Tag: covid-19

Covid “vaccines” did not save lives – simple mathematics proves it

Politicians repeatedly claim that covid vaccinations have saved millions of lives.

Millions is a big number, so it should be measurable.

But how do you prove what you know intuitively?

There is now a nice, short, simple publication that does this with official data and set theory (i.e. intuitive primary school mathematics).  See: Sorli AS (2025). The Discrepancy Between the Number of Saved Lives with COVID-19 Vaccination and Statistics of Our World Data. J Clin Trials. S32:001. 

Sandbox games at the end of the day, but someone has to stoop to that level.

Take a data source that was accepted by [the covid promoters or believers] and used by the believers themselves: Our World Data.

At Our World Data, look at how many people are dying around the world. If you want to refute believers, you have to argue in their belief construct, that is, that there was a pandemic and that the pandemic, not the measures, killed the people.

This looks quite constant at around 56-57 million by 2020. The data is so clear that you don’t need statistics. You only need statistics if you don’t have any data. Real data can be seen in the raw data.

2020 is definitely higher with +6.3 million more deaths, so that was something measurable. Whether it is the virus or the measures cannot be determined purely from the numbers. Many people in poor countries may have starved to death during lockdowns. But that is not what this publication is about.

If it had been a pandemic, deaths would have had to decrease at some point. It certainly won’t be anymore [i.e. an increase in deaths] because more and more people are immune. The death process would therefore have to be at most the same in 2021.

… in 2020 there was no covid-19 vaccination, and in 2021 there was a covid-19 vaccination. The living circumstances on the planet were similar in 2020 and 2021. In 2020 and in 2021, we had covid-19 pandemics. The main difference in living circumstances of the global population was covid-19 vaccination in 2021. Our World Data confirms that covid-19 vaccination increased the “global mortality” in 2020, which was 6.30 million, by an additional 6.08 million in 2021, which means 96.5%, see Figure 1 below. The claim that vaccination reduced global mortality in 2020 by 63% in 2021 is a huge error of 159.5%.Sorli AS (2025). The Discrepancy Between the Number of Saved Lives with COVID-19 Vaccination and Statistics of Our World Data. J Clin Trials. S32:001. 

But there is clearly a difference of 6 million people!

Keep reading

Leaked FDA Memo Shows Feds Masked Sudden Cardiac Deaths in Our Children Says Senator Ron Johnson

Senator Ron Johnson raised concerns during an exchange with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. regarding a memo he said originated from a senior official within the Food and Drug Administration, describing findings tied to child deaths following COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations.

Johnson said the memo was “apparently from CBER director, Doctor Prasad,” and referenced its contents as part of an FDA review.

He stated the document described an internal analysis involving “96 autopsies of child death following the covid mRNA injection.”

According to Johnson, the memo included language he described as significant in acknowledging outcomes tied to the vaccines.

“In that memo, Doctor Persad writes, this is a profound revelation,” Johnson said.

He continued, “For the first time, the US FDA will acknowledge that covid 19 vaccines killed American children, healthy young children who face tremendously low risk of death.”

Johnson added that these children were “coerced at the behest of the Biden administration via school and work mandates to receive a vaccine that could result in death.”

Johnson said the memo raised questions about the impact of pandemic-era mandates. “In many cases, such mandates were harmful,” he said.

Keep reading

Elon Musk Reveals COVID Vaccine Injury After Former Pfizer Official Admits Shots Likely Killed Tens of Thousands in Germany

In an X post that went viral Sunday, Elon Musk said he “felt like I was dying” and almost went to the hospital after taking his second COVID-19 vaccine.

Musk was responding to an X post about how Dr. Helmut Sterz, Pfizer’s former chief toxicologist, admitted last month during a German COVID-19 Inquiry that an estimated 60,000 people have died in Germany from Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, Comirnaty.

According to Sterz, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, Germany’s regulatory and research institute for vaccines and biomedicines, has received 2,133 reports of death following Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

He said, “These spontaneous reports likely have a high number of unreported cases due to underreporting. The true number is therefore much higher.”

“In the U.S., it is assumed that there is an underreporting factor of 30 by which the registered cases would have to be multiplied. For Germany, this would correspond to 60,000 deaths from the vaccination,” Sterz said.

Sterz told the German commissioners that Pfizer’s post-marketing report mentioned 1,200 suspected deaths within just two months of the shot’s approval.

“At that point, Comirnaty should have been withdrawn from the market,” Sterz said.

Pfizer skipped key safety studies due to ‘time constraints’

Sterz also testified that “due to time constraints,” Pfizer didn’t conduct vital safety checks on its COVID-19 vaccine before rolling it out to the public. For instance, the vaccine maker skipped carcinogenicity studies that would have examined whether the shots had cancer-causing properties.

Pfizer also failed to study the vaccine’s impact on pregnancy.

Sterz called for a new and independent scientific review of the COVID-19 vaccines’ long-term effects. “We need proper independent safety studies to understand what really happened. Without full transparency, people will not trust the conclusions,” he said, according to GB News.

He said the high number of negative side effects associated with the vaccines warrants pausing them, and other vaccines that use similar technology, until independent studies show they are safe.

Keep reading

MHRA study on covid vaccine injuries: The numbers buried inside it deserved rather more attention

One in seven. That is the proportion of people in the MHRA’s own actively recruited surveillance cohort who reported a medically serious adverse reaction following covid vaccination. Over half reported at least one reaction of any kind. The data were collected between 2020 and 2022. They were not published until September 2025, and only then because Cheryl Grainger, through a Freedom of Information  (“FoI”) request and subsequent Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) appeal, forced it out.

The paper that eventually appeared, in the journal Drug Safety, was not written as a safety paper. It was written as a description of the digital platform used to collect the data – a methods paper published five months after Dame June Raine left as chief executive, nearly three years after the data were locked. The actual adverse reaction rates are reported but not analysed. The one stratification that could determine whether those rates are real was not performed.

The numbers buried inside it deserved rather more attention.

What the Data Show

The Yellow Card Vaccine Monitor (“YCVM”) was the MHRA’s premium data source. It was one of four pillars of its covid vaccine safety surveillance strategy. Unlike the passive Yellow Card scheme, where people report voluntarily and sporadically, the YCVM actively recruited people and followed them up at set intervals. The MHRA itself described it as a tool to “rapidly detect, confirm, characterise and quantify new risks.”

Of the 30,281 individuals who reported receiving a vaccination, 15,764 (52.1%) reported at least one adverse reaction. 4,134 (13.7%) reported a reaction classified as medically serious under the MedDRA system. This is a regulatory classification that includes events deemed medically significant by an internal MHRA panel and is broader than the lay meaning of “serious,” but not a trivial threshold. It encompasses hospitalisation, disability, life-threatening outcomes and death, but also other events judged clinically important.

However, the 13.7% might include people who volunteered for the monitor becausethey had been injured. The MHRA did not exclude people signing up afterthey had their vaccine.

The key question is how representative this cohort was. Any voluntary cohort, even an actively recruited one, may over-represent people who experienced problems. Other active surveillance systems internationally have reported lower rates, though none has been free of similar methodological limitations. The true rate is unknown – which is precisely the problem.

The YCVM was meant to be designed to quantify risk in a way passive surveillance could not because of reporting bias. However, the key simple analysis to enable interpretation was not done. The question is not whether 13.7% is the true rate of serious harm. The question is why the MHRA did not do the work to find out what the true rate is.

The Cohort It Did Not Analyse

The paper reports 35.6% registered before vaccination and 47.5% after. A further group registered on the same day, but the paper does not quantify it. Even allowing for this, the categories as presented account for only 83.1% of the cohort, leaving 16.9%, over 5,000 people, unclassified. The paper does not explain the gap.

The pre-vaccination and same-day registrants are the key group. They signed up before or at the point of vaccination, not in response to a bad reaction. Their data is substantially less vulnerable to post-event selection bias, which is the main challenge to the headline figures. The criticism that people with bad reactions were more motivated to register does not apply to them. They were already in the system.

The obvious analytical step is to separate these registrants and compare their Adverse Drug Reaction (“ADR”) rates to those who registered afterwards. If the prospective cohort shows substantially lower rates, the selection bias interpretation is supported and you would want to say so. If the rates are similar, the overall figures are validated and you would want to say that too. If the rates are lower, then that is the rate that is of interest and should be published. In any case, the comparison is critical and should have been presented.

The MHRA did not present the comparison. In a 21-page paper with 13 tables, this stratification – the single most important analysis for interpreting the headline findings – does not appear. I have submitted an FoI request for this data.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Declines Appeal in Andrew Cuomo’s COVID Nursing Home Lawsuit

The Supreme Court of the United States has declined to hear a wrongful death lawsuit filed against former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, effectively ending a legal challenge tied to the state’s COVID-era nursing home policies, as reported by Fox News.

The case was brought by Brooklyn resident Daniel Arbeeny, who alleged that Cuomo’s pandemic directives contributed to the 2020 death of his father, Norman Arbeeny, at age 89. The elder Arbeeny had been released from a Cobble Hill nursing home where COVID-positive patients had been housed.

According to court records, Arbeeny sued Cuomo and then-health commissioner Howard Zucker under federal civil rights law and a state wrongful death statute. The lawsuit argued that policies requiring nursing homes to accept patients returning from hospitals, regardless of COVID-19 status, played a role in fatalities among vulnerable residents.

A lower federal court dismissed the case on qualified immunity grounds, a legal doctrine that generally protects government officials from liability for actions taken in their official roles. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that dismissal, and the Supreme Court’s decision not to take the case leaves those rulings in place.

Keep reading

A Reckoning Is Underway At The FDA

For months, a quiet battle has been unfolding inside the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

It began with an analysis of child deaths after Covid vaccination, followed by strategic leaks to major media outlets, and has now erupted into the open with a memo from the regulator’s own vaccine chief.

In September, it was reported that FDA officials had privately investigated 25 paediatric deaths following Covid vaccination — the first systematic review of such cases since the rollout began.

The findings were meant to be presented to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). But the presentation never came. The meeting passed without a word. Something had happened behind closed doors.

Now we know what.

On 13 November 2025, STAT published an extraordinary insider account describing a tense internal meeting in which FDA scientist Dr Tracy Beth Høeg presented evidence of young people who had died after Covid vaccination.

According to STAT, her findings triggered pushback from career FDA regulators who feared the implications of acknowledging fatal cases.

Now, comes the explosive memo from FDA vaccine chief Dr Vinay Prasad, confirming — for the first time — that US regulators have formally attributed at least 10 of these children’s deaths to Covid vaccination.

Prasad called it “a profound revelation” with far-reaching implications for American vaccine policy, adding that the true number is “certainly an underestimate.”

Here, I’ll take you through the memo, the leaks, the internal rebellion at FDA, and what this means — not just for Covid vaccines, but for all vaccine approvals going forward.

This story marks a turning point in US vaccine regulation.

Keep reading

Indicted Democrat Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick to resign from Congress amid expulsion threat

Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., announced Tuesday she is resigning from the House of Representatives after Republicans vowed to force a vote to expel her from the chamber.

“Rather than play these political games, I choose to step away so I can devote my time to fighting for my neighbors in Florida’s 20th District,” she wrote on social media Tuesday afternoon. “I hereby resign from the 119th Congress, effective immediately.”

“This fight is far from over,” Cherfilus-McCormick, who was indicted by a grand jury last year for allegedly stealing COVID-19 emergency funds, added in her statement. 

She is facing 53 years in prison as part of a separate criminal indictment.

Cherfilus-McCormick’s abrupt announcement came after Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., pledged to file a motion to expel her, teeing up a vote later this week. It takes two-thirds of the House to remove a lawmaker, but a growing number of Democrats have voiced support for the expulsion effort.

It also came just minutes prior to a House Ethics Committee hearing that was slated to recommend sanctions against her for committing a bevy of violations involving financial misconduct. 

House Ethics Chairman Michael Guest, R-Miss., announced the panel lost jurisdiction with Cherfilus-Mccormick’s eleventh-hour decision to quit Congress. 

The committee panel found “clear and convincing evidence” in March that the Florida Democrat misused federal disaster relief money that was improperly paid to her family’s healthcare company, among other misconduct. 

Cherfilus-McCormick has denied any wrongdoing and repeatedly rebuffed speculation she would resign if confronted with an expulsion vote. 

Keep reading

Canadian gov’t admits it kept data on COVID jab deaths from public over ‘privacy’ concerns

The Canadian federal government has tacitly admitted that key death data relating to the mRNA-based COVID injections were withheld from public reporting, citing supposed privacy concerns.

The Public Health Agency of Canada is defending its decision to withhold the data relating to how those who received the COVID shots and died as a result were tracked.

The revelations come from Conservative MP Dean Allison’s Order Paper Question Q-849. The health agency said it did not publish weekly COVID death counts, as connected to one’s jab status. The agency claimed the numbers were low and posed “privacy” risks.

Because of this, Canadians were denied key information which could have better informed them on the risks associated with the COVID shots, which were heavily promoted at all levels of government.

The Public Health Agency said it tracked COVID jab outcomes from the start, in December of 2020, when the shots were officially approved. This means that the raw data of those who died or were injured following the COVID shots should exist.

Canada’s public health officials claimed that the December 2020 date provided a “consistent starting point” for tracking jabs.

Despite this, the agency instead chose to showcase statistical modelling, through the federal COVID-19 Epidemiology and Surveillance Division, when comparing non-vaccinated people to those who had taken the jabs.

The agency claimed that it followed the World Health Organization and U.S. public health authorities’ guidance models, instead of utilizing and sharing Canada-specific data.

Canada’s government continues to purchase the COVID shots, although its own data show that most Canadians are refusing a COVID booster injection.

Canada’s Public Health Agency (PHAC) recently took over the nation’s vaccine injury compensation program, changing the name from the Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) to the Vaccine Impact Assistance Program (VIAP). The agency had admitted the COVID shots have caused harm to no less than 10,000 people.

Keep reading

Application Denied: Another Dive into the Failures of Military Bureaucracy and COVID-19 Mandate Relief

On September 23, 2021, an active-duty Air Force officer who has served for 18 years submitted a request for a religious accommodation for the COVID-19 shot mandate. Four and a half years later, there is still derogatory paperwork in his personnel file, leaving him ineligible or significantly disadvantaged for all career advancement and more.

This story provides an update on developments from September 2025 and March 2026, reinforcing J.M. Phelps’ assertion that the Board of Correction of Military Records (BCMR) is “ineffective” and frequently highlights the widespread “bureaucratic malfeasance” within the military institution, providing little more than a “half measure” to service members, as in the case of Air Force Captain Anthony Monteleone.

Furthermore, concerning Air Force BCMR (AFBCMR), the situation underscores how their decisions are a direct affront to the goals of President Donald Trump and Department of War (DOW) Pete Hegseth to restore the military.

Case in point: On April 3, 2026, AFBCMR issued a “finding” that flatly denied any relief whatsoever to Capt. Monteleone. Given the overwhelming mountain of evidence reviewed by J.M. Phelps and provided to the Board, one can only conclude that the Board continues to undermine the efforts of President Trump and his appointees within the Department of War. This bureaucratic obstruction appears aimed at continuing the denial of mandated relief to those who suffered under the military’s unlawfully enforced COVID-19 shot mandate, which was rescinded in January 2023.

Mr. Richard Anderson, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserves, representing the AFBCMR and operating under the full delegated authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, stated that when it comes to Capt. Monteleone’s case, “the [AFBCMR] determined there was insufficient evidence of error or injustice. Accordingly, your application is denied.”

Sadly, for the author of this article, Mr. Anderson’s statement brings to mind the idiom, “If I had a dollar for every time I heard that.”

The Board’s stated reasoning behind this decision was that, although the entire mandate was ruled unlawful, the guidance from Undersecretary of War for Personnel and Readiness, Anthony Tata, to the branch BCMRs did not specifically state that all [emphasis mine] service members harmed by the entire COVID-19 mandate must be granted relief. Instead, in their interpretation [emphasis mine], his guidance indicates that only those punished for solely refusing the order to take the shot itself were eligible for remediation under the guidance.

Keep reading

Biden FDA Knew About COVID Vaccine Stroke Risk And Kept Americans In The Dark

Senate investigators spent months reviewing roughly 2,000 pages of federal records. What they found is damning. FDA and CDC officials under the Biden administration identified a significant stroke risk tied to Pfizer’s COVID-19 bivalent booster in seniors – and never breathed a word to the public.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), chairman of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, sent a formal letter to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. laying out the evidence. He wasn’t speculating. He was citing the government’s own files.

“HHS records show that as early as October 2022, federal health officials identified a potential connection between the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent booster and ischemic stroke for individuals over the age of 65,” Johnson wrote.

An ischemic stroke means a blockage of blood to the brain. Between November 2022 and March 2023, seven separate analyses of incoming data flagged the same stroke signal — specifically in adults over 65. CDC data cited by Johnson shows 226 stroke cases reported between August 2022 and February 2023, with additional cases surfacing throughout 2023 and 2024.

Despite the risk, the Biden administration issued no formal warnings. No Health Alert Network message. No changes to booster recommendations for seniors. Nothing.

Instead, in February 2023, HHS quietly hired a private contractor, Lukos LLC, to conduct a deeper internal investigation, dubbed “The Stroke Project.” Publicly, officials kept insisting the vaccines were safe.

“From the initial detection of the safety signal in late 2022 … health officials continued to say the vaccine was safe while simultaneously searching for evidence to support that assertion,” Johnson said.

It gets worse. Federal officials drafted a communications plan about the stroke risk that included a “Tough Questions and Answers” section prepared for President-ish Biden and his White House team. During final edits, the description of the stroke signal was quietly changed from “moderately elevated” to “slightly elevated.” Who made that change? Nobody knows. The language softened, the edit went unattributed, and the public remained in the dark.

The pattern is consistent. Senate investigators previously established that Biden officials also downplayed the risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis and kept that from the public. This wasn’t a one-time failure. It was a system.

Here’s what makes this cover-up even more infuriating. The Biden administration showed it was more than willing to pull the plug on a vaccine when it wanted to. 

Keep reading