Tag: coronavirus

Explosive Study Once Removed by Lancet within 24 Hours, Now Peer-Reviewed and Public: Reveals 74% of Deaths Directly Linked to COVID-19 Shot

A previously censored paper from The Lancet has now undergone peer review and is available online.

The study, titled “A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination,” analyzed 325 autopsy cases and found that a staggering 73.9% of deaths were either directly due to or significantly contributed to by the COVID-19 vaccination.

The paper’s lead author, Dr. Nicolas Hulscher, faced significant opposition in bringing these findings to light. After initially being downloaded over 100,000 times, The Lancet removed the paper within 24 hours, according to Dr. William Makis. 

According to The Daily Sceptic, the reason given at the time was, “This preprint has been removed by Preprints with the Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.”

The news outlet added:

“Without further detail from the Preprints with the Lancet staff who removed the paper it is hard to know what substance the claim that the conclusions are not supported by the methodology really has. A number of the authors of the paper are at the top of their fields so it is hard to imagine that the methodology of their review was really so poor that it warranted removal at initial screening rather than being subject to full critical appraisal. It smacks instead of raw censorship of a paper that failed to toe the official line. Keep in mind that the CDC has not yet acknowledged a single death being caused by the Covid mRNA vaccines. Autopsy evidence demonstrating otherwise is clearly not what the U.S. public health establishment wants to hear.”

In a post on X Friday, Dr. William Makis shared the exciting news.

Keep reading

The Covid “Vaccine” Had No Benefit. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Official US government data, “gold standard data,” shows that the vaccine didn’t save any COVID lives at all. None.

In fact, if anything, the data shows that the vaccine made you more likely to die from COVID.

To the estimated 21 million people who were killed or seriously injured, you should know it was all for nothing.McCarthy, KenBest Price: $19.07Buy New $17.77(as of 11:43 UTC – Details)

The single most stunning data point that nobody can explain

The single most stunning piece of official US government data is the US Nursing home data. I first wrote about this nearly a year ago. Since then, there have been no investigations. Nobody wants to talk about it. Here’s why…

I was tipped off by an insider that her nursing home, Apple Valley Village Health Care Center, located in Apple Valley, MN started rolling out the injections on December 28, 2020. The insider also told me that shortly thereafter staff members were called back from their Christmas vacations to deal with all the deaths.

Let’s see what the official US Medicare records that anyone can download here say about COVID cases and deaths before the shots rolled out.

I went on the query page on that site and downloaded the records for Apple Valley Village, highlighted the two key columns in red, and saved them in an Excel spreadsheet here so you can see for yourself. It took me about 60 seconds to do that.

For the 32 week period ending 12/27/20 (right before the shots started being rolled out), there were 27 COVID cases, and 0 COVID deaths. There was an average of 1 death per week (there were 32 deaths in the 32 weeks listed).

Now let’s look at what happened in just a 3 week period right after the shots were administered (rows 35 to 37 in the spreadsheet): 90 COVID cases resulting in 28 COVID deaths. In that 3 week period after the shots, AVV averaged 8 all-cause deaths per week, which is 8X higher than normal.

This is not a statistical anomaly. That is impossible if the vaccine isn’t killing people. You can’t keep injecting people with something that you know is killing people like this unless you give them informed consent.

I’ve filed a criminal complaint with the Apple Valley Police Department.

Keep reading

Biden Seeks to Delay COVID Vaccine Safety Data Release Until 2026.

The Biden government is seeking an 18-month delay in releasing COVID-19 vaccine safety data, pushing potential disclosure until at least 2026. This regime claims an influx of pandemic-related information requests is overwhelming the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that releasing vaccine records requires extensive staff training and onboarding, which could take up to two years.

“This is a typical government excuse which is,’ Oh, we’re so busy, we don’t have the resources to help provide you, the American people with the information that you need,’” says America First Legal lawyer, Gene Hamilton, representing Just the News, which is requesting vaccine safety records under freedom of information laws.

Hamilton characterizes the regime’s position on the vaccination records as, “you just need to wait until 18 months from now. And maybe you’ll get to see it, maybe you won’t. And what they’re hoping to do is stretch this out to the point where everybody forgets about it.”

America First Legal and Just the News are suing the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for data on Covid vaccine reactions “kept in a back-end, nonpublic system.” This is separate from the public Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Keep reading

We Now Have Proof The COVID Vaccines Damage Cognition

When the COVID-19 vaccines were brought to market, due to their design I expected them to have safety issues, and I expected over the long term, a variety of chronic issues would be linked to them. This was because there were a variety of reasons to suspect they would cause autoimmune disorders, fertility issues and cancers—but for some reason (as shown by the Pfizer EMA leaks), the vaccines had been exempted from being appropriately tested for any of these issues prior to being given to humans.

Since all new drugs are required to receive that testing, I interpreted it to be a tacit admission it was known major issues would emerge in these areas, and that a decision was made that it was better to just not officially test any of them so there would be no data to show Pfizer “knew” the problems would develop and hence could claim plausible deniability. Sadly, since the time the vaccines entered the market, those three issues (especially autoimmunity) have become some of the most common severe events associated with the vaccines.

Keep reading

Scientific American’s Laura Helmuth Continues Campaign to Embarrass and Humiliate Herself

As we head into the weekend, a quick note that Scientific American’s Laura Helmuth remains one of the most ridiculous dunderheads in science writing, a journalism adjacent field of writing that many reporters refer to with derision as “scicomm.” Earlier this week, a reader sent me this post on Blue Sky, with Helmuth promoting an article falsely claiming there was evidence to support six-feet social distancing during COVID.

There isn’t. Former NIH Director Francis Collins and Tony Fauci have both testified to Congress that this evidence doesn’t exist.

Helmuth shoehorns this narrative into Scientific American by ignoring Tony Fauci’s congressional testimony that six feet social distancing was “an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data” and then insisting it’s actually just a political fight between Fauci and Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican Congresswoman long known for making outlandish statements that often stretch the fabric of reality.

Just like Laura Helmuth.

Keep reading

‘COVID skeptics won out’ — Globalists fear an increasingly disbelieving public

Globalists know the people are right

Despite the efforts of officials at the World Health Assembly (WHA) to push through the International Health Regulations (IHR) and pandemic treaty, under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and its director general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, there is significant pushback from the world’s citizens voicing their opposition to what they say is a tyrannical power grab. 

The vaccine pushback started well before COVID and the public officials had already been monitoring the resistance to public health policy, as was evident from the talks given at the WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, held in Geneva at the beginning of December 2019.

Top scientists agree with the people 

The WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit was attended by the world’s top scientists and doctors, who made some startling revelations about vaccine safety, confirming what people questioning vaccine safety had been saying all along. 

Prof. Heidi Larson of The Vaccine Confidence Project was one of the presenters at the Summit. She explained that vaccine safety science needs new investment, medical professionals are questioning vaccines and confirmed that much of the criticism aimed at vaccines is not misinformation. 

Larson also revealed that more people were questioning vaccines than accepting them and people undecided about vaccine safety were more likely to take the negative position at a rate 500% greater than those who switched to a positive position. Below is a screenshot of her presentation showing, as of November 8, 2019, that the undecided (green) are being recruited to the negative position (red) faster than to the positive (blue) position:

Each of these blobs are communities . . . So the green dots are undecided neutral communities, people interested in vaccines but asking questions. The red are the clearly questioning anti-communities and the blue are the positive. Already you can see the blue is the tighter group and the red more out there . . . . Now if you look at the numbers, over a period of time, literally a couple of months, what is the recruiting pace of the blue positive versus the red in them converting the undecided to their camp or the other. the it was a 500% faster recruitment by the negative then the positive vaccine community. That’s fast and this is not hypothetical.

Keep reading

A Lancet review of 325 autopsies after COVID vaccination found that 74% of the deaths were caused by the vaccine – but the study was removed within 24 hours.

The paper, a pre-print that was awaiting peer-review, is written by leading cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch and their colleagues at the Wellness Company and was published online on Wednesday on the pre-print site of the prestigious medical journal.

However, less than 24 hours later, the study was removed and a note appeared stating: “This preprint has been removed by Preprints with the Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.” While the study had not undergone any part of the peer-review process, the note implies it fell foul of “screening criteria”.

The original study abstract can be found in the Internet Archive.

Keep reading

Covid Vaccines Cause Blood Clots in Brain — Study

A preprint study published today and coauthored by Dr. Peter McCullough described how the Covid vaccination has a much greater risk of causing blood clots in the brain verses the Influenza vaccine.

“There is an alarming breach in the safety signal threshold concerning cerebral thrombosis AEs after COVID-19 vaccines compared to that of the influenza vaccines and even when compared to that of all other vaccines. An immediate global moratorium on the use of COVID-19 vaccines is necessary with an absolute contraindication in women of reproductive age,” the study said in the ‘Conclusions’ section.

The study broke down the numbers involved, showing a massively greater number of blood clots in the brain verses the Flu shot.

“There are 5137 cerebral thromboembolism AEs reported in the 3 years (36 months) after COVID-19 vaccines compared to 52 AEs for the influenza vaccines over the past 34 years (408 months) and 282 AEs for all other vaccines (excluding COVID-19) over the past 34 years (408 months). The PRR’s are significant when comparing AEs by time from COVID-19 vaccines to that of the influenza vaccines (p < 0.0001) or to that of all other vaccines (p < 0.0001).” the study said in the ‘Results’ section. “Cerebral venous thromboembolism AEs are female predominant with a female/male odds ratio of 1.63 (95% confidence interval (1.52-1.74), p < 0.0001). Conversely, cerebral arterial thromboembolism has a nonsignificant male preponderance. Cerebral venous thromboembolism is far more common than cerebral arterial thromboembolism over 36 months with an odds ratio (OR) of 14.8 (95% confidence interval 14.0-15.5, p < 0.0001). Atrial fibrillation, the most common identifiable cause of cerebral arterial thromboembolism, occurs far more commonly after the COVID-19 as compared to all other vaccines with a PRR of 123 (95% CI 88.3-172, p < 0.0001).”

Keep reading

Definitions of SAEs were altered during COVID-19 shot roll-out in Canada

I am posting this as a separate Substack article because it speaks to my article from yesterday about spike protein binding estrogen receptors. It is exceedingly important to understand what is being said here: the classification of an SAE was pigeon-holed to exclude everything but hospitalization, disability/incapacity or death. I imagine they did this to try to mimic the VAERS definition of an SAE, but left out birth defect, life-threatening illness and emergency room visits.

Having said this, um, what about all the other things that are excluded as SAEs that perhaps involved hospitalization, but that didn’t get the hospital box checked? What about all the other AEFIs/AEs that are certainly serious but that don’t click any boxes?

The part of this report from Odessa Orlewicz that I want to focus on, however, are the comments she reports on that refer to the disparity between AEFIs reported for males and women.

Here is a reiteration of my hypothesis from yesterday’s article entitled: “Spike binds estrogen receptor and could alter collagenase gene expression”.

Since targeted delivery of the modified-spike-mRNA-LNP complex results in massive amounts of (intracellular) spike protein production, and spike protein binds to estrogen receptors, is it possible that this binding event prevents dimerization of ERs to subsequently down-regulate specific gene activity? And if so, is one of these genes collagenase? And if so, is this why we are seeing strange de novo connective tissue disorders and fibrosis in individuals post COVID-19 injection?

I will add another question to my list.

And if so, does this explain why females were/are sustaining more injuries (and reporting more) than males in the context of the COVID-19 shots?

Apparently, according to FOI-requested information from individuals and organizations in Canada now implicated in contracting SAE definitions to give the AEFI data the appearance of being innocuous (aka: you’ll only feel a slight pinch), there were 8.2 times more women sustaining injury from the COVID-19 shots than men. This is also mirrored in VAERS.

Keep reading

‘1 in a Billion’ Chance COVID Emerged From Nature, Scientist Tells Lawmakers

The COVID-19 lab-leak theory — far from being a myth or conspiracy theory — is supported by a “preponderance of evidence” U.S. senators today acknowledged in a historic bipartisan hearing.

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Gary Peters, a Democratic senator from Michigan, and ranking member Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) led the two-hour committee hearing examining the available evidence on the origins of COVID-19. CHD.TV aired the hearing.

The Chinese government refuses to release key data from the Wuhan Institute of Virology from around the time COVID-19 emerged, making it difficult to assess the lab-leak theory and come to a conclusion.

Nonetheless, much evidence points toward a lab leak rather than a natural spillover from animals, according to both expert witnesses Steven C. Quay, M.D., Ph.D. — CEO of Atossa Therapeutics Inc. and former faculty member at Stanford University’s School of Medicine — and Richard H. Ebright, Ph.D., professor of chemistry and chemical biology and lab director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology at Rutgers University.

Ebright is also on the leadership team of Biosafety Now, a nongovernmental organization that “advocates for reducing numbers of high-level biocontainment laboratories and for strengthening biosafety, biosecurity, and biorisk management for research on pathogens.”

Keep reading