’s that kind of message. So honestly, they need to go back and redo from middle school biology to high school and university entrance exams.

    As I mentioned earlier, medicine is still immature. Basically, we don’t understand much about the principles of life. Now this kind of thing has happened, ‘turning adversity into fortune.’

    We should learn from what has happened here. Instead of saying, “Go for it! Go for it!” with the vaccines….well, it’s like ignorance is bliss, such is the world today. So, it (the declaration by doctors and health care professionals that the mRNA vaccines are safe and effective) has become a kind of faith. Vaccines centers, they are like a cult. They (the ‘medical experts and professionals’) fell into an infinite hell. Thinking that things can be understood with fragments of knowledge is a mistake.”

    “Thinking that things can be understood with fragments of knowledge is a mistake.” - Prof. Fukushima

    Romans 1: 22-25

    When they professed themselves to be wise, they became fools. For they turned the glory of the incorruptible God to the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and four footed beasts, and of creeping things.

    Wherefore also God gave them up to their hearts lusts, unto uncleanness, to defile their own bodies between themselves; which turned the truth of God unto a lie, and they worshipped and served the creature, forsaking the Creator which is blessed forever. Amen.

    It is past the time for Americans and global civilians to recognize that mRNA ‘vaccine’ technology is a catastrophic threat to humanity and a moratorium must be placed on its use in all biological life forms.

    The Kingston Report. TRUTH WINS.

    The Wellness Company - be well.

    FREE Membership($99 Value) + $50 Off Prescription Kits

    Just purchase any product here. (such as Spike Support) and then purchase the annual membership fo $99.99. Use code KINGSTON at checkout, and then enter FREEMEMBER and you’ll get the $99.99 membership for FREE plus additional discounts!

    SAVE $50 OFF Prescriptions Kits with FREEMEMBER


    Your FREE Membership (checkout code FREEMEMBER) gets you deep discounts across supplements and medical services, as well as SAVE $50 OFF Emergency Prescription Medical Kits.

    Stop Calling the mRNA LNP Injections ‘Vaccines’.

    They are not ‘vaccines’. Every time Freedom Movement leaders use the term ‘vaccine’ they are providing cover for Pfizer and other manufacturers under the Childhood Vaccine Protection Act.

    Why Opponents to Medical Freedom Don't Want You to Talk About this $Multi-Trillion Industry

    Why Opponents to Medical Freedom Don't Want You to Talk About this $Multi-Trillion Industry
    June 22, 2023: Yesterday I had one of the most important interviews of my life with Stew Peters. Stew and I discuss the nanotechnology industry; an unregulated, ‘dual-use’ industry with military weapons’ and consumer applications that has been causing mild-to-severe cognitive dysfunctions, infertility, cardiovascular diseases, cancers, and death for dec…

    Read full story

    The Sheriff's Letter to Criminally Prosecute Pfizer

    The Sheriff's Letter to Criminally Prosecute Pfizer
    July 5, 2023: We’ve all been struggling with how to stop this hostile medical takeover of our nation, our communities, and our children. Like many of you, I’m exhausted from listening to the barrage of defensive strategies and futile tactics that have enabled innocent adults and children to continue to become disabled, diseased, and sometimes killed by …

    Read full story

    https://open.substack.com/pub/karenkingston/p/unlocked-spike-proteins-and-lipid?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    UNLOCKED: Spike Proteins and Lipid Nanoparticles are HIGHLY TOXIC per Systemic Review of Scientific Literature "People who know about medicine and biology don’t think about it (nanoparticles), which is why they say it’s an 'mRNA vaccine.' Ignorance is bliss. They fell into an infinite hell." Karen Kingston January 18, 2024: Due to numerous requests from respected colleagues and valued Kingston Report subscribers, I’ve unlocked this article for free. Please share this compelling and critical article with your friends, family and network. Share January 16, 2024: modRNA, ‘lipid’ nanoparticles, and other gene editing technologies have epically failed at providing any human benefits for decades. Since the unleashing of the mRNA COVID-19 injections on global civilians, these nanoparticle technologies have caused massive increases in disease, disabilities, infertility and death in men, women, and children over the past 3 years. The above stated claims were recently confirmed on January 11, 2024, by the Japanese General Incorporated Association Vaccine Issues Study Group. These prestigious scientists and doctors held a press conference to report on their systemic review of thousands of publications of scientific literature from the NIH PubMed database and other global databases on synthetic viruses, mRNA gene editing technologies, and ‘lipid’ nanoparticles. During the press conference, Professor Emeritus Masanori Fukushima of Kyoto University stated; “Thousands of papers have reported side effects after vaccination which affect every organ without exception.” Professor Emeritus Masayasu Inoue stated, “You will find diseases of the heart, kidney, thyroid, diabetes, liver, skin, eyes, blood, nerves, systemic diseases, brain, lungs… diseases across all medical fields have been reported. As Prof. Fukushima stated, the characteristics of this vaccine is that they occur simultaneously within entire families.” The Spike is Toxic Professor Yasufami Murakami of the Tokyo University of Science declared; “I believe it (the mRNA COVID-19 injection) should be STOPPED immediately. THE SPIKE IS TOXIC. It is very clear what happens when you administer a toxic gene to a human. Another point is that the lipid nanoparticles are also toxic.” Nanoparticles are the World’s #1 Problem Professor Emeritus Fukushima went on to explain that; “If the problem of ‘off-targets’ is solved, there are still many other problems because these nanoparticles, which are inflammatory and environmental (cause environmental harm), especially the plastic nanoparticles. Nanoparticles are the world’s number one problem.” - Professor Emeritus Fukushima, Kyoto University It may surprise you to learn that mRNA gene editing and nanoparticle technologies were considered weapons of mass destruction up until around 2019. Share mRNA Nanoparticles are Weapons of Mass Destruction and Disruption mRNA Nanoparticles are Weapons of Mass Destruction and Disruption January 15: 2024: Professor James Giordano is a former US marine and became an advisor to the US intelligence community (IC) and military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 2008 under President Barack Obama. Giordano is currently an advisor to the IC and DARPA. Read full story I’ve transcribed the summary of the press conference in this article and provided select references to substantiate many of the assertions made by the expert scientific and medical panel. The name of the press conference’s moderator is Takeguchi. Takeguchi, Moderator “Firstly, I would like to take this opportunity to express my condolences to those who have passed away due to health issues after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, I extend my best wishes to those who have suffered health issues and those who are currently struggling with symptoms.” Professor Emiritus Masanori Fukushima, Kyoto University “A systemic review of the literature has revealed some surprising facts. Thousands of papers have reported side effects after vaccination which affect every organ without exception from ophthalmology to general medicine to psychiatry. We have compiled this information into a paper that published yesterday. These documents have been preliminarily investigated by a group of volunteer physicians. They have looked into how many cases have been reported by Japanese academic societies. This kind of reporting on drug side effects or the like is unprecedented.” “This reporting on drug side effects is UNPRECEDENTED.” “As my specialty is cancer, chemotherapy drugs are plagued with side effects, but the patterns are known and predetermined. The patterns of the side effects caused by this vaccine are not determined. They can occur throughout the body.” Note: Many of the Harmful Clinical Effects of COVID-19 mRNA Were Predetermined On October 20, 2020, the FDA met with industry to review of “working list” of the known harmful clinical effects of the mRNA lipid nanoparticle injections. IMO, for the most part, the harmful effects of the mRNA injections were known and ‘predetermined’. Multiple diseases can occur simultaneously. “Multiple diseases can occur simultaneously. Doctors have ‘never seen such a thing’ is a candid opinion of the medical profession.” Note: Internal Pfizer records show that Pfizer has been recording multiple harmful clinical outcomes across multiple organ systems individual patients and failed to alert the public. In 2022, Pfizer recorded 5 million adverse events across 1.5 million subjects injected with their mRNA ‘vaccines’. On average, each subject experienced 3-4 adverse events across multiple organ systems. There are interferences. Censorship is taking place. “Japanese doctors are also trying hard, but they face various obstructions. There’s this sentiment of, ‘Why report on something like vaccine damage?’ There are interferences. Such actions themselves hinder academic freedom. In some academic departments, censorship is taking place. Such as in conference presentations and paper publications.” “This is happening globally.” This is happening globally. “Some journals are effectively practicing censorship. We are working on a paper that is expected to be published soon. Once published, we will be able to report in detail. For example, the age-adjusted mortality rate for leukemia has increased. And there are significant findings for breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and so on. We will share the relevant information with everyone as we advise and request the government on how to proceed.” “mRNA LNP injections should be stopped immediately.” Professor Yasufami Murakami, Tokyo University of Science “One thing I want to say initially is that it is clear how the adverse effects occur, which is still harming many victims today. I believe it (the mRNA COVID-19 injection) should be stopped immediately.” The spike proteins and lipid nanoparticles are toxic. “The mechanism by which adverse effects occur is well understood; the spike is toxic. It is very clear what happens when you administer a toxic gene to a human. Another point is that the lipid nanoparticles are also toxic. The major problem is we are injecting two toxic substances into people, one of which being that human cells are producing spike proteins (modRNA). Since the immune system will attack this, this causes very violent reactions. There are cases that occur within one or two weeks after injections, but there are also many cases that appear after one or two years.” Note: In 2014/2015 the FDA issued warning documents on toxic effects of gene-based ‘protein therapies’ that could have lethal consequences. In the fall of 2014, the FDA reviewed the auto-immune diseases and artificially induced genetic diseases that can be induced by protein (mRNA) gene therapies, many of which have lethal consequences. mRNA vaccines program the immune system to cause disease and death. “Additionally there is such a thing as good and bad antibodies in humans, and an antibody called IgG4 actually suppresses immunity. Usually with vaccines, if an IgG4 antibody is induced, it is considered a failure. However, with the current messenger-type vaccines, a significant amount of IgG4 is being induced. When this happens, it plays various trick on various immune functions. Therefore, we want to thoroughly investigate what ratio of Japanese people are (having this harmful immune response induced).” Note: At the 2021 JP Morgan Conference, Pfizer’s mRNA partner BioNTech published there mission statement to “harness the immune system’s full potential to fight human disease.” That is, “the disease of the human species.” Stop the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines immediately. “We aim to carefully examine what level of IgG4 that reacts with the spike protein is present in each individual. Of course, the problem is, we already understand these factors. Vaccines that have failed are still being administered and the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare recognizes these are failed vaccines. So I would like to stop them immediately. Even though I speak out in various places, they do not stop at all. So we will clearly present evidence and publish articles, one-by-one.” Professor Emeritus Masayasu Inoue, Osaka City University “We are working with Dr. Fukushima to create this database. So far, about 201 types of disease and 3,071 papers on side effects have been reported. It is unprecedented in human history for a single vaccine to have this much (harmful) literature out on it. With this, we plan to present to the nation and Japanese government in the form of solid science that one can dispute. You will find diseases of the heart, kidney, thyroid, diabetes, liver, skin, eyes, blood, nerves, systemic diseases, brain, lungs… diseases across all medical fields have been reported. As Prof. Fukushima stated, the characteristics of this vaccine is that they occur simultaneously within entire families. As for the data, when diseases such as those of the heart, kidney, endocrine, and liver are taken simultaneously within the range in which they occur, it turns out that a tremendous number of papers are reported over many pages.” Professor Emiritus Masanori Fukushima, Kyoto University “Mental disorders, psychiatric symptoms, depression, mania, anxiety, came up in abundance and it is endless. It’s about understanding why this is happening. That’s why actually with broader keywords, for example, not just COVID-19 vaccines, but also SARS-CoV-2, messenger RNA vaccines, and the like, when you separate it out into various key words, more and more results come up. So this is just part of it. Even with what Dr. Inoue introduced earlier, it’s just a part of what has been done with PubMed database. There are things that won’t be picked-up by PubMed.” Creutfeldt-Jakob Disease (CLD) “So like ‘Creutfeldt-Jakob Disease (CLD)’ is not caught (by PubMed). However, there are such peer-reviewed papers out there from Dr. Montagnier who discovered HIV and received the Nobel Prize. This is a persuasive paper. “So the spike protein sequence within the genes, you know, he (Dr. Montagnier) was warning that if there’s a prion-like sequence it could be very dangerous. Many scientists were warning. I too said it could be hazardous because of the possibility of prions. I discussed it with prion experts.” Unwanted ‘Off-Target’ Diseases Throughout the Body So, if you inject it (mRNA LNP technology) into the muscle, it will be taken up by the surrounding cells. People who know nothing about medicine and biology don’t think about such specific things, which is why they say it’s an mRNA ‘vaccine’. However, if you know biology and medicine, such specific things don’t happen. (Unwanted) specific things are what we call ‘off-target.’ Out of control beyond the target. It doesn’t know where to go. If it goes into the bloodstream, it goes to the brain, liver, and kidneys. Note: Pfizer publishes on their website that their mRNA spike proteins are gene editing proteins intended to modify the human genome with the hopes of not inducing off-target effects (autoimmune diseases, cancers and artificially induced genetic diseases). “What if it (spike) is made it everywhere? That’s something people don’t think about. So it’s a very vague story about the off-targets. That problem hasn’t been solved.” - Professor Emiritus Masanori Fukushima, Kyoto University Nanoparticle are the World’s #1 Problem. “If the problem of ‘off-targets’ is solved, there are still many other problems because these nanoparticles, which are inflammatory and environmental (cause environmental harm), especially the plastic nanoparticles. Nanoparticles are the world’s number one problem.” "By Hacking Organisms, Elites May Gain the Power to Re-Engineer the Future of Life Itself" "By Hacking Organisms, Elites May Gain the Power to Re-Engineer the Future of Life Itself" November 9, 2023: It was decided years ago to simply ‘cover-up’ the existence of the synthetic biology industry and the end-goal of converging the digital world with the human body and other life forms. Synthetic Biology is quite literally the science of turning technology into new biological life forms and Read full story Medical ‘Experts’ Don’t Understand the Basic Principles of Life “Those (nanoparticles) enter the brain. However, those who don’t know anything (so they) say, ‘It’s plastic. So it won’t be digested. So it’s okay to eat.’ They pretend to know, (but they don’t). It (PEG nanoparticles) doesn’t get digested. The person has no idea how toxic inorganic substances are attached to the surfaces of those plastic nanoparticles. So, with fragments of such knowledge, they exaggerate things and think they can get away with this (saying) “I understand! This (technology) is good!” It’s that kind of message. So honestly, they need to go back and redo from middle school biology to high school and university entrance exams. As I mentioned earlier, medicine is still immature. Basically, we don’t understand much about the principles of life. Now this kind of thing has happened, ‘turning adversity into fortune.’ We should learn from what has happened here. Instead of saying, “Go for it! Go for it!” with the vaccines….well, it’s like ignorance is bliss, such is the world today. So, it (the declaration by doctors and health care professionals that the mRNA vaccines are safe and effective) has become a kind of faith. Vaccines centers, they are like a cult. They (the ‘medical experts and professionals’) fell into an infinite hell. Thinking that things can be understood with fragments of knowledge is a mistake.” “Thinking that things can be understood with fragments of knowledge is a mistake.” - Prof. Fukushima Romans 1: 22-25 When they professed themselves to be wise, they became fools. For they turned the glory of the incorruptible God to the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and four footed beasts, and of creeping things. Wherefore also God gave them up to their hearts lusts, unto uncleanness, to defile their own bodies between themselves; which turned the truth of God unto a lie, and they worshipped and served the creature, forsaking the Creator which is blessed forever. Amen. It is past the time for Americans and global civilians to recognize that mRNA ‘vaccine’ technology is a catastrophic threat to humanity and a moratorium must be placed on its use in all biological life forms. The Kingston Report. TRUTH WINS. The Wellness Company - be well. FREE Membership($99 Value) + $50 Off Prescription Kits Just purchase any product here. (such as Spike Support) and then purchase the annual membership fo $99.99. Use code KINGSTON at checkout, and then enter FREEMEMBER and you’ll get the $99.99 membership for FREE plus additional discounts! SAVE $50 OFF Prescriptions Kits with FREEMEMBER Your FREE Membership (checkout code FREEMEMBER) gets you deep discounts across supplements and medical services, as well as SAVE $50 OFF Emergency Prescription Medical Kits. Stop Calling the mRNA LNP Injections ‘Vaccines’. They are not ‘vaccines’. Every time Freedom Movement leaders use the term ‘vaccine’ they are providing cover for Pfizer and other manufacturers under the Childhood Vaccine Protection Act. Why Opponents to Medical Freedom Don't Want You to Talk About this $Multi-Trillion Industry Why Opponents to Medical Freedom Don't Want You to Talk About this $Multi-Trillion Industry June 22, 2023: Yesterday I had one of the most important interviews of my life with Stew Peters. Stew and I discuss the nanotechnology industry; an unregulated, ‘dual-use’ industry with military weapons’ and consumer applications that has been causing mild-to-severe cognitive dysfunctions, infertility, cardiovascular diseases, cancers, and death for dec… Read full story The Sheriff's Letter to Criminally Prosecute Pfizer The Sheriff's Letter to Criminally Prosecute Pfizer July 5, 2023: We’ve all been struggling with how to stop this hostile medical takeover of our nation, our communities, and our children. Like many of you, I’m exhausted from listening to the barrage of defensive strategies and futile tactics that have enabled innocent adults and children to continue to become disabled, diseased, and sometimes killed by … Read full story https://open.substack.com/pub/karenkingston/p/unlocked-spike-proteins-and-lipid?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    OPEN.SUBSTACK.COM
    UNLOCKED: Spike Proteins and Lipid Nanoparticles are HIGHLY TOXIC per Systemic Review of Scientific Literature
    "People who know about medicine and biology don’t think about it (nanoparticles), which is why they say it’s an 'mRNA vaccine.' Ignorance is bliss. They fell into an infinite hell."
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 8404 Views
  • Virology - The Damning Evidence
    The Stake In The Heart For This Pseudoscientific Profession

    dpl
    Introduction

    One never realize how big the task of writing on a subject is until you start. One thing you can be assured of is how much you learn by writing about your findings or thoughts. My stance on virology has been clarified in two previous posts as follows:

    The Gatekeepers Club.

    Virus Lie - The Result of 4 Years of Study.

    Another thing you quickly realize on this journey is how easy it is to censor someone, especially if you start hitting a nerve. I have documented some of it underneath the conclusion of the The Gatekeepers Club article. It is very important to make copies of your work, as shadow banning is one thing, but if these platforms decide to terminate your channel and all the work you have done is on it, you will obviously lose it all. We were in that same position about a year ago when Discord decided to terminate our channel. Twenty of the smartest people you would ever know had been working on it for close to two years, and it was gone overnight. Therefore, this post will serve as safekeeping for some of the best information that I have come across in the last few weeks proving that virology is pseudoscience.


    Update - 18 September 2023

    The order of the sections of this article has been rearranged to introduce the most important information first. As mentioned in my most recent article titled: Hacking at the Root of the Virus Issue it was explained that for the longest time I thought that failure to “isolate” viruses was the most important evidence to focus on. This is however not the case as explained in detail in the “Hacking at the Root of the Virus Issue” article.

    Transmission is the fundamental assumption on which virology rest. Without proof of transmission, nothing downstream matters. Even though understanding these downstream concepts will never be a waste of time one must consider that the normal man on the street will not be interested in complicated terminology and processes.

    It is of crucial importance for the no virus community to find easier ways to explain the fallacy that is virology. Seeing as no one need a laboratory to assess whether transmission is possible and because we can observe this phenomena ourselves (Inductive reasoning) this is the linchpin for virology. A twitter space where we discussed this can be viewed here (*Note: Jamie was cut off during his talk and his section was not included).

    As discussed during the twitter space, we have reviewed the available transmission studies and a summary of these studies can be seen below.

    Transmission / Infection

    One of the funniest things you will see while debating the trolls on Twitter is that they will provide studies conducted to prove the efficacy of vaccines. The people that undertake these studies assume that transmission or infection has already been proven, but nothing could be further from the truth. That is why it is important for us to list the peer-reviewed studies that disprove transmission or infection to further demonstrate that virology is a pseudoscience. The list of studies was compiled with the help of Jamie, georgie&donny, and Aldhissla (also see Aldhissla’s list on polio here).

    (*Please note that this section is open to comments at the moment and anyone that want to add notes or studies are free to leave a comment).

    The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Mar. 1, 1905):
    - Chapman, 1801: Tried to transmit measles using the blood, tears, the mucus of the nostrils and bronchia, and the eruptive matter in the cuticle without any success.
    - Willan, 1809: Inoculated three children with vesicle fluids of measles but without success.
    - Albers, 1834: Attempted to infect four children with measles without success. He quoted Alexander Monro, Bourgois, and Spray as also having made unsuccessful inoculations with saliva, tears, and cutaneous scales.
    - Themmen, 1817: Tried to infect 5 children with measles. 0/5 children became sick.

    Charles Creighton, 1837 (A history of epidemics in Britain). "No proof of the existence of any contagious principles by which it was propagated from one individual to another."

    EH Ackernecht, writing about Anticontagionism between 1821 and 1867 - “That the anticontagionists were usually honest men and in deadly earnest is shown, among other things, by the numerous self-experiments to which they submitted themselves to prove their contentions.” also see “Famous are the plague self-experiments of Clot-Bey, the offers for plague self-experiment by Chervin, Lassis, Costa, Lapis, and Lasserre, and the cholera self-experiments of Fay, Scipio Pinel, Wayrot, and J.L. Guyon. The amazing thing is that almost all of these experiments failed to produce the disease.”

    Note on Hospitals by Florence Nightingale, 1858 - "Suffice it to say, that in the ordinary sense of the word, there is no proof, such as would be admitted in any scientific inquiry, that there is any such thing as 'contagion." also see "Just as there is no such thing as 'contagion,' there is no such thing as inevitable 'infection."

    Andreas Christian Bull, 1868 - “It does not seem apparent in this small [polio] epidemic that contagion played any role, because the disease occurred here and there in the different places of the district without the possibility of establishing any relation between the various cases or the families of the same.”

    Karl-Oskar Medin, 1887 - A Swedish pediatrician who was the first to examine a polio outbreak, concluded that it was an infectious, but not contagious, disease.

    Charles Caverly, 1894 - Investigated the first US polio epidemic: ”it is very certain that it was non-contagious.”

    Journal of American Medical Association, Volume 72, Number 3, 1919 (or additional link here):

    - Warschawsky, 1895 - Injected small pigs and rabbits with blood taken in the eruptive stage. All results were negative.
    - Belila, 1896 - Placed warm nasal mucus and saliva from measles patients on the nasal and oral mucous membrane of rabbits, guinea-pigs, cats, mice, dogs and lambs, but without any positive results.
    - Josias, 1898 - Rubbed measles secretions over the throat, nose and eyes of several young pigs, but without any effects.
    - Geissler, 1903 - Inoculated sheep, swine, goats, dogs and cats in various ways with the bodily fluids from patients with measles; including smearing, spraying, rubbing. All results were negative.
    - Pomjalowsky, 1914 - Injected measles blood into guineapigs, rabbits and small pigs. All results were negative.
    - Jurgelunas, 1914 - Inoculated blood from patients with measles into suckling pigs and rabbits, but without effect.

    Leegaard, 1899 - Was not able to prove a single case of patient-to-patient contagion in a polio outbreak in Norway. "Infantile paralysis is of an infectious, but not of a contagious nature. As a matter of fact no indisputable instance of contagion could be proved."

    Dr. Rodermund, 1901 - From his diary of SmallPox experiments. For 15 years he smeared the pus of smallpox patients on his face and used to go home with his family, play cards at the gentleman’s club and treat other patients and never got sick or saw a single other person get sick.

    Walter Reed, 1902 - “Without entering into details, I may say that, in the first place, the Commission saw, with some surprise, what had so often been noted in the literature, that patients in all stages of yellow fever could be cared for by non-immune nurses without danger of contracting the disease. The non-contagious character of yellow fever was, therefore, hardly to be questioned.”

    Landsteiner & Popper, 1909 - "Attempts to transmit the disease [polio] to the usual laboratory animals, such as rabbits, guinea pigs, or mice, failed."

    F.E. Batten, (1909) - “Against the infectivity of the disease may be urged, first, the absence of spread of infection in hospital. The cases of poliomyelitis admitted to hospital freely mixed with other cases in the ward without any isolation or disinfection, some 70 children came in contact, but no infection took place. (p. 208, last paragraph)”

    The Boston medical and surgical journal, 1909 - An inquiry a 1908 polio outbreak found the following: “A large number of children were in intimate contact with those that were sick, and of these children an insignificant minority developed the disease.” 244 children were in intimate contact with those who were afflicted with polio. Of those 244 children, an "insignificant minority" developed the disease.

    Massachusetts State board of health, 1909 - "Poliomyelitis prevailed in epidemic form in Kansas during the summer of 1909 … No method of contagion could be found, and the author does not consider the disease contagious."

    Flexner & Lewis, 1910 - Multiple unsuccessful polio transmission attempts. "Many guinea-pigs and rabbits, one horse, two calves, three goats, three pigs, three sheep, six rats, six mice, six dogs, and four cats have had active virus introduced in the brain but without causing any appreciable effect whatever. These animals have been under observation for many weeks."

    A Washinton, 1911 - “I have not seen any cases of Polio contagion. We put the patients on one side and typhoid cases on the other, and no nurse or mother was infected. If the disease was so contagious, I don't see why the nurses and mothers would not have been infected.”

    J.J. Moren, 1912 - "Monkeys suffering from polio in the same cage with healthy monkeys, do not infect others."

    P. H. Römer, 1913 - "No proofs of the contagiousness of the disease [polio] could be obtained in the great epidemic in New York in 1907, nor in the epidemic in the Steiermark (Furntratt, Potpeschnigg) nor in Pomerania (Peiper).

    H. W. Frauenthal, 1914 - "Advocates of the contagion theory were at a loss to account for the fact that spontaneous [polio] transmission among laboratory monkeys was never known to occur ... There is no proof that spontaneous transmission of acute poliomyelitis, without an inoculation wound, can take place. There is no proof that contact contagion takes place. Spontaneous development of the disease among laboratory animals is unknown."

    W.H. Frost, 1916 - "The disease [polio] develops in a such a small proportion of people known to have been intimately associated with acute cases of polio." ... "The majority of cases of poliomyelitis can not be traced to known contact, either direct or indirect, with any previous case."

    W. L. Holt, 1916 - Investigated an epidemic of polio and found that he was "surprised that I could trace hardly any cases to personal contact with others, there rarely being successive cases."

    Dr. I. D. Rawlings, 1916 - "Any one who has had much experience with poliomyelitis is struck by the infrequency, relatively, of the secondary cases among direct contacts ... there were approximately 1,500 direct contacts, and yet but one possible case occurred among them. Also among the large number of people that came from New York and other infected areas not a single case occurred.”

    H. L. Abramson, 1917 - Attempts to induce polio in a monkey by injecting the spinal fluid of 40 polio patients (rather than the ground cord) into the brain failed.

    Dold et al. 1917 (Original paper in German from Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift 64 ( 1917), bottom of p 143) - Injected healthy people with the nasal secretions taken from one ill person, 1/40 healthy people became ill.

    A review of the investigations concerning the etiology of measels, A. W. Sellards
    harvard Medical School. Boston, Massachusetts as seen below:
    - Jurgelunas, 1914: Tried to produce measles in monkeys using inoculations of the blood and mucus secretions from measles patients as well as by exposing the animals to patients in measles wards. All results were negative.
    - Sellards, 1918: Tried to transmit measles to 8 healthy volunteers without a prior history of measles exposure. 0/8 men became sick after multiple failed attempts.
    - Sellards and Wenworth, 1918: Inoculated 3 monkeys in various ways, including intensive injections of blood from measles patients. The animals remained well.
    - Sellards and Wenworth, 1918: Blood from measles patients was injected simultaneously into 2 men and 2 monkeys. Both men remained symptom-free. One of the two monkeys developed symptoms that were not suggestive of measles.

    Milton Rosenau, 1918 - Professor of preventive medicine and hygiene at Harvard, notes that "monkeys have so far never been known to contract the disease [polio] spontaneously, even though they are kept in intimate association with infected monkeys." Page 341.

    Hess & Unger, 1918 - "In three instances the nasal secretion of varicella patients was applied to the nostrils; in three others the tonsillar secretion to the tonsils, and in six, the tonsillar and pharyngeal secretions were transferred to the nose, the pharynx, and the tonsils. In none of these twelve cases was there any reaction whatsoever, either local or systemic."

    Hess & Unger, 1918 - The vesicle fluids from people with chickenpox was injected intravenously into 38 children. 0/38 became sick.

    Published in the Journal - American Medical Association, 1919 - Need Of Further Research On The Transmissibility Of Measles And Varicella. “Evidently in our experiments we do not, as we believe, pursue nature's mode of transmission; either we fail to carry over the virus, or the path of infection is quite different from what it is commonly thought to be.”

    Milton J. Rosenau, March 1919 - Conducted 9 separate experiments in a group of 49 healthy men, to prove contagion. In all 9 experiments, 0/49 men became sick after being exposed to sick people or the bodily fluids of sick people.

    More information on the Rosenau studies here.

    Wahl et al, 1919 - Conducted 3 separate trials on six men attempting to infect them with different strains of Influenza. Not a single person got sick.

    Schmidt et al, 1920 (Original paper in German here) - Conducted two controlled experiments, exposing healthy people to the bodily fluids of sick people. Of 196 people exposed to the mucous secretions of sick people, 21 (10.7%) developed colds and three developed grippe (1.5%). In the second group, of the 84 healthy people exposed to mucous secretions of sick people, five developed grippe (5.9%) and four colds (4.7%). Of forty-three controls who had been inoculated with sterile physiological salt solutions eight (18.6%) developed colds. A higher percentage of people got sick after being exposed to saline compared to those being exposed to the “virus”.

    Williams et al, 1921 - Tried to experimentally infect 45 healthy men with the common cold and influenza, by exposing them to mucous secretions from sick people. 0/45 became ill.

    Mahatma Gandhi, 1921 - "and the poison that accumulates in the system is expelled in the form of small-pox. If this view is correct, then there is absolutely no need to be afraid of small-pox" also see "This has given rise to the superstition that it is a contagious disease, and hence to the attempt to mislead the people into the belief that vaccination is an effective means of preventing it."

    Blanc and Caminopetros, 1922 (original paper in French here) - Material from nine cases of shingles was inoculated into the eyes, cornea, conjunctiva, skin, brain, and spinal cord of a series of animals, including rabbits, mice, sheep, pigeons, monkeys, and a dog. All results were negative.

    Robertson & Groves, 1924 - Exposed 100 healthy individuals to the bodily secretions from 16 different people suffering from influenza. 0 people of 100 whom they deliberately tried to infect with Influenza got sick That is because Viruses don't cause disease.

    Bauguess, 1924 - "A careful search of the literature does not reveal a case in which the blood from a patient having measles was injected into the blood stream of another person and produced measles."

    The problem of the etiology of herpes zoster, 1925 - "Many other authors report entirely negative results following the inoculation of herpes zoster material into the sacrified corneas of rabbits: Kraupa (18); Baum (19); LSwenstein (8), Teissier, Gastinel, and Reilly (20) ; Kooy (21) ; Netter and Urbain (22); Bloch and Terris (23); Simon and Scott (24); and Doerr (25). It is evident, therefore, that the results of attempts to inoculate animals with material from cases of herpes zoster must be considered at present to be inconclusive."

    Volney S and Chney M.D., 1928 - A study where it is clearly stated that cold is not infectious.

    Dochez et al, 1930 - Attempted to infect 11 men with intranasal influenza. Not a single person got sick. Most strikingly one person got very sick when he accidently found out that is what they were trying to do. His symptoms disappeared when they told him he was misinformed.

    L. L. Lumsden, 1935 - “Painstaking efforts were made throughout the studies to obtain all traces of transmission of the disease through personal contact, but it appears that in this outbreak in Louisville evidence of personal association between the cases of poliomyelitis, suggestive of cause and effect, was no more common than that which might have been found if histories had been taken of personal association between cases of broken bones occurring in the city in the same period.”

    Thomas Francis Jr et al, 1936 - Gave 23 people influenza via 3 different methods. 0 people got sick.. They gave 2 people already "suffering from colds" the influenza who also did not get sick

    Burnet and Lush, 1937 - 200 people given "Melbourne type" Influenza . 0 people showed any symptoms of disease. 200/0.

    Lumsden, 1938 - "It is quite usual in small [polio] outbreaks in rural counties for individual cases to develop in separate homes three or for miles apart without there being any evidence of direct or indirect personal contact having operated between persons afflicted."

    L. L Lumsden, 1938 - ”The general and usual epidemiological features of the disease [polio] all appear opposed to the hypothesis that poliomyelitis is a contagious disease spread among human beings by nose-to-nose or any other direct personal contact.”

    Burnet and Foley, 1940 - Attempted to experimentally infect 15 university students with influenza. The authors concluded their experiment was a failure.

    Thomas Francis Jr, 1940 - Gave 11 people "Epidemic Influenza" 0 people got sick. That is because viruses don't cause disease.

    John Toomey, 1941 - A veteran polio researcher: "no animal gets the disease from another, no matter how intimately exposed."

    A. R. Kendall, 1945 - “The epidemiological facts of poliomyelitis are these: … (2) A majority of cases of clinically diagnosable poliomyelitis (polioparalysis) occur sporadically, with no history of contact with previous cases. (3) Two cases of polioparalysis in one family are unusual, even though no precautions are taken to prevent cross infection. (4) Clinically diagnosable cases of poliomyelitis (polioparalysis) show little tendency to spread, even in schools or other places of public gathering. (5) Incidence of polioparalysis is no greater among doctors and nurses, in intimate contact with acute cases than it is among the civil population, even though the former are exposed freely to infection.” […] “Polioparalysis is not contagious.”

    E. B. Shaw & H. E. Thelander, 1949 - “The epidemiology of the disease [polio] remains obscure. There has been a tendency to depart from an early theory that the disease spreads by means of direct contact.”

    Albert Sabin, 1951 (inventor of the polio vaccine). "There is no evidence for the transmission of poliomyelitis by droplet nuclei."

    Archibald L. Hoyne, 1951 (alternative link here) - “However, in the Cook County Contagious Disease Hospital where the latter procedure has not been used there has never been a doctor, intern, nurse or any other member of the personnel who contracted poliomyelitis within a period of at least thirty-five years, nor has any patient ever developed poliomyelitis after admission to the hospital.”

    Ralph R. Scobey, 1951 - ”Although poliomyelitis is legally a contagious disease, which implies that it is caused by a germ or virus, every attempt has failed conclusively to prove this mandatory requirement of the public health law.” Professor of clinical pediatrics and president of the Poliomyelitis Research Institute, Syracuse, N.Y.

    Ralph R. Scobey, 1952 - "In addition to the failure to prove contagiousness of human poliomyelitis, it has likewise been impossible to prove contagiousness of poliomyelitis in experimental animals."

    Douglas Gordon et al, 1975 - This study gave 10 people English type Influenza and 10 people a placebo. The study was negative. Most telling is they admit that mild symptoms were seen in the placebo group, proving that the inoculation methods cause them.

    Beare et al 1980 (refer to reference 6 in the linked paper). Quote from John J Cannell, 2008 as follows - “An eighth conundrum – one not addressed by Hope-Simpson – is the surprising percentage of seronegative volunteers who either escape infection or develop only minor illness after being experimentally inoculated with a novel influenza virus.”

    Nancy Padian, 1996 - A study which followed 176 discordant couples (1 HIV positive and the other negative) for 10 years. These couples regularly slept together and had unprotected sex. There were no HIV transmissions from the positive partner to the negative partner during the entirety of the study.

    John Treanor et al, 1999 - Gave 108 people Influenza A. Only 35% recorded mild symptoms such as stuffy nose. Unfortunately 35% of the placebo control group also developed mild symptoms proving the methods of inoculation are causing them.

    Bridges et al, 2003 - "Our review found no human experimental studies published in the English-language literature delineating person-to-person transmission of influenza... Thus, most information on human-to-human transmission of influenza comes from studies of human inoculation with influenza virus and observational studies."

    The Virology Journal, 2008 - ”There were five attempts to demonstrate sick-to-well influenza transmission in the desperate days following the pandemic [1918 flu] and all were ’singularly fruitless’ … all five studies failed to support sick-to-well transmission, in spite of having numerous acutely ill influenza patients, in various stages of their illness, carefully cough, spit, and breathe on a combined total of >150 well patients.”

    Public Health Reports, 2010 - ”It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases [1918 flu] could not be transferred under experimental conditions.”

    Jasmin S Kutter, 2018, - Our observations underscore the urgent need for new knowledge on respiratory virus transmission routes and the implementation of this knowledge in infection control guidelines to advance intervention strategies for currently circulating and newly emerging viruses and to improve public health.
    - There is a substantial lack of (experimental) evidence on the transmission routes of PIV (types 1–4) and HMPV.
    - Extensive human rhinovirus transmission experiments have not led to a widely accepted view on the transmission route [35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40].
    - However, until today, results on the relative importance of droplet and aerosol transmission of influenza viruses stay inconclusive and hence, there are many reviews intensively discussing this issue [10, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50].
    - Despite this, the relative importance of transmission routes of respiratory viruses is still unclear, depending on the heterogeneity of many factors like the environment (e.g. temperature and humidity), pathogen and host [5, 19].

    Jonathan Van Tam, 2020 - Conducted these human trials of Flu A in 2013. 52 people were intentionally given "Flu A" and made to live in controlled conditions with 75 people. 0 people sick. 0 PCR positive.

    J.S. Kutter, 2021 - “Besides nasal discharge, no other signs of illness were observed in the A/H1N1 virus-positive donor and indirect recipient animals.” The animals were subsequently euthanized after the animals experienced what the scientist describe as having breathing difficulties (no further details were given to describe their condition). *Refer to Note 1.

    Ben Killingley, 2022 - Gave 36 people what he considered to be purified Covid Virus Intranasally. The Results: Nobody got sick. *Refer to Note 2.

    Notes

    *Note 1 - Jasmin Kutter, 2021:

    From the Results section: “Throat and nasal swabs were collected from the donor and indirect recipient animals on alternating days.” This on its own can lead to nasal discharge which is the only “sign of illness” that was noted in this study.

    *Note 2 - Ben Killingley, 2022:

    See the video explanation by Jamie here.

    Ben Killingley also conducted a study in the early 2010's in which he had inoculated people in a room with 75 others some wearing masks others as a control. Not a single person even tested PCR positive. Some links to his previous studies include a 2011, 2019 and a 2020 study.

    It is assumed that his latest, 2022 study, is a follow up to cover the findings of his previous findings. Some additional notes on the study referenced include:

    - They gave 10 people the potent nephrotoxin Remdisivir.

    - They measure sickness by means of a PCR test which isn't indicative of disease because it can tests positive with “asymptomatic” cases as well.

    - Even if you say that a runny nose after swabbing is Covid. A 50% outcome to a direct challenge of something is a negative result. It doesn't suggest causation which would need to be at least 90%.

    - The very methods of inoculation used during the study could cause the nasal congestion/discharge (which is their measure of whether someone is sick or not). This has been shown in previous studies.

    - Lastly nobody was given "regeneron" because nobody got "sick".

    *Note 3 - Dr Robert Willner, 1994:

    December 7th 1994 Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, Greensboro, N.C., Dr Willner (a medical doctor of 40 years experience) an outspoken whistleblower of the AIDS hoax. In front of a gathering of about 30 alternative-medicine practitioners and several journalists, Willner stuck a needle in the finger of Andres, 27, a Fort Lauderdale student who says he has tested positive for HIV. Then, wincing, the 65-year-old doctor stuck himself. In 1993, Dr. Willner stunned Spain by inoculating himself with the blood of Pedro Tocino, an HIV positive hemophiliac. This demonstration of devotion to the truth and the Hippocratic Oath he took, nearly 40 years before, was reported on the front page of every major newspaper in Spain. His appearance on Spain’s most popular television show envoked a 4 to 1 response by the viewing audience in favor of his position against the “AIDS hypothesis.” When asked why he would put his life on the line to make a point, Dr. Willner replied: “I do this to put a stop to the greatest murderous fraud in medical history. By injecting myself with HIV positive blood, I am proving the point as Dr. Walter Reed did to prove the truth about yellow fever. In this way it is my hope to expose the truth about HIV in the interest of all mankind.” He tested negative multiple times. He died of a Heart attack 4 months later 15th April 1995 (yeh right, funny how these naysayers all die suddenly. Link to the presentation here.

    Ludicrous “Transmission” Studies

    The picture of virology’s ludicrousy won’t be complete without a list of studies showing the insanity of what virologists claim to be transmission of disease. This include the injection of fluids into the brains and lungs of animals and we may just include some epidemiological studies to show how these are also not proof of anything. Joe Hendry mostly put it together and the papers we have are as follows (*Please note that this section is open to comments at the moment and anyone that want to add notes or studies are free to leave a comment):

    Louis Pasteur, 1881 - For rabies, tried to demonstrate transmission by injecting diseased brain tissue "directly onto the surface of the brain of a healthy dog through a hole drilled into its skull."

    Simon Flexner and Paul A. Lewis, 1910 - Spinal cords from deceased children were ground up and emulsified to be injected into the brains of monkeys. Study explained in detail here.

    John F. Anderson and Joseph Goldberger, 1911 - Injected blood from a measles patient directly into the heart and brains of monkeys.

    Carl Tenbroeck, 1918 - A mixture of ground up rat's livers, spleens, kidneys,
    testicles, lungs, hearts, and brains was injected into the brains of other rats.

    Claus W. Jungeblut, 1931 - Ground up monkey spinal cord was injected into the brains of other monkeys.

    Wilson Smith, 1933 - “The infected animal is killed when showing symptoms, often at the beginning of the second temperature rise. The turbinates are scraped out, ground up with sand, and emulsified in about 20 c.cm. of equal parts of broth and saline. The emulsion is lightly centrifuged, and about 1 c.cm. of the supernatant fluid is dropped into the nostrils of another ferret.”

    Thomas Francis and Jr, T. P. Magill, 1935 - Ground up ferret lung tissue was injected into the brains of rabbits.

    Ann G. Kuttner and T'sun T'ung, 1935 - Ground up kidney and brain of a guinea pig was injected into the brain of another guinea pig.

    Erich Traub. April 01 1936 - Ground up mouse brain was injected into the brains of guinea pigs.

    Albert B. Sabin and Peter K. Olitsky, 1937 - Ground up mouse brain was injected into the brains of other mice.

    G. John Buddingh, 1938 - Ground up chick embryo was injected into the brains 2 or 3 day old chicks.

    Gilbert Dalldorf, 1939 - Ground up ferret spleens was injected into the brains of mice.

    Claus W. Jungeblut et al, 1942 - Ground up brain or spinal cord of paralyzed mice was injected into the brains of 13 monkeys.

    Henry Pinkerton and Vicente Moragues, 1942 - Ground up brain tissue from dying mice was injected into the brains of pigeons.

    C. Kling et al, 1942 - Injected sewage sludge into the brains and abdomen of monkeys. This convinced him that he had isolated a virus and proven that the sewer is a vehicle for polio transmission.

    D.M. Horstmann, 1944 - Allegedly "proved" that the feces of polio patients contained "poliovirus" by injecting fecal samples into monkeys' brains and spines.

    Joseph E. Smadel et al, 1945 - Ground up pigeon spleen was injected into the brains of mice.

    F. Sargent Cheever et al, 1949 - Ground up mouse brain was injected into the brains of rats and hamsters.

    Isolation

    Isolation has been well defined in Virus Lie - The Result of 4 Years of Study and to this day there has not been a single paper presented that could show the isolation of a virus without first contaminating the sample. This is shown in detail in the virus lie article and will not be repeated here again. One interesting point that can be captured here is all the studies showing a control test proving that the isolation method used for viruses is flawed. They can be listed as follows:

    John F Enders, 1954 - Under other agents isolated during the study. "A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells. The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles." It is highlighted here. Refer to the video explanation here.

    Image
    It is further discussed in the paper that "While there is no ground for concluding that the factors in vivo (in the body) are the same as those which underlie the formation of giant cells and the nuclear disturbances in vitro (outside a living organism), the appearance of these phenomena in cultured cells is consistent with the properties that a priori might be associated with the virus of measles.”

    Image
    Rustigian et al, 1955 - This paper is described in an article by Viroliegy here (look under Rustigain in the article).

    Cohen et al, 1955 - This paper is also described in the same article by Viroliegy here (look under Cohen in the article).

    Bech and von Magnus, 1959 - This paper is also described in the same article by Viroliegy here (look under Von Magnus in the article).

    F Rapp et al, 1959 - This paper is described in a video by Spacebusters here. Most noteworthy is “Monkey kidney cells, however, are unsuitable for the investigations of the type reported here; Peebles et al. and Ruckle showed that monkeys, and cell cultures derived from them, are often infected with an agent serologically indistinguishable from human measles virus, which causes cytopathic changes in monkey kidney cell cultures almost identical with those caused by human measles virus.”

    Image
    Carl J. O’Hara et al, 1988 - The study demonstrated "HIV" particles in 18 out of 20 (90% of) AIDS-related lymph node enlargements but also in 13 out of 15 (88% of) non-AIDS-related enlargements. Which means that particles claimed to be HIV virions are non-specific since identical particles can be found in the majority of patients with enlarged lymph nodes not attributed to AIDS, and at no risk for developing AIDS. Refer to @Aldhissla45’s tweet here.

    P Gluschankof et al, 1997 - This paper described in a video here with additional notes by Jamie here.

    Julian W. Bess Jr., 1997 - This paper described in a video here with additional notes by Jamie here.

    C.A. Cassol, 2020 - This paper is described by Andrew Kaufman here as well as by Thomas Cowan here.

    “Unofficially” we can also add the Lanka 3 phase control experiment that can be seen here or searched for it here.

    A further indication of the isolation procedure fallacy is shown in a study during which the CPE becomes more well defined with the addition of specific substances. The study is as follows:

    Leon Caly et al, 2020 - “Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringes of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin to the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.” See a video explanation here.

    Recent Requests and Statements

    Further and more recent requests and statements that were sent to me by my good friend Courtenay are as follows:

    May 5, 2022:
    U.S. CDC and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry confirmed that a search of their records failed to find any that describe anyone on Earth finding an alleged “avian influenza virus” in the bodily fluids of any diseased diseased host (animal or human) and purifying “it”… which is necessary so that “it” could be sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments. This can be viewed here.

    May 20, 2022:
    Public Health Agency of Canada confirmed that they have no record of any alleged “avian influenza virus” having been found and purified from the bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of any diseased “host” on the planet (in order for “it” to be sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments) by anyone, anywhere, ever.
    Insanely, they insist that:

    “Viruses” are in hosts despite their utter inability to find them there,.

    It’s necessary to “grow them” in non-host cells (as if “they” would grow better there than they allegedly grew in the diseased host lol).

    They pretend that mixing complex substances together results in purification.

    This can be viewed here.

    December 20, 2021:
    Public Health Agency of Canada confirmed that they have no record of any alleged “virus” having been purified from a sample taken from any diseased human on Earth, by anyone, ever, period. To be viewed here.

    March 11, 2022:
    U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry respond to a FOIA request for all studies / reports in their possession, custody or control describing the purification of any “virus” addressed by any “vaccine” on either their childhood or adult U.S. “immunization” schedule, directly from a sample taken from any diseased "host" on Earth where the sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material. CDC/ATSDR provided 5 studies on “rotavirus” (thereby admitting they have no records for any other alleged viruses). None of these 5 studies actually describe isolation/purification of a “rotavirus” from a human.
    Request, response, studies to be viewed here.

    March 8, 2023:
    Italy 2020: Inside Covid’s “Ground zero” in Europe - Three years ago the Western World came to a standstill. The official Covid-19 narrative depicted a strange suddenly-super-spreading, deadlier-than-flu virus hailing from China that landed in Northern Italy.

    On February 20, 2020 the first alleged case of Covid-19 was discovered in the West in the Lombardy town of Codogno, Italy. Later that day the Italian government reported their first “Covid-19 death.”

    Dramatic media reports emerging from Northern Italy were hammered into and onto the Western psyche giving the impression there was a mysterious “super spreading” and “super lethal” novel virus galloping across the region infecting and killing scores of people.

    Read the rest of the report here.

    Conclusion

    The above list will be worked on over the coming years. If you think that any corrections need to be made or if you want to add additional studies, please leave a comment.


    Share

    Leave a comment

    https://open.substack.com/pub/dpl003/p/virology-the-damning-evidence?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    Virology - The Damning Evidence The Stake In The Heart For This Pseudoscientific Profession dpl Introduction One never realize how big the task of writing on a subject is until you start. One thing you can be assured of is how much you learn by writing about your findings or thoughts. My stance on virology has been clarified in two previous posts as follows: The Gatekeepers Club. Virus Lie - The Result of 4 Years of Study. Another thing you quickly realize on this journey is how easy it is to censor someone, especially if you start hitting a nerve. I have documented some of it underneath the conclusion of the The Gatekeepers Club article. It is very important to make copies of your work, as shadow banning is one thing, but if these platforms decide to terminate your channel and all the work you have done is on it, you will obviously lose it all. We were in that same position about a year ago when Discord decided to terminate our channel. Twenty of the smartest people you would ever know had been working on it for close to two years, and it was gone overnight. Therefore, this post will serve as safekeeping for some of the best information that I have come across in the last few weeks proving that virology is pseudoscience. Update - 18 September 2023 The order of the sections of this article has been rearranged to introduce the most important information first. As mentioned in my most recent article titled: Hacking at the Root of the Virus Issue it was explained that for the longest time I thought that failure to “isolate” viruses was the most important evidence to focus on. This is however not the case as explained in detail in the “Hacking at the Root of the Virus Issue” article. Transmission is the fundamental assumption on which virology rest. Without proof of transmission, nothing downstream matters. Even though understanding these downstream concepts will never be a waste of time one must consider that the normal man on the street will not be interested in complicated terminology and processes. It is of crucial importance for the no virus community to find easier ways to explain the fallacy that is virology. Seeing as no one need a laboratory to assess whether transmission is possible and because we can observe this phenomena ourselves (Inductive reasoning) this is the linchpin for virology. A twitter space where we discussed this can be viewed here (*Note: Jamie was cut off during his talk and his section was not included). As discussed during the twitter space, we have reviewed the available transmission studies and a summary of these studies can be seen below. Transmission / Infection One of the funniest things you will see while debating the trolls on Twitter is that they will provide studies conducted to prove the efficacy of vaccines. The people that undertake these studies assume that transmission or infection has already been proven, but nothing could be further from the truth. That is why it is important for us to list the peer-reviewed studies that disprove transmission or infection to further demonstrate that virology is a pseudoscience. The list of studies was compiled with the help of Jamie, georgie&donny, and Aldhissla (also see Aldhissla’s list on polio here). (*Please note that this section is open to comments at the moment and anyone that want to add notes or studies are free to leave a comment). The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Mar. 1, 1905): - Chapman, 1801: Tried to transmit measles using the blood, tears, the mucus of the nostrils and bronchia, and the eruptive matter in the cuticle without any success. - Willan, 1809: Inoculated three children with vesicle fluids of measles but without success. - Albers, 1834: Attempted to infect four children with measles without success. He quoted Alexander Monro, Bourgois, and Spray as also having made unsuccessful inoculations with saliva, tears, and cutaneous scales. - Themmen, 1817: Tried to infect 5 children with measles. 0/5 children became sick. Charles Creighton, 1837 (A history of epidemics in Britain). "No proof of the existence of any contagious principles by which it was propagated from one individual to another." EH Ackernecht, writing about Anticontagionism between 1821 and 1867 - “That the anticontagionists were usually honest men and in deadly earnest is shown, among other things, by the numerous self-experiments to which they submitted themselves to prove their contentions.” also see “Famous are the plague self-experiments of Clot-Bey, the offers for plague self-experiment by Chervin, Lassis, Costa, Lapis, and Lasserre, and the cholera self-experiments of Fay, Scipio Pinel, Wayrot, and J.L. Guyon. The amazing thing is that almost all of these experiments failed to produce the disease.” Note on Hospitals by Florence Nightingale, 1858 - "Suffice it to say, that in the ordinary sense of the word, there is no proof, such as would be admitted in any scientific inquiry, that there is any such thing as 'contagion." also see "Just as there is no such thing as 'contagion,' there is no such thing as inevitable 'infection." Andreas Christian Bull, 1868 - “It does not seem apparent in this small [polio] epidemic that contagion played any role, because the disease occurred here and there in the different places of the district without the possibility of establishing any relation between the various cases or the families of the same.” Karl-Oskar Medin, 1887 - A Swedish pediatrician who was the first to examine a polio outbreak, concluded that it was an infectious, but not contagious, disease. Charles Caverly, 1894 - Investigated the first US polio epidemic: ”it is very certain that it was non-contagious.” Journal of American Medical Association, Volume 72, Number 3, 1919 (or additional link here): - Warschawsky, 1895 - Injected small pigs and rabbits with blood taken in the eruptive stage. All results were negative. - Belila, 1896 - Placed warm nasal mucus and saliva from measles patients on the nasal and oral mucous membrane of rabbits, guinea-pigs, cats, mice, dogs and lambs, but without any positive results. - Josias, 1898 - Rubbed measles secretions over the throat, nose and eyes of several young pigs, but without any effects. - Geissler, 1903 - Inoculated sheep, swine, goats, dogs and cats in various ways with the bodily fluids from patients with measles; including smearing, spraying, rubbing. All results were negative. - Pomjalowsky, 1914 - Injected measles blood into guineapigs, rabbits and small pigs. All results were negative. - Jurgelunas, 1914 - Inoculated blood from patients with measles into suckling pigs and rabbits, but without effect. Leegaard, 1899 - Was not able to prove a single case of patient-to-patient contagion in a polio outbreak in Norway. "Infantile paralysis is of an infectious, but not of a contagious nature. As a matter of fact no indisputable instance of contagion could be proved." Dr. Rodermund, 1901 - From his diary of SmallPox experiments. For 15 years he smeared the pus of smallpox patients on his face and used to go home with his family, play cards at the gentleman’s club and treat other patients and never got sick or saw a single other person get sick. Walter Reed, 1902 - “Without entering into details, I may say that, in the first place, the Commission saw, with some surprise, what had so often been noted in the literature, that patients in all stages of yellow fever could be cared for by non-immune nurses without danger of contracting the disease. The non-contagious character of yellow fever was, therefore, hardly to be questioned.” Landsteiner & Popper, 1909 - "Attempts to transmit the disease [polio] to the usual laboratory animals, such as rabbits, guinea pigs, or mice, failed." F.E. Batten, (1909) - “Against the infectivity of the disease may be urged, first, the absence of spread of infection in hospital. The cases of poliomyelitis admitted to hospital freely mixed with other cases in the ward without any isolation or disinfection, some 70 children came in contact, but no infection took place. (p. 208, last paragraph)” The Boston medical and surgical journal, 1909 - An inquiry a 1908 polio outbreak found the following: “A large number of children were in intimate contact with those that were sick, and of these children an insignificant minority developed the disease.” 244 children were in intimate contact with those who were afflicted with polio. Of those 244 children, an "insignificant minority" developed the disease. Massachusetts State board of health, 1909 - "Poliomyelitis prevailed in epidemic form in Kansas during the summer of 1909 … No method of contagion could be found, and the author does not consider the disease contagious." Flexner & Lewis, 1910 - Multiple unsuccessful polio transmission attempts. "Many guinea-pigs and rabbits, one horse, two calves, three goats, three pigs, three sheep, six rats, six mice, six dogs, and four cats have had active virus introduced in the brain but without causing any appreciable effect whatever. These animals have been under observation for many weeks." A Washinton, 1911 - “I have not seen any cases of Polio contagion. We put the patients on one side and typhoid cases on the other, and no nurse or mother was infected. If the disease was so contagious, I don't see why the nurses and mothers would not have been infected.” J.J. Moren, 1912 - "Monkeys suffering from polio in the same cage with healthy monkeys, do not infect others." P. H. Römer, 1913 - "No proofs of the contagiousness of the disease [polio] could be obtained in the great epidemic in New York in 1907, nor in the epidemic in the Steiermark (Furntratt, Potpeschnigg) nor in Pomerania (Peiper). H. W. Frauenthal, 1914 - "Advocates of the contagion theory were at a loss to account for the fact that spontaneous [polio] transmission among laboratory monkeys was never known to occur ... There is no proof that spontaneous transmission of acute poliomyelitis, without an inoculation wound, can take place. There is no proof that contact contagion takes place. Spontaneous development of the disease among laboratory animals is unknown." W.H. Frost, 1916 - "The disease [polio] develops in a such a small proportion of people known to have been intimately associated with acute cases of polio." ... "The majority of cases of poliomyelitis can not be traced to known contact, either direct or indirect, with any previous case." W. L. Holt, 1916 - Investigated an epidemic of polio and found that he was "surprised that I could trace hardly any cases to personal contact with others, there rarely being successive cases." Dr. I. D. Rawlings, 1916 - "Any one who has had much experience with poliomyelitis is struck by the infrequency, relatively, of the secondary cases among direct contacts ... there were approximately 1,500 direct contacts, and yet but one possible case occurred among them. Also among the large number of people that came from New York and other infected areas not a single case occurred.” H. L. Abramson, 1917 - Attempts to induce polio in a monkey by injecting the spinal fluid of 40 polio patients (rather than the ground cord) into the brain failed. Dold et al. 1917 (Original paper in German from Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift 64 ( 1917), bottom of p 143) - Injected healthy people with the nasal secretions taken from one ill person, 1/40 healthy people became ill. A review of the investigations concerning the etiology of measels, A. W. Sellards harvard Medical School. Boston, Massachusetts as seen below: - Jurgelunas, 1914: Tried to produce measles in monkeys using inoculations of the blood and mucus secretions from measles patients as well as by exposing the animals to patients in measles wards. All results were negative. - Sellards, 1918: Tried to transmit measles to 8 healthy volunteers without a prior history of measles exposure. 0/8 men became sick after multiple failed attempts. - Sellards and Wenworth, 1918: Inoculated 3 monkeys in various ways, including intensive injections of blood from measles patients. The animals remained well. - Sellards and Wenworth, 1918: Blood from measles patients was injected simultaneously into 2 men and 2 monkeys. Both men remained symptom-free. One of the two monkeys developed symptoms that were not suggestive of measles. Milton Rosenau, 1918 - Professor of preventive medicine and hygiene at Harvard, notes that "monkeys have so far never been known to contract the disease [polio] spontaneously, even though they are kept in intimate association with infected monkeys." Page 341. Hess & Unger, 1918 - "In three instances the nasal secretion of varicella patients was applied to the nostrils; in three others the tonsillar secretion to the tonsils, and in six, the tonsillar and pharyngeal secretions were transferred to the nose, the pharynx, and the tonsils. In none of these twelve cases was there any reaction whatsoever, either local or systemic." Hess & Unger, 1918 - The vesicle fluids from people with chickenpox was injected intravenously into 38 children. 0/38 became sick. Published in the Journal - American Medical Association, 1919 - Need Of Further Research On The Transmissibility Of Measles And Varicella. “Evidently in our experiments we do not, as we believe, pursue nature's mode of transmission; either we fail to carry over the virus, or the path of infection is quite different from what it is commonly thought to be.” Milton J. Rosenau, March 1919 - Conducted 9 separate experiments in a group of 49 healthy men, to prove contagion. In all 9 experiments, 0/49 men became sick after being exposed to sick people or the bodily fluids of sick people. More information on the Rosenau studies here. Wahl et al, 1919 - Conducted 3 separate trials on six men attempting to infect them with different strains of Influenza. Not a single person got sick. Schmidt et al, 1920 (Original paper in German here) - Conducted two controlled experiments, exposing healthy people to the bodily fluids of sick people. Of 196 people exposed to the mucous secretions of sick people, 21 (10.7%) developed colds and three developed grippe (1.5%). In the second group, of the 84 healthy people exposed to mucous secretions of sick people, five developed grippe (5.9%) and four colds (4.7%). Of forty-three controls who had been inoculated with sterile physiological salt solutions eight (18.6%) developed colds. A higher percentage of people got sick after being exposed to saline compared to those being exposed to the “virus”. Williams et al, 1921 - Tried to experimentally infect 45 healthy men with the common cold and influenza, by exposing them to mucous secretions from sick people. 0/45 became ill. Mahatma Gandhi, 1921 - "and the poison that accumulates in the system is expelled in the form of small-pox. If this view is correct, then there is absolutely no need to be afraid of small-pox" also see "This has given rise to the superstition that it is a contagious disease, and hence to the attempt to mislead the people into the belief that vaccination is an effective means of preventing it." Blanc and Caminopetros, 1922 (original paper in French here) - Material from nine cases of shingles was inoculated into the eyes, cornea, conjunctiva, skin, brain, and spinal cord of a series of animals, including rabbits, mice, sheep, pigeons, monkeys, and a dog. All results were negative. Robertson & Groves, 1924 - Exposed 100 healthy individuals to the bodily secretions from 16 different people suffering from influenza. 0 people of 100 whom they deliberately tried to infect with Influenza got sick That is because Viruses don't cause disease. Bauguess, 1924 - "A careful search of the literature does not reveal a case in which the blood from a patient having measles was injected into the blood stream of another person and produced measles." The problem of the etiology of herpes zoster, 1925 - "Many other authors report entirely negative results following the inoculation of herpes zoster material into the sacrified corneas of rabbits: Kraupa (18); Baum (19); LSwenstein (8), Teissier, Gastinel, and Reilly (20) ; Kooy (21) ; Netter and Urbain (22); Bloch and Terris (23); Simon and Scott (24); and Doerr (25). It is evident, therefore, that the results of attempts to inoculate animals with material from cases of herpes zoster must be considered at present to be inconclusive." Volney S and Chney M.D., 1928 - A study where it is clearly stated that cold is not infectious. Dochez et al, 1930 - Attempted to infect 11 men with intranasal influenza. Not a single person got sick. Most strikingly one person got very sick when he accidently found out that is what they were trying to do. His symptoms disappeared when they told him he was misinformed. L. L. Lumsden, 1935 - “Painstaking efforts were made throughout the studies to obtain all traces of transmission of the disease through personal contact, but it appears that in this outbreak in Louisville evidence of personal association between the cases of poliomyelitis, suggestive of cause and effect, was no more common than that which might have been found if histories had been taken of personal association between cases of broken bones occurring in the city in the same period.” Thomas Francis Jr et al, 1936 - Gave 23 people influenza via 3 different methods. 0 people got sick.. They gave 2 people already "suffering from colds" the influenza who also did not get sick Burnet and Lush, 1937 - 200 people given "Melbourne type" Influenza . 0 people showed any symptoms of disease. 200/0. Lumsden, 1938 - "It is quite usual in small [polio] outbreaks in rural counties for individual cases to develop in separate homes three or for miles apart without there being any evidence of direct or indirect personal contact having operated between persons afflicted." L. L Lumsden, 1938 - ”The general and usual epidemiological features of the disease [polio] all appear opposed to the hypothesis that poliomyelitis is a contagious disease spread among human beings by nose-to-nose or any other direct personal contact.” Burnet and Foley, 1940 - Attempted to experimentally infect 15 university students with influenza. The authors concluded their experiment was a failure. Thomas Francis Jr, 1940 - Gave 11 people "Epidemic Influenza" 0 people got sick. That is because viruses don't cause disease. John Toomey, 1941 - A veteran polio researcher: "no animal gets the disease from another, no matter how intimately exposed." A. R. Kendall, 1945 - “The epidemiological facts of poliomyelitis are these: … (2) A majority of cases of clinically diagnosable poliomyelitis (polioparalysis) occur sporadically, with no history of contact with previous cases. (3) Two cases of polioparalysis in one family are unusual, even though no precautions are taken to prevent cross infection. (4) Clinically diagnosable cases of poliomyelitis (polioparalysis) show little tendency to spread, even in schools or other places of public gathering. (5) Incidence of polioparalysis is no greater among doctors and nurses, in intimate contact with acute cases than it is among the civil population, even though the former are exposed freely to infection.” […] “Polioparalysis is not contagious.” E. B. Shaw & H. E. Thelander, 1949 - “The epidemiology of the disease [polio] remains obscure. There has been a tendency to depart from an early theory that the disease spreads by means of direct contact.” Albert Sabin, 1951 (inventor of the polio vaccine). "There is no evidence for the transmission of poliomyelitis by droplet nuclei." Archibald L. Hoyne, 1951 (alternative link here) - “However, in the Cook County Contagious Disease Hospital where the latter procedure has not been used there has never been a doctor, intern, nurse or any other member of the personnel who contracted poliomyelitis within a period of at least thirty-five years, nor has any patient ever developed poliomyelitis after admission to the hospital.” Ralph R. Scobey, 1951 - ”Although poliomyelitis is legally a contagious disease, which implies that it is caused by a germ or virus, every attempt has failed conclusively to prove this mandatory requirement of the public health law.” Professor of clinical pediatrics and president of the Poliomyelitis Research Institute, Syracuse, N.Y. Ralph R. Scobey, 1952 - "In addition to the failure to prove contagiousness of human poliomyelitis, it has likewise been impossible to prove contagiousness of poliomyelitis in experimental animals." Douglas Gordon et al, 1975 - This study gave 10 people English type Influenza and 10 people a placebo. The study was negative. Most telling is they admit that mild symptoms were seen in the placebo group, proving that the inoculation methods cause them. Beare et al 1980 (refer to reference 6 in the linked paper). Quote from John J Cannell, 2008 as follows - “An eighth conundrum – one not addressed by Hope-Simpson – is the surprising percentage of seronegative volunteers who either escape infection or develop only minor illness after being experimentally inoculated with a novel influenza virus.” Nancy Padian, 1996 - A study which followed 176 discordant couples (1 HIV positive and the other negative) for 10 years. These couples regularly slept together and had unprotected sex. There were no HIV transmissions from the positive partner to the negative partner during the entirety of the study. John Treanor et al, 1999 - Gave 108 people Influenza A. Only 35% recorded mild symptoms such as stuffy nose. Unfortunately 35% of the placebo control group also developed mild symptoms proving the methods of inoculation are causing them. Bridges et al, 2003 - "Our review found no human experimental studies published in the English-language literature delineating person-to-person transmission of influenza... Thus, most information on human-to-human transmission of influenza comes from studies of human inoculation with influenza virus and observational studies." The Virology Journal, 2008 - ”There were five attempts to demonstrate sick-to-well influenza transmission in the desperate days following the pandemic [1918 flu] and all were ’singularly fruitless’ … all five studies failed to support sick-to-well transmission, in spite of having numerous acutely ill influenza patients, in various stages of their illness, carefully cough, spit, and breathe on a combined total of >150 well patients.” Public Health Reports, 2010 - ”It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases [1918 flu] could not be transferred under experimental conditions.” Jasmin S Kutter, 2018, - Our observations underscore the urgent need for new knowledge on respiratory virus transmission routes and the implementation of this knowledge in infection control guidelines to advance intervention strategies for currently circulating and newly emerging viruses and to improve public health. - There is a substantial lack of (experimental) evidence on the transmission routes of PIV (types 1–4) and HMPV. - Extensive human rhinovirus transmission experiments have not led to a widely accepted view on the transmission route [35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40]. - However, until today, results on the relative importance of droplet and aerosol transmission of influenza viruses stay inconclusive and hence, there are many reviews intensively discussing this issue [10, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50]. - Despite this, the relative importance of transmission routes of respiratory viruses is still unclear, depending on the heterogeneity of many factors like the environment (e.g. temperature and humidity), pathogen and host [5, 19]. Jonathan Van Tam, 2020 - Conducted these human trials of Flu A in 2013. 52 people were intentionally given "Flu A" and made to live in controlled conditions with 75 people. 0 people sick. 0 PCR positive. J.S. Kutter, 2021 - “Besides nasal discharge, no other signs of illness were observed in the A/H1N1 virus-positive donor and indirect recipient animals.” The animals were subsequently euthanized after the animals experienced what the scientist describe as having breathing difficulties (no further details were given to describe their condition). *Refer to Note 1. Ben Killingley, 2022 - Gave 36 people what he considered to be purified Covid Virus Intranasally. The Results: Nobody got sick. *Refer to Note 2. Notes *Note 1 - Jasmin Kutter, 2021: From the Results section: “Throat and nasal swabs were collected from the donor and indirect recipient animals on alternating days.” This on its own can lead to nasal discharge which is the only “sign of illness” that was noted in this study. *Note 2 - Ben Killingley, 2022: See the video explanation by Jamie here. Ben Killingley also conducted a study in the early 2010's in which he had inoculated people in a room with 75 others some wearing masks others as a control. Not a single person even tested PCR positive. Some links to his previous studies include a 2011, 2019 and a 2020 study. It is assumed that his latest, 2022 study, is a follow up to cover the findings of his previous findings. Some additional notes on the study referenced include: - They gave 10 people the potent nephrotoxin Remdisivir. - They measure sickness by means of a PCR test which isn't indicative of disease because it can tests positive with “asymptomatic” cases as well. - Even if you say that a runny nose after swabbing is Covid. A 50% outcome to a direct challenge of something is a negative result. It doesn't suggest causation which would need to be at least 90%. - The very methods of inoculation used during the study could cause the nasal congestion/discharge (which is their measure of whether someone is sick or not). This has been shown in previous studies. - Lastly nobody was given "regeneron" because nobody got "sick". *Note 3 - Dr Robert Willner, 1994: December 7th 1994 Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, Greensboro, N.C., Dr Willner (a medical doctor of 40 years experience) an outspoken whistleblower of the AIDS hoax. In front of a gathering of about 30 alternative-medicine practitioners and several journalists, Willner stuck a needle in the finger of Andres, 27, a Fort Lauderdale student who says he has tested positive for HIV. Then, wincing, the 65-year-old doctor stuck himself. In 1993, Dr. Willner stunned Spain by inoculating himself with the blood of Pedro Tocino, an HIV positive hemophiliac. This demonstration of devotion to the truth and the Hippocratic Oath he took, nearly 40 years before, was reported on the front page of every major newspaper in Spain. His appearance on Spain’s most popular television show envoked a 4 to 1 response by the viewing audience in favor of his position against the “AIDS hypothesis.” When asked why he would put his life on the line to make a point, Dr. Willner replied: “I do this to put a stop to the greatest murderous fraud in medical history. By injecting myself with HIV positive blood, I am proving the point as Dr. Walter Reed did to prove the truth about yellow fever. In this way it is my hope to expose the truth about HIV in the interest of all mankind.” He tested negative multiple times. He died of a Heart attack 4 months later 15th April 1995 (yeh right, funny how these naysayers all die suddenly. Link to the presentation here. Ludicrous “Transmission” Studies The picture of virology’s ludicrousy won’t be complete without a list of studies showing the insanity of what virologists claim to be transmission of disease. This include the injection of fluids into the brains and lungs of animals and we may just include some epidemiological studies to show how these are also not proof of anything. Joe Hendry mostly put it together and the papers we have are as follows (*Please note that this section is open to comments at the moment and anyone that want to add notes or studies are free to leave a comment): Louis Pasteur, 1881 - For rabies, tried to demonstrate transmission by injecting diseased brain tissue "directly onto the surface of the brain of a healthy dog through a hole drilled into its skull." Simon Flexner and Paul A. Lewis, 1910 - Spinal cords from deceased children were ground up and emulsified to be injected into the brains of monkeys. Study explained in detail here. John F. Anderson and Joseph Goldberger, 1911 - Injected blood from a measles patient directly into the heart and brains of monkeys. Carl Tenbroeck, 1918 - A mixture of ground up rat's livers, spleens, kidneys, testicles, lungs, hearts, and brains was injected into the brains of other rats. Claus W. Jungeblut, 1931 - Ground up monkey spinal cord was injected into the brains of other monkeys. Wilson Smith, 1933 - “The infected animal is killed when showing symptoms, often at the beginning of the second temperature rise. The turbinates are scraped out, ground up with sand, and emulsified in about 20 c.cm. of equal parts of broth and saline. The emulsion is lightly centrifuged, and about 1 c.cm. of the supernatant fluid is dropped into the nostrils of another ferret.” Thomas Francis and Jr, T. P. Magill, 1935 - Ground up ferret lung tissue was injected into the brains of rabbits. Ann G. Kuttner and T'sun T'ung, 1935 - Ground up kidney and brain of a guinea pig was injected into the brain of another guinea pig. Erich Traub. April 01 1936 - Ground up mouse brain was injected into the brains of guinea pigs. Albert B. Sabin and Peter K. Olitsky, 1937 - Ground up mouse brain was injected into the brains of other mice. G. John Buddingh, 1938 - Ground up chick embryo was injected into the brains 2 or 3 day old chicks. Gilbert Dalldorf, 1939 - Ground up ferret spleens was injected into the brains of mice. Claus W. Jungeblut et al, 1942 - Ground up brain or spinal cord of paralyzed mice was injected into the brains of 13 monkeys. Henry Pinkerton and Vicente Moragues, 1942 - Ground up brain tissue from dying mice was injected into the brains of pigeons. C. Kling et al, 1942 - Injected sewage sludge into the brains and abdomen of monkeys. This convinced him that he had isolated a virus and proven that the sewer is a vehicle for polio transmission. D.M. Horstmann, 1944 - Allegedly "proved" that the feces of polio patients contained "poliovirus" by injecting fecal samples into monkeys' brains and spines. Joseph E. Smadel et al, 1945 - Ground up pigeon spleen was injected into the brains of mice. F. Sargent Cheever et al, 1949 - Ground up mouse brain was injected into the brains of rats and hamsters. Isolation Isolation has been well defined in Virus Lie - The Result of 4 Years of Study and to this day there has not been a single paper presented that could show the isolation of a virus without first contaminating the sample. This is shown in detail in the virus lie article and will not be repeated here again. One interesting point that can be captured here is all the studies showing a control test proving that the isolation method used for viruses is flawed. They can be listed as follows: John F Enders, 1954 - Under other agents isolated during the study. "A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells. The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles." It is highlighted here. Refer to the video explanation here. Image It is further discussed in the paper that "While there is no ground for concluding that the factors in vivo (in the body) are the same as those which underlie the formation of giant cells and the nuclear disturbances in vitro (outside a living organism), the appearance of these phenomena in cultured cells is consistent with the properties that a priori might be associated with the virus of measles.” Image Rustigian et al, 1955 - This paper is described in an article by Viroliegy here (look under Rustigain in the article). Cohen et al, 1955 - This paper is also described in the same article by Viroliegy here (look under Cohen in the article). Bech and von Magnus, 1959 - This paper is also described in the same article by Viroliegy here (look under Von Magnus in the article). F Rapp et al, 1959 - This paper is described in a video by Spacebusters here. Most noteworthy is “Monkey kidney cells, however, are unsuitable for the investigations of the type reported here; Peebles et al. and Ruckle showed that monkeys, and cell cultures derived from them, are often infected with an agent serologically indistinguishable from human measles virus, which causes cytopathic changes in monkey kidney cell cultures almost identical with those caused by human measles virus.” Image Carl J. O’Hara et al, 1988 - The study demonstrated "HIV" particles in 18 out of 20 (90% of) AIDS-related lymph node enlargements but also in 13 out of 15 (88% of) non-AIDS-related enlargements. Which means that particles claimed to be HIV virions are non-specific since identical particles can be found in the majority of patients with enlarged lymph nodes not attributed to AIDS, and at no risk for developing AIDS. Refer to @Aldhissla45’s tweet here. P Gluschankof et al, 1997 - This paper described in a video here with additional notes by Jamie here. Julian W. Bess Jr., 1997 - This paper described in a video here with additional notes by Jamie here. C.A. Cassol, 2020 - This paper is described by Andrew Kaufman here as well as by Thomas Cowan here. “Unofficially” we can also add the Lanka 3 phase control experiment that can be seen here or searched for it here. A further indication of the isolation procedure fallacy is shown in a study during which the CPE becomes more well defined with the addition of specific substances. The study is as follows: Leon Caly et al, 2020 - “Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringes of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin to the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.” See a video explanation here. Recent Requests and Statements Further and more recent requests and statements that were sent to me by my good friend Courtenay are as follows: May 5, 2022: U.S. CDC and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry confirmed that a search of their records failed to find any that describe anyone on Earth finding an alleged “avian influenza virus” in the bodily fluids of any diseased diseased host (animal or human) and purifying “it”… which is necessary so that “it” could be sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments. This can be viewed here. May 20, 2022: Public Health Agency of Canada confirmed that they have no record of any alleged “avian influenza virus” having been found and purified from the bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of any diseased “host” on the planet (in order for “it” to be sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments) by anyone, anywhere, ever. Insanely, they insist that: “Viruses” are in hosts despite their utter inability to find them there,. It’s necessary to “grow them” in non-host cells (as if “they” would grow better there than they allegedly grew in the diseased host lol). They pretend that mixing complex substances together results in purification. This can be viewed here. December 20, 2021: Public Health Agency of Canada confirmed that they have no record of any alleged “virus” having been purified from a sample taken from any diseased human on Earth, by anyone, ever, period. To be viewed here. March 11, 2022: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry respond to a FOIA request for all studies / reports in their possession, custody or control describing the purification of any “virus” addressed by any “vaccine” on either their childhood or adult U.S. “immunization” schedule, directly from a sample taken from any diseased "host" on Earth where the sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material. CDC/ATSDR provided 5 studies on “rotavirus” (thereby admitting they have no records for any other alleged viruses). None of these 5 studies actually describe isolation/purification of a “rotavirus” from a human. Request, response, studies to be viewed here. March 8, 2023: Italy 2020: Inside Covid’s “Ground zero” in Europe - Three years ago the Western World came to a standstill. The official Covid-19 narrative depicted a strange suddenly-super-spreading, deadlier-than-flu virus hailing from China that landed in Northern Italy. On February 20, 2020 the first alleged case of Covid-19 was discovered in the West in the Lombardy town of Codogno, Italy. Later that day the Italian government reported their first “Covid-19 death.” Dramatic media reports emerging from Northern Italy were hammered into and onto the Western psyche giving the impression there was a mysterious “super spreading” and “super lethal” novel virus galloping across the region infecting and killing scores of people. Read the rest of the report here. Conclusion The above list will be worked on over the coming years. If you think that any corrections need to be made or if you want to add additional studies, please leave a comment. Share Leave a comment https://open.substack.com/pub/dpl003/p/virology-the-damning-evidence?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    OPEN.SUBSTACK.COM
    Virology - The Damning Evidence
    The Stake In The Heart For This Pseudoscientific Profession
    Like
    1
    1 Comments 0 Shares 23631 Views
  • "Rich Dad Poor Dad" is a personal finance and self-help book written by Robert T. Kiyosaki. The book was first published in 1997 and has since become a bestseller. The author shares his life experiences and lessons learned from two father figures: his biological father (referred to as "Poor Dad") and the father of his childhood best friend (referred to as "Rich Dad"). Here's a summary of the key concepts:

    Wealth Mindset:
    Kiyosaki emphasizes the importance of cultivating a mindset geared towards wealth and financial independence. He argues that traditional education often neglects teaching crucial financial skills.

    Assets vs. Liabilities:
    The author introduces the concept of assets and liabilities. He suggests that the key to building wealth is to acquire income-generating assets and minimize liabilities. Assets put money in your pocket, while liabilities take money out.

    Importance of Financial Education:
    Kiyosaki criticizes the lack of financial education in traditional schooling. He encourages people to seek knowledge about money, investing, and business independently, as this education is essential for building wealth.

    The Rat Race:
    The book discusses the "rat race," where individuals work hard to earn money but struggle financially due to poor financial planning and high expenses. Kiyosaki suggests breaking free from the cycle by investing wisely and creating passive income streams.

    Entrepreneurship:
    Kiyosaki advocates for entrepreneurship and building businesses as a means to achieve financial success. He believes that having control over one's financial destiny is crucial.

    Making Money Work for You:
    The author emphasizes the importance of making money work for you through investments. He discusses various investment options, such as real estate and stocks, and stresses the need to understand these markets.

    Risk-Taking:
    Kiyosaki encourages readers to take calculated risks and learn from their mistakes. He believes that overcoming the fear of failure is essential for financial success.

    Financial Independence:
    The ultimate goal, according to Kiyosaki, is achieving financial independence, where passive income exceeds expenses. This allows individuals to have more control over their time and pursue their passions.

    "Rich Dad Poor Dad" has inspired many readers to rethink their approach to money and investments, promoting a more proactive and entrepreneurial mindset. While some critics challenge the specifics of Kiyosaki's advice, the book remains popular for its motivational and thought-provoking content.
    "Rich Dad Poor Dad" is a personal finance and self-help book written by Robert T. Kiyosaki. The book was first published in 1997 and has since become a bestseller. The author shares his life experiences and lessons learned from two father figures: his biological father (referred to as "Poor Dad") and the father of his childhood best friend (referred to as "Rich Dad"). Here's a summary of the key concepts: Wealth Mindset: Kiyosaki emphasizes the importance of cultivating a mindset geared towards wealth and financial independence. He argues that traditional education often neglects teaching crucial financial skills. Assets vs. Liabilities: The author introduces the concept of assets and liabilities. He suggests that the key to building wealth is to acquire income-generating assets and minimize liabilities. Assets put money in your pocket, while liabilities take money out. Importance of Financial Education: Kiyosaki criticizes the lack of financial education in traditional schooling. He encourages people to seek knowledge about money, investing, and business independently, as this education is essential for building wealth. The Rat Race: The book discusses the "rat race," where individuals work hard to earn money but struggle financially due to poor financial planning and high expenses. Kiyosaki suggests breaking free from the cycle by investing wisely and creating passive income streams. Entrepreneurship: Kiyosaki advocates for entrepreneurship and building businesses as a means to achieve financial success. He believes that having control over one's financial destiny is crucial. Making Money Work for You: The author emphasizes the importance of making money work for you through investments. He discusses various investment options, such as real estate and stocks, and stresses the need to understand these markets. Risk-Taking: Kiyosaki encourages readers to take calculated risks and learn from their mistakes. He believes that overcoming the fear of failure is essential for financial success. Financial Independence: The ultimate goal, according to Kiyosaki, is achieving financial independence, where passive income exceeds expenses. This allows individuals to have more control over their time and pursue their passions. "Rich Dad Poor Dad" has inspired many readers to rethink their approach to money and investments, promoting a more proactive and entrepreneurial mindset. While some critics challenge the specifics of Kiyosaki's advice, the book remains popular for its motivational and thought-provoking content.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 7951 Views
  • Ten New Year’s Resolutions to Restore Medical Freedom
    Clayton J. Baker, MD
    As 2023 staggers to its conclusion, leaving behind a world of brutal wars, tenuous economies, corrupt governments, and tyrannical elites, perhaps the most unsettling aspect of the year’s end is a strange silence.

    Some things always generate plenty of noise. The 2024 US Presidential election promises to be even more hysterical than the last two. It will probably be a rematch, pitting a widely hated octogenarian incumbent President with obvious, rapidly progressing dementia against a widely hated late-septuagenarian former President facing dozens of felony indictments. Still almost a year away, the commotion surrounding this impending showdown of the senescent is already continuous, cacophonous, and confounding.

    However, regarding the most important historical event since World War II, there is almost total silence.

    The Covid-19 debacle is the defining event of the 21st century. It is at once the worst act of biological warfare in human history and the greatest mass violation of civil liberties since the Iron Curtain. Even more importantly, it is the self-evident template for the establishment of the technocratic soft-core totalitarianism advocated by globalist entities such as the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum.

    And yet virtually no one in the mainstream will discuss it. The legacy media shows near zero curiosity regarding Covid’s origins, the disastrous response, or the toxic vaccines.

    Both the Biden and Trump camps pretend it never happened. Out of the 4 Republican debates held to date, only one question has been asked about Covid vaccines. And that single exchange, between journalist Megyn Kelly and candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, was mysteriously blacked out, even from supposedly “free speech” platform Rumble’s livestream of the event, with Rumble’s CEO later blaming the blackout on “the source feed from a 3rd party” which he did not name. Nothing to see here.

    Among the other presidential candidates, former Democrat Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Republican Ron DeSantis have spoken up repeatedly and honestly about Covid. As a result, they have both been aggressively reviled and ostracized by both the mainstream media and the establishments of both political parties.

    Advocates for civil rights in general, and for medical freedom in particular, should be deeply disturbed by this attempt to cast the whole Covid-19 catastrophe down the memory hole. Medical freedom is rapidly developing as a philosophical, intellectual, and ethical concept. However, theoretical efforts to promote medical freedom – and by extension, to re-enforce all fundamental civil liberties – will come to naught if the greatest assault on freedom in modern history is allowed to be forgotten, and the perpetrators are allowed to continue as if nothing happened.

    As a prominent man once asked: “What is to be done?” In my attempt to answer that question, here are 10 New Year’s Resolutions for Medical Freedom advocates.

    1. Speak the Truth About Covid at Every Opportunity.

    Honest and informed citizens, politicians, and public figures must plainly tell truthful narratives about Covid every chance they get. A brief, factual account might sound something like this:

    a. SARS CoV-2 is a man-made bioweapon developed through US Government funding, which got out of the lab and into the human population.

    b. The mRNA Covid vaccines are essentially pre-planned antidotes to that bioweapon, which were hastily produced and aggressively pushed on the population for profit, with an appalling and criminal disregard for safety.

    c. The lockdowns, masking, school closures, mandates, censorship, scapegoating, etc., were deliberate and illegal assaults on citizens’ civil rights – blatant power grabs that governments made under the pretense of a declared emergency.

    Medical freedom advocates must explain to people that they have been repeatedly lied to for the past 4 years, by virtually every authority. Then, tell them the truth – coolly, rationally, and politely. If they don’t want to hear it, tell them anyway.

    For decades, every citizen in modern Western society has been browbeaten with leftist and globalist propaganda, ranging from countless Global Warming false prophecies, to risible DEI nonsense, to Baskin-Robbinsesque gender insanity, to fascistic vaccine absolutism. Then came Covid. At this late date, it is reasonable and salutary to present one’s neighbor with a brief smattering of truth.

    2. Encourage and Petition Politicians to Commit to Medical Freedom Policies.

    The Pharma industry spent a reported $379 million on political lobbying in 2022 alone. It’s going to take a lot of grassroots work with politicians to combat the pernicious influence of that much purchased influence.

    There is evidence that this can be done. People such as Dr. Mary Talley Bowden in Texas are leading the way in this regard. As of December 23, 2023, Bowden and colleagues have convinced 40 candidates and 25 elected officials from 17 states to publicly state that “the Covid shots must be pulled off the market.” Per Dr. Bowden, “many of these are also pledging not to take donations from Big Pharma.”

    Those committed to medical freedom should set all their elected officials and relevant appointed government bureaucrats on speed dial. These individuals in positions of power – at all levels, local to national – must hear regularly from their constituents. Constituents must tell these people exactly what they know, as well as what they want. It is now up to constituents to teach their officials the facts about the world.

    As Andrew Lowenthal has demonstrated in detail, the Censorship Industrial Complex is real, and because of it, many elected officials and bureaucrats suffer from the same lack of accurate information on policy matters as the majority of their constituents.

    3. Work to Outlaw all Gain-of-Function Research.

    All research regarding the genetic manipulation of viruses needs to end. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and others have pointed out that such research is really bioweapons research, in which our tax dollars are misused to fund the development of a bioweapon and its antidote vaccine in concert. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis and the state legislature have passed laws banning gain-of-function research in that state.

    The Covid era displayed in high relief the disastrous wages of such “research.” It needs to be completely outlawed everywhere, and all labs involved in such work, from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, to the Ralph Baric lab at the University of North Carolina, to illegal labs in the rural USA or allegedly in places like the Ukraine, need to be permanently shut down.

    Key to achieving this is not falling prey to the intentionally confusing semantic arguments about what technically constitutes “Gain-of-function” and what doesn’t. The word games Anthony Fauci played with Congress need to be called out as the dishonest prevarications they are, and rejected as a defense for those involved in such wicked “research.” (Of note, the Florida laws included language to prevent this deception, outlawing all “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen research.”)

    4. Work to Get the USA out of the World Health Organization.

    The WHO’s newly proposed pandemic agreement and amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR) unfortunately are bald-faced, bad-faith attempts to usurp power from sovereign nations by an unelected globalist elite, all in the nebulous name of “global health.”

    As David Bell and Thi Thuy Van Dinh have written, despite claims by WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus that “no country will cede any sovereignty to [the] WHO,” in fact

    The documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, which countries undertake to enact.
    The WHO Director-General will have sole authority to decide when and where they are applied.
    The proposals are intended to be binding under international law.
    Furthermore, the proposed amendments to the IHR will change WHO directives during declared health emergencies from non-binding recommendations to dictates with the force of international law. As Bell and Dinh state, “It seems outrageous from a human rights perspective that the amendments will enable the WHO to dictate countries to require individual medical examinations and vaccinations whenever it declares a pandemic.”

    And the potential incursions to medical freedom hardly end there, potentially including all the items in Article 18 of the existing IHR, which already directly contradict the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights in multiple places.

    Most current debate on the matter surrounds the question of whether individual countries should accept or reject these proposals. However, in the wake of the Covid disaster, the WHO’s current proposals reveal that its intention is not to step back, learn from the catastrophe, and account for the mistakes it and other authorities made. Rather, it seeks to consolidate its own power by permanently encoding the top-down, public-health-by-totalitarian-diktat approach that caused so much destruction. Not only these policies, but the organization proposing them should be categorically rejected.

    The WHO is a classic wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is an unelected globalist cabal of profiteering elites, heavily funded by Bill Gates and closely associated with the World Economic Forum. It is engaged in blatant political power-grabbing while masquerading as a benevolent public health institution.

    It is insufficient for nations to merely reject the WHO’s proposed pandemic agreement and amendments to its IHR. The USA and every sovereign nation should leave the WHO entirely, and medical freedom advocates should lead the way in the struggle to make this happen.

    5. Join the Fight to Remove the Covid mRNA Vaccines From the Market.

    The Covid-19 mRNA vaccines have demonstrated toxicities far more common, more varied, and more severe than numerous conventional medicines that have been appropriately pulled from the market in the past. Dr. Peter McCollough and numerous other leaders in the fight for medical freedom have rightly called for the Covid mRNA vaccines to be removed from the market.

    Despite the intense efforts of Big Pharma, the growing Censorship Industrial Complex, and captured government agencies, public awareness of the numerous and often deadly toxicities of the Covid mRNA injections is growing.

    This is reflected in both reduced public “uptake” for recurrent “boosters” per CDC data and the falling stock price of Pfizer, Inc. A small but growing number of politicians, as described above, are committing to the fight to remove the vaccines from the market, demonstrating that this is becoming a tenable and perhaps winning political position to hold.

    Encouraging as these trends may be, they are insufficient on their own. Medical freedom advocates should speak out supporting the removal of the Covid mRNA vaccines from the market. They should recruit, support, and vote for elected officials and candidates taking this position, and support legal actions toward this goal.

    6. Push for a Moratorium on the mRNA-Based Pharmaceutical Platform as a Whole.

    Even if the Covid mRNA vaccines are removed from the market, a widely overlooked corollary question remains: how much of the toxicity from these products is Covid-specific, i.e. due to the spike protein, and how much is due to the deeply problematic and incompletely understood mRNA platform itself?

    There is certainly plenty of toxicity to go around, as numerous mechanisms of injury have been identified from these injections. These include toxicities to the heart, immune system, skin, reproductive organs, blood clotting cascade, and cancer promotion, among others. It is willful denial at best and criminal negligence at worst to assume that the mRNA platform does not contribute to these problems.

    mRNA vaccines are currently in use in food animals, notably swine. Furthermore on its own website, Moderna describes a pipeline of mRNA vaccines currently in development for Influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), Cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV), Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Norovirus, Lyme disease, Zika virus, Nipah virus, Monkeypox, and others. Meanwhile, the trial for its EBV vaccine has reportedly been halted in adolescents due to a case of – you guessed it – myocarditis.

    The human population will soon be inundated with mRNA-based drugs on a scale and with an imposed intensity that will make the Covid era seem positively quaint. The safety record for the sole mRNA product currently in human use – the Covid vaccines – is abysmal.

    A moratorium of at least several years, combined with an open, thorough, and publicly debated inquiry into the likely and possible toxicities inherent to the mRNA platform is essential to human safety, and if done, will save countless lives in coming years.

    7. Work to Have the 1986 Vaccine Act Repealed.

    The toxicity of vaccines was so well-established even decades ago, that a Federal law – the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) was passed to specifically exempt vaccine manufacturers from product liability, based on the legal principle that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” products.

    Since the 1986 NCVIA act protecting vaccine manufacturers from liability, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of vaccines on the market, as well as the number of vaccines added to the CDC vaccine schedules, with the number of vaccines on the CDC Child and Adolescent schedule rising from 7 in 1986 to 21 in 2023.

    The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 should be repealed, returning vaccines to the same liability status as other drugs.

    8. Work to End Vaccine Mandates at Every Level of Society.

    According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the 2019-20 academic year there were 3,982 degree-granting colleges and universities in the United States. In the fall of 2021, all but approximately 600 of these institutions mandated Covid-19 vaccination for their students.

    Since then, nearly all such institutions have dropped their student Covid vaccine mandates. However, at this writing, 71 colleges and universities, or approximately 1.7%, continue to mandate the Covid vaccines for students to attend.

    The number of mandating schools reduced gradually, largely through the intense, extremely labor intensive work of a very few small, newly-formed, grassroots organizations like No College Mandates. While the effectiveness of such efforts is undeniable, the 71 holdouts (which include “elite” institutions such as Harvard and Johns Hopkins) demonstrate just how deeply entrenched the mandating of vaccines remains in certain segments of society.

    As a result of the hubris and abuse it displayed during Covid, the entire vaccine mega-industry has suffered tremendous (and richly deserved) damage to its formerly unquestioned, “safe and effective” image. However, from education to healthcare to the military, gains made against vaccine mandates have been partial and temporary at most. A concerted effort to further educate the public about the immense problems with vaccines and to restore individual choice must be joined by a great many more people if this fundamental imposition on basic bodily autonomy is to be overcome.

    9. Work to End Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Pharmaceuticals.

    The United States is one of only 2 countries in the world that allows direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals. The dangers of this utterly ill-advised policy are multiple.

    First, as we all can see by simply turning on the television, Big Pharma abuses this privilege to aggressively yet seductively hawk every product it feels it can make a buck off of. The “pill for every ill” mindset shifts into hyperdrive, with an expensive, proprietary, pharmacological cure for everything from your morbid obesity to your “bent carrot.” The situation on social media is, if anything, even worse.

    It is no coincidence that black markets for overhyped, purported wonder drugs such as semaglutide develop, nor that dangerous misuse, such as thousands of reported overdoses have been reported. Perhaps more importantly, direct-to-consumer advertising provides Big Pharma with a convenient and legal way to capture media. Big Pharma was the second-largest television advertising industry in 2021, spending $5.6 billion. No legacy media outlet dares to go against the wishes of those providing that level of funding. This effectively muzzles any and all dissenting voices from appearing on those platforms.

    A free society requires freedom of the press and media. The Covid era has demonstrated that direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising stifles freedom of the press and media to a dangerous and unacceptable degree.

    10. Play Offense.

    If all you do is play defense, the best result you can hope for is a draw. During the lockdowns, with courts closed, businesses shuttered, and citizens isolated from one another, it was extremely difficult to mount even a solid defense against the gross incursions on our civil rights. A few courageous individuals, often acting alone and at tremendous personal cost, managed to counterpunch effectively. Their contributions to saving our “free” societies (if indeed they are eventually saved) will perhaps never be adequately recognized.

    Today, despite the mainstream silence, the tide is turning in favor of medical freedom and civil liberties in multiple areas. It is time for the masses to join in and help those who managed to make these early advances, and who continue to fight on behalf of all citizens.

    For example, New York attorney Bobbie Anne Cox continues her David v. Goliath legal struggle to defeat Governor Kathy Hochul’s extralegal and grossly unconstitutional quarantine camp order. This case may eventually reach the Supreme Court. I don’t want to declare that Ms. Cox can’t do it alone, because that’s pretty much what she has done so far, and having followed that case, I wouldn’t bet against her. But hell, even Hercules had a sidekick. Medical freedom advocates would do well by actively and generously supporting her.

    After surviving his own trial by fire, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has announced a lawsuit against Pfizer for “unlawfully misrepresenting the Covid-19 vaccine’s effectiveness, and attempting to censor public discussion of the product.” Citizens of other states would do well to aggressively petition their attorneys general to take similar action, including removing the mRNA vaccines from the market in their states on the grounds of their demonstrated adulteration with potentially harmful DNA.

    If medical freedom advocates want the concept to prevail, they must go on offense. Get involved. There is no need to reinvent the wheel at this point. Adopt one or more of the organizations or causes above as your personal project, join, and contribute. Add your light to the sum of light, and the darkness will not overcome it.

    In summary, those of us seeking to secure and ensure medical freedom for ourselves and future generations must become vocal, persistent advocates, as well as courageous people of action. Furthermore, we must not allow the abuses and evils of the Covid era to vanish down the memory hole, which of course is exactly what every politician, bureaucrat, Deep State apparatchik, and globalist elite who perpetrated those deeds wants to happen. Some cliches are true, and this is one of them: if we allow ourselves to forget history, we will be doomed to repeat it.

    Covid-19 was the defining event of the century. It was a destructive, deadly catastrophe, but it does have one remarkable silver lining. It peeled the veneer off our governments, institutions, corporations, and society as a whole. It revealed how the powerful plan to strip us of our freedoms – medical and otherwise. We now know what we face. May we, the ordinary citizens, have the courage and intelligence to act effectively to regain and retain our freedoms, dignity, and fundamental human rights.

    Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
    For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

    Author

    C.J. Baker, M.D. is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.

    View all posts
    Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work.

    https://brownstone.org/articles/ten-new-years-resolutions-to-restore-medical-freedom/
    Ten New Year’s Resolutions to Restore Medical Freedom Clayton J. Baker, MD As 2023 staggers to its conclusion, leaving behind a world of brutal wars, tenuous economies, corrupt governments, and tyrannical elites, perhaps the most unsettling aspect of the year’s end is a strange silence. Some things always generate plenty of noise. The 2024 US Presidential election promises to be even more hysterical than the last two. It will probably be a rematch, pitting a widely hated octogenarian incumbent President with obvious, rapidly progressing dementia against a widely hated late-septuagenarian former President facing dozens of felony indictments. Still almost a year away, the commotion surrounding this impending showdown of the senescent is already continuous, cacophonous, and confounding. However, regarding the most important historical event since World War II, there is almost total silence. The Covid-19 debacle is the defining event of the 21st century. It is at once the worst act of biological warfare in human history and the greatest mass violation of civil liberties since the Iron Curtain. Even more importantly, it is the self-evident template for the establishment of the technocratic soft-core totalitarianism advocated by globalist entities such as the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum. And yet virtually no one in the mainstream will discuss it. The legacy media shows near zero curiosity regarding Covid’s origins, the disastrous response, or the toxic vaccines. Both the Biden and Trump camps pretend it never happened. Out of the 4 Republican debates held to date, only one question has been asked about Covid vaccines. And that single exchange, between journalist Megyn Kelly and candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, was mysteriously blacked out, even from supposedly “free speech” platform Rumble’s livestream of the event, with Rumble’s CEO later blaming the blackout on “the source feed from a 3rd party” which he did not name. Nothing to see here. Among the other presidential candidates, former Democrat Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Republican Ron DeSantis have spoken up repeatedly and honestly about Covid. As a result, they have both been aggressively reviled and ostracized by both the mainstream media and the establishments of both political parties. Advocates for civil rights in general, and for medical freedom in particular, should be deeply disturbed by this attempt to cast the whole Covid-19 catastrophe down the memory hole. Medical freedom is rapidly developing as a philosophical, intellectual, and ethical concept. However, theoretical efforts to promote medical freedom – and by extension, to re-enforce all fundamental civil liberties – will come to naught if the greatest assault on freedom in modern history is allowed to be forgotten, and the perpetrators are allowed to continue as if nothing happened. As a prominent man once asked: “What is to be done?” In my attempt to answer that question, here are 10 New Year’s Resolutions for Medical Freedom advocates. 1. Speak the Truth About Covid at Every Opportunity. Honest and informed citizens, politicians, and public figures must plainly tell truthful narratives about Covid every chance they get. A brief, factual account might sound something like this: a. SARS CoV-2 is a man-made bioweapon developed through US Government funding, which got out of the lab and into the human population. b. The mRNA Covid vaccines are essentially pre-planned antidotes to that bioweapon, which were hastily produced and aggressively pushed on the population for profit, with an appalling and criminal disregard for safety. c. The lockdowns, masking, school closures, mandates, censorship, scapegoating, etc., were deliberate and illegal assaults on citizens’ civil rights – blatant power grabs that governments made under the pretense of a declared emergency. Medical freedom advocates must explain to people that they have been repeatedly lied to for the past 4 years, by virtually every authority. Then, tell them the truth – coolly, rationally, and politely. If they don’t want to hear it, tell them anyway. For decades, every citizen in modern Western society has been browbeaten with leftist and globalist propaganda, ranging from countless Global Warming false prophecies, to risible DEI nonsense, to Baskin-Robbinsesque gender insanity, to fascistic vaccine absolutism. Then came Covid. At this late date, it is reasonable and salutary to present one’s neighbor with a brief smattering of truth. 2. Encourage and Petition Politicians to Commit to Medical Freedom Policies. The Pharma industry spent a reported $379 million on political lobbying in 2022 alone. It’s going to take a lot of grassroots work with politicians to combat the pernicious influence of that much purchased influence. There is evidence that this can be done. People such as Dr. Mary Talley Bowden in Texas are leading the way in this regard. As of December 23, 2023, Bowden and colleagues have convinced 40 candidates and 25 elected officials from 17 states to publicly state that “the Covid shots must be pulled off the market.” Per Dr. Bowden, “many of these are also pledging not to take donations from Big Pharma.” Those committed to medical freedom should set all their elected officials and relevant appointed government bureaucrats on speed dial. These individuals in positions of power – at all levels, local to national – must hear regularly from their constituents. Constituents must tell these people exactly what they know, as well as what they want. It is now up to constituents to teach their officials the facts about the world. As Andrew Lowenthal has demonstrated in detail, the Censorship Industrial Complex is real, and because of it, many elected officials and bureaucrats suffer from the same lack of accurate information on policy matters as the majority of their constituents. 3. Work to Outlaw all Gain-of-Function Research. All research regarding the genetic manipulation of viruses needs to end. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and others have pointed out that such research is really bioweapons research, in which our tax dollars are misused to fund the development of a bioweapon and its antidote vaccine in concert. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis and the state legislature have passed laws banning gain-of-function research in that state. The Covid era displayed in high relief the disastrous wages of such “research.” It needs to be completely outlawed everywhere, and all labs involved in such work, from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, to the Ralph Baric lab at the University of North Carolina, to illegal labs in the rural USA or allegedly in places like the Ukraine, need to be permanently shut down. Key to achieving this is not falling prey to the intentionally confusing semantic arguments about what technically constitutes “Gain-of-function” and what doesn’t. The word games Anthony Fauci played with Congress need to be called out as the dishonest prevarications they are, and rejected as a defense for those involved in such wicked “research.” (Of note, the Florida laws included language to prevent this deception, outlawing all “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen research.”) 4. Work to Get the USA out of the World Health Organization. The WHO’s newly proposed pandemic agreement and amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR) unfortunately are bald-faced, bad-faith attempts to usurp power from sovereign nations by an unelected globalist elite, all in the nebulous name of “global health.” As David Bell and Thi Thuy Van Dinh have written, despite claims by WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus that “no country will cede any sovereignty to [the] WHO,” in fact The documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, which countries undertake to enact. The WHO Director-General will have sole authority to decide when and where they are applied. The proposals are intended to be binding under international law. Furthermore, the proposed amendments to the IHR will change WHO directives during declared health emergencies from non-binding recommendations to dictates with the force of international law. As Bell and Dinh state, “It seems outrageous from a human rights perspective that the amendments will enable the WHO to dictate countries to require individual medical examinations and vaccinations whenever it declares a pandemic.” And the potential incursions to medical freedom hardly end there, potentially including all the items in Article 18 of the existing IHR, which already directly contradict the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights in multiple places. Most current debate on the matter surrounds the question of whether individual countries should accept or reject these proposals. However, in the wake of the Covid disaster, the WHO’s current proposals reveal that its intention is not to step back, learn from the catastrophe, and account for the mistakes it and other authorities made. Rather, it seeks to consolidate its own power by permanently encoding the top-down, public-health-by-totalitarian-diktat approach that caused so much destruction. Not only these policies, but the organization proposing them should be categorically rejected. The WHO is a classic wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is an unelected globalist cabal of profiteering elites, heavily funded by Bill Gates and closely associated with the World Economic Forum. It is engaged in blatant political power-grabbing while masquerading as a benevolent public health institution. It is insufficient for nations to merely reject the WHO’s proposed pandemic agreement and amendments to its IHR. The USA and every sovereign nation should leave the WHO entirely, and medical freedom advocates should lead the way in the struggle to make this happen. 5. Join the Fight to Remove the Covid mRNA Vaccines From the Market. The Covid-19 mRNA vaccines have demonstrated toxicities far more common, more varied, and more severe than numerous conventional medicines that have been appropriately pulled from the market in the past. Dr. Peter McCollough and numerous other leaders in the fight for medical freedom have rightly called for the Covid mRNA vaccines to be removed from the market. Despite the intense efforts of Big Pharma, the growing Censorship Industrial Complex, and captured government agencies, public awareness of the numerous and often deadly toxicities of the Covid mRNA injections is growing. This is reflected in both reduced public “uptake” for recurrent “boosters” per CDC data and the falling stock price of Pfizer, Inc. A small but growing number of politicians, as described above, are committing to the fight to remove the vaccines from the market, demonstrating that this is becoming a tenable and perhaps winning political position to hold. Encouraging as these trends may be, they are insufficient on their own. Medical freedom advocates should speak out supporting the removal of the Covid mRNA vaccines from the market. They should recruit, support, and vote for elected officials and candidates taking this position, and support legal actions toward this goal. 6. Push for a Moratorium on the mRNA-Based Pharmaceutical Platform as a Whole. Even if the Covid mRNA vaccines are removed from the market, a widely overlooked corollary question remains: how much of the toxicity from these products is Covid-specific, i.e. due to the spike protein, and how much is due to the deeply problematic and incompletely understood mRNA platform itself? There is certainly plenty of toxicity to go around, as numerous mechanisms of injury have been identified from these injections. These include toxicities to the heart, immune system, skin, reproductive organs, blood clotting cascade, and cancer promotion, among others. It is willful denial at best and criminal negligence at worst to assume that the mRNA platform does not contribute to these problems. mRNA vaccines are currently in use in food animals, notably swine. Furthermore on its own website, Moderna describes a pipeline of mRNA vaccines currently in development for Influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), Cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV), Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Norovirus, Lyme disease, Zika virus, Nipah virus, Monkeypox, and others. Meanwhile, the trial for its EBV vaccine has reportedly been halted in adolescents due to a case of – you guessed it – myocarditis. The human population will soon be inundated with mRNA-based drugs on a scale and with an imposed intensity that will make the Covid era seem positively quaint. The safety record for the sole mRNA product currently in human use – the Covid vaccines – is abysmal. A moratorium of at least several years, combined with an open, thorough, and publicly debated inquiry into the likely and possible toxicities inherent to the mRNA platform is essential to human safety, and if done, will save countless lives in coming years. 7. Work to Have the 1986 Vaccine Act Repealed. The toxicity of vaccines was so well-established even decades ago, that a Federal law – the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) was passed to specifically exempt vaccine manufacturers from product liability, based on the legal principle that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” products. Since the 1986 NCVIA act protecting vaccine manufacturers from liability, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of vaccines on the market, as well as the number of vaccines added to the CDC vaccine schedules, with the number of vaccines on the CDC Child and Adolescent schedule rising from 7 in 1986 to 21 in 2023. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 should be repealed, returning vaccines to the same liability status as other drugs. 8. Work to End Vaccine Mandates at Every Level of Society. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the 2019-20 academic year there were 3,982 degree-granting colleges and universities in the United States. In the fall of 2021, all but approximately 600 of these institutions mandated Covid-19 vaccination for their students. Since then, nearly all such institutions have dropped their student Covid vaccine mandates. However, at this writing, 71 colleges and universities, or approximately 1.7%, continue to mandate the Covid vaccines for students to attend. The number of mandating schools reduced gradually, largely through the intense, extremely labor intensive work of a very few small, newly-formed, grassroots organizations like No College Mandates. While the effectiveness of such efforts is undeniable, the 71 holdouts (which include “elite” institutions such as Harvard and Johns Hopkins) demonstrate just how deeply entrenched the mandating of vaccines remains in certain segments of society. As a result of the hubris and abuse it displayed during Covid, the entire vaccine mega-industry has suffered tremendous (and richly deserved) damage to its formerly unquestioned, “safe and effective” image. However, from education to healthcare to the military, gains made against vaccine mandates have been partial and temporary at most. A concerted effort to further educate the public about the immense problems with vaccines and to restore individual choice must be joined by a great many more people if this fundamental imposition on basic bodily autonomy is to be overcome. 9. Work to End Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Pharmaceuticals. The United States is one of only 2 countries in the world that allows direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals. The dangers of this utterly ill-advised policy are multiple. First, as we all can see by simply turning on the television, Big Pharma abuses this privilege to aggressively yet seductively hawk every product it feels it can make a buck off of. The “pill for every ill” mindset shifts into hyperdrive, with an expensive, proprietary, pharmacological cure for everything from your morbid obesity to your “bent carrot.” The situation on social media is, if anything, even worse. It is no coincidence that black markets for overhyped, purported wonder drugs such as semaglutide develop, nor that dangerous misuse, such as thousands of reported overdoses have been reported. Perhaps more importantly, direct-to-consumer advertising provides Big Pharma with a convenient and legal way to capture media. Big Pharma was the second-largest television advertising industry in 2021, spending $5.6 billion. No legacy media outlet dares to go against the wishes of those providing that level of funding. This effectively muzzles any and all dissenting voices from appearing on those platforms. A free society requires freedom of the press and media. The Covid era has demonstrated that direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising stifles freedom of the press and media to a dangerous and unacceptable degree. 10. Play Offense. If all you do is play defense, the best result you can hope for is a draw. During the lockdowns, with courts closed, businesses shuttered, and citizens isolated from one another, it was extremely difficult to mount even a solid defense against the gross incursions on our civil rights. A few courageous individuals, often acting alone and at tremendous personal cost, managed to counterpunch effectively. Their contributions to saving our “free” societies (if indeed they are eventually saved) will perhaps never be adequately recognized. Today, despite the mainstream silence, the tide is turning in favor of medical freedom and civil liberties in multiple areas. It is time for the masses to join in and help those who managed to make these early advances, and who continue to fight on behalf of all citizens. For example, New York attorney Bobbie Anne Cox continues her David v. Goliath legal struggle to defeat Governor Kathy Hochul’s extralegal and grossly unconstitutional quarantine camp order. This case may eventually reach the Supreme Court. I don’t want to declare that Ms. Cox can’t do it alone, because that’s pretty much what she has done so far, and having followed that case, I wouldn’t bet against her. But hell, even Hercules had a sidekick. Medical freedom advocates would do well by actively and generously supporting her. After surviving his own trial by fire, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has announced a lawsuit against Pfizer for “unlawfully misrepresenting the Covid-19 vaccine’s effectiveness, and attempting to censor public discussion of the product.” Citizens of other states would do well to aggressively petition their attorneys general to take similar action, including removing the mRNA vaccines from the market in their states on the grounds of their demonstrated adulteration with potentially harmful DNA. If medical freedom advocates want the concept to prevail, they must go on offense. Get involved. There is no need to reinvent the wheel at this point. Adopt one or more of the organizations or causes above as your personal project, join, and contribute. Add your light to the sum of light, and the darkness will not overcome it. In summary, those of us seeking to secure and ensure medical freedom for ourselves and future generations must become vocal, persistent advocates, as well as courageous people of action. Furthermore, we must not allow the abuses and evils of the Covid era to vanish down the memory hole, which of course is exactly what every politician, bureaucrat, Deep State apparatchik, and globalist elite who perpetrated those deeds wants to happen. Some cliches are true, and this is one of them: if we allow ourselves to forget history, we will be doomed to repeat it. Covid-19 was the defining event of the century. It was a destructive, deadly catastrophe, but it does have one remarkable silver lining. It peeled the veneer off our governments, institutions, corporations, and society as a whole. It revealed how the powerful plan to strip us of our freedoms – medical and otherwise. We now know what we face. May we, the ordinary citizens, have the courage and intelligence to act effectively to regain and retain our freedoms, dignity, and fundamental human rights. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author C.J. Baker, M.D. is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/ten-new-years-resolutions-to-restore-medical-freedom/
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    Ten New Year’s Resolutions to Restore Medical Freedom ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    As 2023 staggers to its conclusion, leaving behind a world of brutal wars, tenuous economies, corrupt governments, and tyrannical elites, perhaps the most unsettling aspect of the year’s end is a strange silence.
    Like
    Love
    3
    3 Comments 1 Shares 22604 Views
  • Ten New Year’s Resolutions to Restore Medical Freedom
    Clayton J. Baker, MD
    As 2023 staggers to its conclusion, leaving behind a world of brutal wars, tenuous economies, corrupt governments, and tyrannical elites, perhaps the most unsettling aspect of the year’s end is a strange silence.

    Some things always generate plenty of noise. The 2024 US Presidential election promises to be even more hysterical than the last two. It will probably be a rematch, pitting a widely hated octogenarian incumbent President with obvious, rapidly progressing dementia against a widely hated late-septuagenarian former President facing dozens of felony indictments. Still almost a year away, the commotion surrounding this impending showdown of the senescent is already continuous, cacophonous, and confounding.

    However, regarding the most important historical event since World War II, there is almost total silence.

    The Covid-19 debacle is the defining event of the 21st century. It is at once the worst act of biological warfare in human history and the greatest mass violation of civil liberties since the Iron Curtain. Even more importantly, it is the self-evident template for the establishment of the technocratic soft-core totalitarianism advocated by globalist entities such as the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum.

    And yet virtually no one in the mainstream will discuss it. The legacy media shows near zero curiosity regarding Covid’s origins, the disastrous response, or the toxic vaccines.

    Both the Biden and Trump camps pretend it never happened. Out of the 4 Republican debates held to date, only one question has been asked about Covid vaccines. And that single exchange, between journalist Megyn Kelly and candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, was mysteriously blacked out, even from supposedly “free speech” platform Rumble’s livestream of the event, with Rumble’s CEO later blaming the blackout on “the source feed from a 3rd party” which he did not name. Nothing to see here.

    Among the other presidential candidates, former Democrat Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Republican Ron DeSantis have spoken up repeatedly and honestly about Covid. As a result, they have both been aggressively reviled and ostracized by both the mainstream media and the establishments of both political parties.

    Advocates for civil rights in general, and for medical freedom in particular, should be deeply disturbed by this attempt to cast the whole Covid-19 catastrophe down the memory hole. Medical freedom is rapidly developing as a philosophical, intellectual, and ethical concept. However, theoretical efforts to promote medical freedom – and by extension, to re-enforce all fundamental civil liberties – will come to naught if the greatest assault on freedom in modern history is allowed to be forgotten, and the perpetrators are allowed to continue as if nothing happened.

    As a prominent man once asked: “What is to be done?” In my attempt to answer that question, here are 10 New Year’s Resolutions for Medical Freedom advocates.

    1. Speak the Truth About Covid at Every Opportunity.

    Honest and informed citizens, politicians, and public figures must plainly tell truthful narratives about Covid every chance they get. A brief, factual account might sound something like this:

    a. SARS CoV-2 is a man-made bioweapon developed through US Government funding, which got out of the lab and into the human population.

    b. The mRNA Covid vaccines are essentially pre-planned antidotes to that bioweapon, which were hastily produced and aggressively pushed on the population for profit, with an appalling and criminal disregard for safety.

    c. The lockdowns, masking, school closures, mandates, censorship, scapegoating, etc., were deliberate and illegal assaults on citizens’ civil rights – blatant power grabs that governments made under the pretense of a declared emergency.

    Medical freedom advocates must explain to people that they have been repeatedly lied to for the past 4 years, by virtually every authority. Then, tell them the truth – coolly, rationally, and politely. If they don’t want to hear it, tell them anyway.

    For decades, every citizen in modern Western society has been browbeaten with leftist and globalist propaganda, ranging from countless Global Warming false prophecies, to risible DEI nonsense, to Baskin-Robbinsesque gender insanity, to fascistic vaccine absolutism. Then came Covid. At this late date, it is reasonable and salutary to present one’s neighbor with a brief smattering of truth.

    2. Encourage and Petition Politicians to Commit to Medical Freedom Policies.

    The Pharma industry spent a reported $379 million on political lobbying in 2022 alone. It’s going to take a lot of grassroots work with politicians to combat the pernicious influence of that much purchased influence.

    There is evidence that this can be done. People such as Dr. Mary Talley Bowden in Texas are leading the way in this regard. As of December 23, 2023, Bowden and colleagues have convinced 40 candidates and 25 elected officials from 17 states to publicly state that “the Covid shots must be pulled off the market.” Per Dr. Bowden, “many of these are also pledging not to take donations from Big Pharma.”

    Those committed to medical freedom should set all their elected officials and relevant appointed government bureaucrats on speed dial. These individuals in positions of power – at all levels, local to national – must hear regularly from their constituents. Constituents must tell these people exactly what they know, as well as what they want. It is now up to constituents to teach their officials the facts about the world.

    As Andrew Lowenthal has demonstrated in detail, the Censorship Industrial Complex is real, and because of it, many elected officials and bureaucrats suffer from the same lack of accurate information on policy matters as the majority of their constituents.

    3. Work to Outlaw all Gain-of-Function Research.

    All research regarding the genetic manipulation of viruses needs to end. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and others have pointed out that such research is really bioweapons research, in which our tax dollars are misused to fund the development of a bioweapon and its antidote vaccine in concert. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis and the state legislature have passed laws banning gain-of-function research in that state.

    The Covid era displayed in high relief the disastrous wages of such “research.” It needs to be completely outlawed everywhere, and all labs involved in such work, from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, to the Ralph Baric lab at the University of North Carolina, to illegal labs in the rural USA or allegedly in places like the Ukraine, need to be permanently shut down.

    Key to achieving this is not falling prey to the intentionally confusing semantic arguments about what technically constitutes “Gain-of-function” and what doesn’t. The word games Anthony Fauci played with Congress need to be called out as the dishonest prevarications they are, and rejected as a defense for those involved in such wicked “research.” (Of note, the Florida laws included language to prevent this deception, outlawing all “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen research.”)

    4. Work to Get the USA out of the World Health Organization.

    The WHO’s newly proposed pandemic agreement and amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR) unfortunately are bald-faced, bad-faith attempts to usurp power from sovereign nations by an unelected globalist elite, all in the nebulous name of “global health.”

    As David Bell and Thi Thuy Van Dinh have written, despite claims by WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus that “no country will cede any sovereignty to [the] WHO,” in fact

    The documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, which countries undertake to enact.
    The WHO Director-General will have sole authority to decide when and where they are applied.
    The proposals are intended to be binding under international law.
    Furthermore, the proposed amendments to the IHR will change WHO directives during declared health emergencies from non-binding recommendations to dictates with the force of international law. As Bell and Dinh state, “It seems outrageous from a human rights perspective that the amendments will enable the WHO to dictate countries to require individual medical examinations and vaccinations whenever it declares a pandemic.”

    And the potential incursions to medical freedom hardly end there, potentially including all the items in Article 18 of the existing IHR, which already directly contradict the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights in multiple places.

    Most current debate on the matter surrounds the question of whether individual countries should accept or reject these proposals. However, in the wake of the Covid disaster, the WHO’s current proposals reveal that its intention is not to step back, learn from the catastrophe, and account for the mistakes it and other authorities made. Rather, it seeks to consolidate its own power by permanently encoding the top-down, public-health-by-totalitarian-diktat approach that caused so much destruction. Not only these policies, but the organization proposing them should be categorically rejected.

    The WHO is a classic wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is an unelected globalist cabal of profiteering elites, heavily funded by Bill Gates and closely associated with the World Economic Forum. It is engaged in blatant political power-grabbing while masquerading as a benevolent public health institution.

    It is insufficient for nations to merely reject the WHO’s proposed pandemic agreement and amendments to its IHR. The USA and every sovereign nation should leave the WHO entirely, and medical freedom advocates should lead the way in the struggle to make this happen.

    5. Join the Fight to Remove the Covid mRNA Vaccines From the Market.

    The Covid-19 mRNA vaccines have demonstrated toxicities far more common, more varied, and more severe than numerous conventional medicines that have been appropriately pulled from the market in the past. Dr. Peter McCollough and numerous other leaders in the fight for medical freedom have rightly called for the Covid mRNA vaccines to be removed from the market.

    Despite the intense efforts of Big Pharma, the growing Censorship Industrial Complex, and captured government agencies, public awareness of the numerous and often deadly toxicities of the Covid mRNA injections is growing.

    This is reflected in both reduced public “uptake” for recurrent “boosters” per CDC data and the falling stock price of Pfizer, Inc. A small but growing number of politicians, as described above, are committing to the fight to remove the vaccines from the market, demonstrating that this is becoming a tenable and perhaps winning political position to hold.

    Encouraging as these trends may be, they are insufficient on their own. Medical freedom advocates should speak out supporting the removal of the Covid mRNA vaccines from the market. They should recruit, support, and vote for elected officials and candidates taking this position, and support legal actions toward this goal.

    6. Push for a Moratorium on the mRNA-Based Pharmaceutical Platform as a Whole.

    Even if the Covid mRNA vaccines are removed from the market, a widely overlooked corollary question remains: how much of the toxicity from these products is Covid-specific, i.e. due to the spike protein, and how much is due to the deeply problematic and incompletely understood mRNA platform itself?

    There is certainly plenty of toxicity to go around, as numerous mechanisms of injury have been identified from these injections. These include toxicities to the heart, immune system, skin, reproductive organs, blood clotting cascade, and cancer promotion, among others. It is willful denial at best and criminal negligence at worst to assume that the mRNA platform does not contribute to these problems.

    mRNA vaccines are currently in use in food animals, notably swine. Furthermore on its own website, Moderna describes a pipeline of mRNA vaccines currently in development for Influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), Cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV), Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Norovirus, Lyme disease, Zika virus, Nipah virus, Monkeypox, and others. Meanwhile, the trial for its EBV vaccine has reportedly been halted in adolescents due to a case of – you guessed it – myocarditis.

    The human population will soon be inundated with mRNA-based drugs on a scale and with an imposed intensity that will make the Covid era seem positively quaint. The safety record for the sole mRNA product currently in human use – the Covid vaccines – is abysmal.

    A moratorium of at least several years, combined with an open, thorough, and publicly debated inquiry into the likely and possible toxicities inherent to the mRNA platform is essential to human safety, and if done, will save countless lives in coming years.

    7. Work to Have the 1986 Vaccine Act Repealed.

    The toxicity of vaccines was so well-established even decades ago, that a Federal law – the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) was passed to specifically exempt vaccine manufacturers from product liability, based on the legal principle that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” products.

    Since the 1986 NCVIA act protecting vaccine manufacturers from liability, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of vaccines on the market, as well as the number of vaccines added to the CDC vaccine schedules, with the number of vaccines on the CDC Child and Adolescent schedule rising from 7 in 1986 to 21 in 2023.

    The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 should be repealed, returning vaccines to the same liability status as other drugs.

    8. Work to End Vaccine Mandates at Every Level of Society.

    According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the 2019-20 academic year there were 3,982 degree-granting colleges and universities in the United States. In the fall of 2021, all but approximately 600 of these institutions mandated Covid-19 vaccination for their students.

    Since then, nearly all such institutions have dropped their student Covid vaccine mandates. However, at this writing, 71 colleges and universities, or approximately 1.7%, continue to mandate the Covid vaccines for students to attend.

    The number of mandating schools reduced gradually, largely through the intense, extremely labor intensive work of a very few small, newly-formed, grassroots organizations like No College Mandates. While the effectiveness of such efforts is undeniable, the 71 holdouts (which include “elite” institutions such as Harvard and Johns Hopkins) demonstrate just how deeply entrenched the mandating of vaccines remains in certain segments of society.

    As a result of the hubris and abuse it displayed during Covid, the entire vaccine mega-industry has suffered tremendous (and richly deserved) damage to its formerly unquestioned, “safe and effective” image. However, from education to healthcare to the military, gains made against vaccine mandates have been partial and temporary at most. A concerted effort to further educate the public about the immense problems with vaccines and to restore individual choice must be joined by a great many more people if this fundamental imposition on basic bodily autonomy is to be overcome.

    9. Work to End Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Pharmaceuticals.

    The United States is one of only 2 countries in the world that allows direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals. The dangers of this utterly ill-advised policy are multiple.

    First, as we all can see by simply turning on the television, Big Pharma abuses this privilege to aggressively yet seductively hawk every product it feels it can make a buck off of. The “pill for every ill” mindset shifts into hyperdrive, with an expensive, proprietary, pharmacological cure for everything from your morbid obesity to your “bent carrot.” The situation on social media is, if anything, even worse.

    It is no coincidence that black markets for overhyped, purported wonder drugs such as semaglutide develop, nor that dangerous misuse, such as thousands of reported overdoses have been reported. Perhaps more importantly, direct-to-consumer advertising provides Big Pharma with a convenient and legal way to capture media. Big Pharma was the second-largest television advertising industry in 2021, spending $5.6 billion. No legacy media outlet dares to go against the wishes of those providing that level of funding. This effectively muzzles any and all dissenting voices from appearing on those platforms.

    A free society requires freedom of the press and media. The Covid era has demonstrated that direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising stifles freedom of the press and media to a dangerous and unacceptable degree.

    10. Play Offense.

    If all you do is play defense, the best result you can hope for is a draw. During the lockdowns, with courts closed, businesses shuttered, and citizens isolated from one another, it was extremely difficult to mount even a solid defense against the gross incursions on our civil rights. A few courageous individuals, often acting alone and at tremendous personal cost, managed to counterpunch effectively. Their contributions to saving our “free” societies (if indeed they are eventually saved) will perhaps never be adequately recognized.

    Today, despite the mainstream silence, the tide is turning in favor of medical freedom and civil liberties in multiple areas. It is time for the masses to join in and help those who managed to make these early advances, and who continue to fight on behalf of all citizens.

    For example, New York attorney Bobbie Anne Cox continues her David v. Goliath legal struggle to defeat Governor Kathy Hochul’s extralegal and grossly unconstitutional quarantine camp order. This case may eventually reach the Supreme Court. I don’t want to declare that Ms. Cox can’t do it alone, because that’s pretty much what she has done so far, and having followed that case, I wouldn’t bet against her. But hell, even Hercules had a sidekick. Medical freedom advocates would do well by actively and generously supporting her.

    After surviving his own trial by fire, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has announced a lawsuit against Pfizer for “unlawfully misrepresenting the Covid-19 vaccine’s effectiveness, and attempting to censor public discussion of the product.” Citizens of other states would do well to aggressively petition their attorneys general to take similar action, including removing the mRNA vaccines from the market in their states on the grounds of their demonstrated adulteration with potentially harmful DNA.

    If medical freedom advocates want the concept to prevail, they must go on offense. Get involved. There is no need to reinvent the wheel at this point. Adopt one or more of the organizations or causes above as your personal project, join, and contribute. Add your light to the sum of light, and the darkness will not overcome it.

    In summary, those of us seeking to secure and ensure medical freedom for ourselves and future generations must become vocal, persistent advocates, as well as courageous people of action. Furthermore, we must not allow the abuses and evils of the Covid era to vanish down the memory hole, which of course is exactly what every politician, bureaucrat, Deep State apparatchik, and globalist elite who perpetrated those deeds wants to happen. Some cliches are true, and this is one of them: if we allow ourselves to forget history, we will be doomed to repeat it.

    Covid-19 was the defining event of the century. It was a destructive, deadly catastrophe, but it does have one remarkable silver lining. It peeled the veneer off our governments, institutions, corporations, and society as a whole. It revealed how the powerful plan to strip us of our freedoms – medical and otherwise. We now know what we face. May we, the ordinary citizens, have the courage and intelligence to act effectively to regain and retain our freedoms, dignity, and fundamental human rights.

    Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
    For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

    Author

    C.J. Baker, M.D. is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.

    View all posts
    Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work.

    https://brownstone.org/articles/ten-new-years-resolutions-to-restore-medical-freedom/
    Ten New Year’s Resolutions to Restore Medical Freedom Clayton J. Baker, MD As 2023 staggers to its conclusion, leaving behind a world of brutal wars, tenuous economies, corrupt governments, and tyrannical elites, perhaps the most unsettling aspect of the year’s end is a strange silence. Some things always generate plenty of noise. The 2024 US Presidential election promises to be even more hysterical than the last two. It will probably be a rematch, pitting a widely hated octogenarian incumbent President with obvious, rapidly progressing dementia against a widely hated late-septuagenarian former President facing dozens of felony indictments. Still almost a year away, the commotion surrounding this impending showdown of the senescent is already continuous, cacophonous, and confounding. However, regarding the most important historical event since World War II, there is almost total silence. The Covid-19 debacle is the defining event of the 21st century. It is at once the worst act of biological warfare in human history and the greatest mass violation of civil liberties since the Iron Curtain. Even more importantly, it is the self-evident template for the establishment of the technocratic soft-core totalitarianism advocated by globalist entities such as the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum. And yet virtually no one in the mainstream will discuss it. The legacy media shows near zero curiosity regarding Covid’s origins, the disastrous response, or the toxic vaccines. Both the Biden and Trump camps pretend it never happened. Out of the 4 Republican debates held to date, only one question has been asked about Covid vaccines. And that single exchange, between journalist Megyn Kelly and candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, was mysteriously blacked out, even from supposedly “free speech” platform Rumble’s livestream of the event, with Rumble’s CEO later blaming the blackout on “the source feed from a 3rd party” which he did not name. Nothing to see here. Among the other presidential candidates, former Democrat Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Republican Ron DeSantis have spoken up repeatedly and honestly about Covid. As a result, they have both been aggressively reviled and ostracized by both the mainstream media and the establishments of both political parties. Advocates for civil rights in general, and for medical freedom in particular, should be deeply disturbed by this attempt to cast the whole Covid-19 catastrophe down the memory hole. Medical freedom is rapidly developing as a philosophical, intellectual, and ethical concept. However, theoretical efforts to promote medical freedom – and by extension, to re-enforce all fundamental civil liberties – will come to naught if the greatest assault on freedom in modern history is allowed to be forgotten, and the perpetrators are allowed to continue as if nothing happened. As a prominent man once asked: “What is to be done?” In my attempt to answer that question, here are 10 New Year’s Resolutions for Medical Freedom advocates. 1. Speak the Truth About Covid at Every Opportunity. Honest and informed citizens, politicians, and public figures must plainly tell truthful narratives about Covid every chance they get. A brief, factual account might sound something like this: a. SARS CoV-2 is a man-made bioweapon developed through US Government funding, which got out of the lab and into the human population. b. The mRNA Covid vaccines are essentially pre-planned antidotes to that bioweapon, which were hastily produced and aggressively pushed on the population for profit, with an appalling and criminal disregard for safety. c. The lockdowns, masking, school closures, mandates, censorship, scapegoating, etc., were deliberate and illegal assaults on citizens’ civil rights – blatant power grabs that governments made under the pretense of a declared emergency. Medical freedom advocates must explain to people that they have been repeatedly lied to for the past 4 years, by virtually every authority. Then, tell them the truth – coolly, rationally, and politely. If they don’t want to hear it, tell them anyway. For decades, every citizen in modern Western society has been browbeaten with leftist and globalist propaganda, ranging from countless Global Warming false prophecies, to risible DEI nonsense, to Baskin-Robbinsesque gender insanity, to fascistic vaccine absolutism. Then came Covid. At this late date, it is reasonable and salutary to present one’s neighbor with a brief smattering of truth. 2. Encourage and Petition Politicians to Commit to Medical Freedom Policies. The Pharma industry spent a reported $379 million on political lobbying in 2022 alone. It’s going to take a lot of grassroots work with politicians to combat the pernicious influence of that much purchased influence. There is evidence that this can be done. People such as Dr. Mary Talley Bowden in Texas are leading the way in this regard. As of December 23, 2023, Bowden and colleagues have convinced 40 candidates and 25 elected officials from 17 states to publicly state that “the Covid shots must be pulled off the market.” Per Dr. Bowden, “many of these are also pledging not to take donations from Big Pharma.” Those committed to medical freedom should set all their elected officials and relevant appointed government bureaucrats on speed dial. These individuals in positions of power – at all levels, local to national – must hear regularly from their constituents. Constituents must tell these people exactly what they know, as well as what they want. It is now up to constituents to teach their officials the facts about the world. As Andrew Lowenthal has demonstrated in detail, the Censorship Industrial Complex is real, and because of it, many elected officials and bureaucrats suffer from the same lack of accurate information on policy matters as the majority of their constituents. 3. Work to Outlaw all Gain-of-Function Research. All research regarding the genetic manipulation of viruses needs to end. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and others have pointed out that such research is really bioweapons research, in which our tax dollars are misused to fund the development of a bioweapon and its antidote vaccine in concert. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis and the state legislature have passed laws banning gain-of-function research in that state. The Covid era displayed in high relief the disastrous wages of such “research.” It needs to be completely outlawed everywhere, and all labs involved in such work, from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, to the Ralph Baric lab at the University of North Carolina, to illegal labs in the rural USA or allegedly in places like the Ukraine, need to be permanently shut down. Key to achieving this is not falling prey to the intentionally confusing semantic arguments about what technically constitutes “Gain-of-function” and what doesn’t. The word games Anthony Fauci played with Congress need to be called out as the dishonest prevarications they are, and rejected as a defense for those involved in such wicked “research.” (Of note, the Florida laws included language to prevent this deception, outlawing all “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen research.”) 4. Work to Get the USA out of the World Health Organization. The WHO’s newly proposed pandemic agreement and amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR) unfortunately are bald-faced, bad-faith attempts to usurp power from sovereign nations by an unelected globalist elite, all in the nebulous name of “global health.” As David Bell and Thi Thuy Van Dinh have written, despite claims by WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus that “no country will cede any sovereignty to [the] WHO,” in fact The documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, which countries undertake to enact. The WHO Director-General will have sole authority to decide when and where they are applied. The proposals are intended to be binding under international law. Furthermore, the proposed amendments to the IHR will change WHO directives during declared health emergencies from non-binding recommendations to dictates with the force of international law. As Bell and Dinh state, “It seems outrageous from a human rights perspective that the amendments will enable the WHO to dictate countries to require individual medical examinations and vaccinations whenever it declares a pandemic.” And the potential incursions to medical freedom hardly end there, potentially including all the items in Article 18 of the existing IHR, which already directly contradict the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights in multiple places. Most current debate on the matter surrounds the question of whether individual countries should accept or reject these proposals. However, in the wake of the Covid disaster, the WHO’s current proposals reveal that its intention is not to step back, learn from the catastrophe, and account for the mistakes it and other authorities made. Rather, it seeks to consolidate its own power by permanently encoding the top-down, public-health-by-totalitarian-diktat approach that caused so much destruction. Not only these policies, but the organization proposing them should be categorically rejected. The WHO is a classic wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is an unelected globalist cabal of profiteering elites, heavily funded by Bill Gates and closely associated with the World Economic Forum. It is engaged in blatant political power-grabbing while masquerading as a benevolent public health institution. It is insufficient for nations to merely reject the WHO’s proposed pandemic agreement and amendments to its IHR. The USA and every sovereign nation should leave the WHO entirely, and medical freedom advocates should lead the way in the struggle to make this happen. 5. Join the Fight to Remove the Covid mRNA Vaccines From the Market. The Covid-19 mRNA vaccines have demonstrated toxicities far more common, more varied, and more severe than numerous conventional medicines that have been appropriately pulled from the market in the past. Dr. Peter McCollough and numerous other leaders in the fight for medical freedom have rightly called for the Covid mRNA vaccines to be removed from the market. Despite the intense efforts of Big Pharma, the growing Censorship Industrial Complex, and captured government agencies, public awareness of the numerous and often deadly toxicities of the Covid mRNA injections is growing. This is reflected in both reduced public “uptake” for recurrent “boosters” per CDC data and the falling stock price of Pfizer, Inc. A small but growing number of politicians, as described above, are committing to the fight to remove the vaccines from the market, demonstrating that this is becoming a tenable and perhaps winning political position to hold. Encouraging as these trends may be, they are insufficient on their own. Medical freedom advocates should speak out supporting the removal of the Covid mRNA vaccines from the market. They should recruit, support, and vote for elected officials and candidates taking this position, and support legal actions toward this goal. 6. Push for a Moratorium on the mRNA-Based Pharmaceutical Platform as a Whole. Even if the Covid mRNA vaccines are removed from the market, a widely overlooked corollary question remains: how much of the toxicity from these products is Covid-specific, i.e. due to the spike protein, and how much is due to the deeply problematic and incompletely understood mRNA platform itself? There is certainly plenty of toxicity to go around, as numerous mechanisms of injury have been identified from these injections. These include toxicities to the heart, immune system, skin, reproductive organs, blood clotting cascade, and cancer promotion, among others. It is willful denial at best and criminal negligence at worst to assume that the mRNA platform does not contribute to these problems. mRNA vaccines are currently in use in food animals, notably swine. Furthermore on its own website, Moderna describes a pipeline of mRNA vaccines currently in development for Influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), Cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV), Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Norovirus, Lyme disease, Zika virus, Nipah virus, Monkeypox, and others. Meanwhile, the trial for its EBV vaccine has reportedly been halted in adolescents due to a case of – you guessed it – myocarditis. The human population will soon be inundated with mRNA-based drugs on a scale and with an imposed intensity that will make the Covid era seem positively quaint. The safety record for the sole mRNA product currently in human use – the Covid vaccines – is abysmal. A moratorium of at least several years, combined with an open, thorough, and publicly debated inquiry into the likely and possible toxicities inherent to the mRNA platform is essential to human safety, and if done, will save countless lives in coming years. 7. Work to Have the 1986 Vaccine Act Repealed. The toxicity of vaccines was so well-established even decades ago, that a Federal law – the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) was passed to specifically exempt vaccine manufacturers from product liability, based on the legal principle that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” products. Since the 1986 NCVIA act protecting vaccine manufacturers from liability, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of vaccines on the market, as well as the number of vaccines added to the CDC vaccine schedules, with the number of vaccines on the CDC Child and Adolescent schedule rising from 7 in 1986 to 21 in 2023. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 should be repealed, returning vaccines to the same liability status as other drugs. 8. Work to End Vaccine Mandates at Every Level of Society. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the 2019-20 academic year there were 3,982 degree-granting colleges and universities in the United States. In the fall of 2021, all but approximately 600 of these institutions mandated Covid-19 vaccination for their students. Since then, nearly all such institutions have dropped their student Covid vaccine mandates. However, at this writing, 71 colleges and universities, or approximately 1.7%, continue to mandate the Covid vaccines for students to attend. The number of mandating schools reduced gradually, largely through the intense, extremely labor intensive work of a very few small, newly-formed, grassroots organizations like No College Mandates. While the effectiveness of such efforts is undeniable, the 71 holdouts (which include “elite” institutions such as Harvard and Johns Hopkins) demonstrate just how deeply entrenched the mandating of vaccines remains in certain segments of society. As a result of the hubris and abuse it displayed during Covid, the entire vaccine mega-industry has suffered tremendous (and richly deserved) damage to its formerly unquestioned, “safe and effective” image. However, from education to healthcare to the military, gains made against vaccine mandates have been partial and temporary at most. A concerted effort to further educate the public about the immense problems with vaccines and to restore individual choice must be joined by a great many more people if this fundamental imposition on basic bodily autonomy is to be overcome. 9. Work to End Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Pharmaceuticals. The United States is one of only 2 countries in the world that allows direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals. The dangers of this utterly ill-advised policy are multiple. First, as we all can see by simply turning on the television, Big Pharma abuses this privilege to aggressively yet seductively hawk every product it feels it can make a buck off of. The “pill for every ill” mindset shifts into hyperdrive, with an expensive, proprietary, pharmacological cure for everything from your morbid obesity to your “bent carrot.” The situation on social media is, if anything, even worse. It is no coincidence that black markets for overhyped, purported wonder drugs such as semaglutide develop, nor that dangerous misuse, such as thousands of reported overdoses have been reported. Perhaps more importantly, direct-to-consumer advertising provides Big Pharma with a convenient and legal way to capture media. Big Pharma was the second-largest television advertising industry in 2021, spending $5.6 billion. No legacy media outlet dares to go against the wishes of those providing that level of funding. This effectively muzzles any and all dissenting voices from appearing on those platforms. A free society requires freedom of the press and media. The Covid era has demonstrated that direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising stifles freedom of the press and media to a dangerous and unacceptable degree. 10. Play Offense. If all you do is play defense, the best result you can hope for is a draw. During the lockdowns, with courts closed, businesses shuttered, and citizens isolated from one another, it was extremely difficult to mount even a solid defense against the gross incursions on our civil rights. A few courageous individuals, often acting alone and at tremendous personal cost, managed to counterpunch effectively. Their contributions to saving our “free” societies (if indeed they are eventually saved) will perhaps never be adequately recognized. Today, despite the mainstream silence, the tide is turning in favor of medical freedom and civil liberties in multiple areas. It is time for the masses to join in and help those who managed to make these early advances, and who continue to fight on behalf of all citizens. For example, New York attorney Bobbie Anne Cox continues her David v. Goliath legal struggle to defeat Governor Kathy Hochul’s extralegal and grossly unconstitutional quarantine camp order. This case may eventually reach the Supreme Court. I don’t want to declare that Ms. Cox can’t do it alone, because that’s pretty much what she has done so far, and having followed that case, I wouldn’t bet against her. But hell, even Hercules had a sidekick. Medical freedom advocates would do well by actively and generously supporting her. After surviving his own trial by fire, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has announced a lawsuit against Pfizer for “unlawfully misrepresenting the Covid-19 vaccine’s effectiveness, and attempting to censor public discussion of the product.” Citizens of other states would do well to aggressively petition their attorneys general to take similar action, including removing the mRNA vaccines from the market in their states on the grounds of their demonstrated adulteration with potentially harmful DNA. If medical freedom advocates want the concept to prevail, they must go on offense. Get involved. There is no need to reinvent the wheel at this point. Adopt one or more of the organizations or causes above as your personal project, join, and contribute. Add your light to the sum of light, and the darkness will not overcome it. In summary, those of us seeking to secure and ensure medical freedom for ourselves and future generations must become vocal, persistent advocates, as well as courageous people of action. Furthermore, we must not allow the abuses and evils of the Covid era to vanish down the memory hole, which of course is exactly what every politician, bureaucrat, Deep State apparatchik, and globalist elite who perpetrated those deeds wants to happen. Some cliches are true, and this is one of them: if we allow ourselves to forget history, we will be doomed to repeat it. Covid-19 was the defining event of the century. It was a destructive, deadly catastrophe, but it does have one remarkable silver lining. It peeled the veneer off our governments, institutions, corporations, and society as a whole. It revealed how the powerful plan to strip us of our freedoms – medical and otherwise. We now know what we face. May we, the ordinary citizens, have the courage and intelligence to act effectively to regain and retain our freedoms, dignity, and fundamental human rights. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author C.J. Baker, M.D. is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/ten-new-years-resolutions-to-restore-medical-freedom/
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    Ten New Year’s Resolutions to Restore Medical Freedom ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    As 2023 staggers to its conclusion, leaving behind a world of brutal wars, tenuous economies, corrupt governments, and tyrannical elites, perhaps the most unsettling aspect of the year’s end is a strange silence.
    3 Comments 0 Shares 21404 Views
More Results