Tag: covid-19

There is only myocarditis and pericarditis in covid vaccinated children, study finds

A study was published in May 2024 by the Bennet Institute for Applied Data Science, a multidisciplinary team based at the University of Oxford. It was an observational study to assess the safety and effectiveness of the first and second doses of Pfizer-BioNTech’s (BNT162b2) covid injection in children and adolescents in England.  The injection was offered to this age group from September 2021 as part of the Government’s national covid injection campaign.

The study used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database and included adolescents aged 12-15 years and children aged 5-11 years, comparing unvaccinated and single-vaccinated children with those receiving a second dose.

It compared data for at least 1,678,668 children and adolescents comprising:

  • 820,926 unvaccinated adolescents.
  • 441,858 adolescents who had received a first dose.
  • 283,422 unvaccinated children.
  • 132,462 children who had received a first dose
  • There is no indication of how many adolescents and children who had received a second dose were included in the study.

The study used the incidence rate ratio (“IRR”), separately for children and adolescents, to compare unvaccinated outcomes to vaccinated outcomes and the first does (single-vaccinated) to those who had two doses of Pfizer’s “vaccine.”

IRR measures the relative difference in incidence rates between two groups.  An IRR greater than 1 indicates a higher incidence rate in one group compared to the other group. An IRR less than 1 indicates a lower incidence rate in one group compared to the other group. An IRR of 1 indicates no significant difference in incidence rates between the two groups.

Keep reading

Whistleblower: Remdesivir linked to 601 military deaths

A military whistleblower has released documents, known as “The Remdesivir Papers,” revealing that 601 military service members died after being treated with the controversial antiviral drug remdesivir for suspected COVID-19 cases. The documents claim the drug was administered months before it was approved by the FDA, with serious concerns about data manipulation and lack of informed consent in the trials.

The whistleblower, using the pseudonym Daniel LeMay, shared the documents with investigative journalist J.M. Phelps, exposing that many trial results were kept secret and highlighting remdesivir’s potential role in hundreds of untimely deaths. According to LeMay, the Department of Defense’s Joint Trauma System manipulated trial data to favor remdesivir, and participants were often not informed about the risks involved.

Advocacy groups and former victims of COVID-19 hospital protocols, including those involving remdesivir, have expressed outrage, calling for greater accountability. Gail Seiler, a survivor of remdesivir treatment, stated that the papers “only scratch the surface” of the harm caused by the drug in both military and civilian hospitals.

Keep reading

Authors of a big new paper on Covid’s heart risks presented its results in a misleading way likely to scare people the paper itself shows are not in danger

On Wednesday, the Cleveland Clinic released frightening news:

“History of COVID-19 Doubles Long-term Risk of Heart Attack, Stroke and Death”

The renowned medical center was publicizing new research led by Dr. Stanley Hazen, one of its top physicians. He and other scientists examined the medical records of people infected with Covid in 2020 and found they had twice the risk of serious cardiovascular problems as uninfected people through 2024.

The National Institutes of Health, which funded the work, also put out a release warning Covid-19 “increased risk of heart attack [and] stroke up to three years later.” CNN and other media outlets also reported on the research with similar language.

In the Cleveland Clinic press release, Dr. Hazen did not sugarcoat the dangers. “The findings reported are not a small effect in a small subgroup,” he said. “[They] point to a finding of global healthcare importance that promises to translate into a rise in cardiovascular disease globally.”

Except they don’t. Hazen’s promise isn’t true.

The study’s real findings are very different than the frightening headlines.

For the vast majority of people who have had Covid, the research offered reassuring results. It showed essentially no increase in risk in heart attacks, strokes, or deaths for them.

Yet Hazen and his co-authors are not outright lying about what they found in their paper, which was published in the peer-reviewed journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

To run the study, they looked for Covid infections among British adults in 2020 a large database called UK Biobank. They came up with about 10,000 adults who had had Covid, and compared them to a group of about 220,000 adults who had not.

They found that over the next three years1, the 10,000 infected people were more likely than the uninfected control group to have heart attacks, strokes or die — an endpoint called MACE, or major adverse cardiovascular events.

As the paper reported, “the risk of MACE was elevated in COVID-19 cases at all levels of severity (HR, 2.09).” [emphasis added, keep that phrase in mind]

But. Hazen and the study’s other authors published and discussed the results in a way that hide a crucial fact.

Keep reading

Whistleblower Serves Connecticut Officials Notice of Covid Vaccine Deaths

On August 21, 2024, John Beaudoin, Sr., President and CEO of Summa Logica LLC, filed a whistleblower complaint with the Auditors of Public Accounts of Connecticut. The allegations pertain to forgery of death records under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-139 (2023). More than 100 Connecticut death records list “Covid” as a cause of death though the deaths are certified as “accidental” and involve blunt force trauma or fentanyl overdose. Other records were found to be Covid vaccine deaths, but the vaccine is fraudulently omitted from the death records.

The whistleblower complaint was accompanied by THE CONNECTICUT MEMORANDA SERIES Volume II (CT Memo Vol. II) comprising nearly 250 pages of factual allegations gleaned from Connecticut’s official vital records database of death records.

Four death records expressly state that a Covid vaccine was involved in the deaths. One boy 16 years old died due to “Stress Cardiomyopathy Following Second Dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech.” Dalcie, 73 years old, died from Guillain Barre Syndrome. Her record also states, “second Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine 28 days before start of symptoms.” Juana, 39 years old, died from “Sudden Cardiac Death,” “Probable … myocarditis.” Juana’s record states that myocarditis resulted from Covid. This is odd because her record also states she was vaccinated for Covid. Myocarditis is known to occur from Covid vaccines, but not from Covid. Lorraine was 85 years old and died from congestive heart failure only two days after vaccination. Only the boy’s record lists “Y59.0,” which means, “Viral vaccines.” The other three records omit any code related to vaccines even though the records clearly state that a Covid vaccine was a cause or contributing condition of death.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses software that reads the English words in the causes of death on the records and then automatically outputs the ICD-10 codes, which are international symptom diagnostic codes. “Y59.0” is an ICD-10 code. If “vaccination” or “vaccine” are on the death record and “Y59.0” is missing after the software executes, it is highly likely that someone deleted “Y59.0,” else someone manually added “Y59.0” for the boy and did not add “Y.59.0” for the other three.

Keep reading

San Francisco Bay Area Reinstates Mask Mandates as Flu Season Approaches

As COVID-19 cases increase, mask mandates are being reinstated in several counties around California.

Residents in the San Francisco Bay Area will be required to wear masks in hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and other healthcare facilities as flu and cold season begin, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

The mandate will take effect from Nov. 1 to either Mar. 31 or April 30, 2025, the outlet reports.

Health officials are implementing the mandate as an attempt to decrease the risk of spreading COVID, the flu and other respiratory viruses during the winter and early spring in medical settings.

Keep reading

Covid Shots Trigger Deadly Cytokine Storms and Anaphylaxis — Study

A study published October 1 documented the pathology of mRNA Covid vaccine-triggered cytokine storms (an overreaction of the immune system) and anaphylaxis (an allergic reaction to an antigen).

“Acute adverse reactions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are a major concern, as autopsy reports indicate that deaths most commonly occur on the same day of or one day following vaccination. These acute reactions may be due to cytokine storms triggered by lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) and anaphylaxis induced by polyethene glycol (PEG), both of which are vital constituents of the mRNA-LNP vaccines,” the study said in the ‘Abstract’ section.

The pathology of the lethal Covid injections and the mechanisms of harm they inflict were further elaborated on by the researchers.

“Kounis syndrome, in which anaphylaxis triggers acute coronary syndrome (ACS), may also be responsible for these cardiovascular events. Furthermore, COVID-19 mRNA-LNP vaccines encompass adjuvants, such as LNPs, which trigger inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin (IL)-1β and IL-6. These vaccines also produce spike proteins which facilitate the release of inflammatory cytokines. Apart from this, histamine released from mast cells during allergic reactions plays a critical role in IL-6 secretion, which intensifies inflammatory responses. In light of these events, early reduction of IL-1β and IL-6 is imperative for managing post-vaccine cytokine storms, ACS, and myocarditis,” the study said in the ‘Abstract’ section.

The researchers also provided a flowchart depicting the deadly path from vaccination to cytokine storm.

Keep reading

COVID vaccine science catching up with ‘conspiracy theorists’

Two new peer-reviewed medical journal articles indicate that the science is starting to catch up with the ‘conspiracy theorists’ and ‘anti-vaxxers’ such as myself, also known as people that rationally asked questions of novel products that were rushed out the door, to help stem a pandemic that was far less deadly than all other causes, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and even tobacco use (and note that COVID-19 deaths tend to be inflated). Publishing in the Polish Annals of Medicine, Thoene conducts a limited literature review on the reporting of COVID-19 vaccine severe adverse events in scientific journals, finding:

“From 2020 to 2024, the literature has gone from claiming there are absolutely no SAEs from mRNA based vaccines (2020/2021) to an acknowledgment of a significant number of various SAEs (2023/2024); including but not limited to neurological complications, myocarditis, pericarditis and thrombosis. … The early scientific literature was biased, so as not to report SAEs, due to social and political concerns and overwhelming corporate greed. Only in the last year have scientists been able to publish articles that acknow- ledge a high number of SAEs linked to mRNA based vaccines. This should act as a warning that science should be completely objective when evaluating health risks, but can often be influenced by social and economic considerations.” Source.

Proving once again that Eastern Europeans are based (the Hungarians stand up to the EU on immigration [source], and the Bulgarians published my little study on the correlation between COVID-19 vaccination and European excess mortality), the Polish journal kindly accepted my brief response, entitled ‘Scientific views around mRNA based covid vaccines are changing, but to what end?’, praising them and Thoene for this important paper, and noting that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Source. 

Keep reading

Japan Approves World’s First ‘Self-amplifying’ mRNA COVID Shot — Is the U.S. Next?

Japan is offering a self-amplifying mRNA vaccine as one of the five routine COVID-19 vaccines available to the public for the 2024-2025 fall and winter seasons.

Japanese regulators approved the ARCT-154 shot in November 2023. According to a press release, ARCT-154 is the world’s first self-amplifying mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare approved the vaccine for adults. It is jointly produced by the biotechnology firm CSL and Arcturus Therapeutics.

“The approval is based on positive clinical data from several ARCT-154 studies … which achieved higher immunogenicity results and a favorable safety profile compared to a standard mRNA COVID-19 vaccine comparator,” CSL said.

Japan’s vaccination program will offer the vaccines to people 65 and over, and 60- to 64-year-olds with severe underlying conditions, at a maximum cost of 7,000 yen (approximately $47). People not in these two categories can also receive the shots, but the fee will not be capped.

Keep reading

‘Striking Evidence’ COVID Shots May Increase Kids’ Risk of Asthma

A new analysis of over 200,000 U.S. children’s health records suggests that mRNA COVID-19 vaccination increases children’s risk of asthma, Alex Berenson reported Tuesday.

Berenson, a former New York Times reporter who now reports on his Unreported Truths Substack, revealed communications with Taiwanese researchers showing they found “striking evidence” that the shots themselves may cause asthma, which leads to lung damage.

Asthma is a chronic lung disease affecting nearly 5 million U.S. children, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). While usually not fatal, severe asthma attacks can be life-threatening in children, according to the Mayo Clinic.

The Taiwanese researchers’ analysis — which the researchers are still reviewing — used electronic medical records from TriNetX, which touts itself as the “largest global source of real-world data.”

The study authors looked at TriNetX’s health data from over 200,000 U.S. kids ages 5 to 18 between Jan. 1, 2021, and Dec. 31, 2022.

According to Berenson, they found that children who received a COVID-19 mRNA shot and who had not had a natural COVID-19 infection had a 13% higher risk of receiving a new asthma diagnosis in the year after their vaccination when compared to a matched group of children who didn’t get a COVID-19 shot or infection.

“That increased risk cannot be due to Covid, since neither group was infected,” Berenson wrote.

When the researchers compared vaccinated versus unvaccinated children — all of whom also were diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection — they found an even higher risk.

Berenson reported that children who had both a COVID-19 mRNA shot and a COVID-19 infection had a 20% higher risk of a new asthma diagnosis than a similar group of unvaccinated kids who had a COVID-19 infection.

Because the study is not a randomized prospective trial it does not prove that the mRNA COVID-19 shots caused the extra asthma cases, Berenson said.

“But the researchers closely matched two very large groups,” he wrote, “and the association they found is almost certainly not due to chance.”

Keep reading

Another PRO-MASK Study Debunked

You may recall some years ago the New England Journal of Medicine went bonkers crazy trying to push masks on kids based on a single study that was put out there. They put out multiple editorials and tried to justify the massive mandates that were foisted on kids as young as two years old.

A recent study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine by Dr. Ambarish Chandra, Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg, and colleagues critically examines the effectiveness of school mask mandates in reducing COVID-19 transmission among students and staff. The research addresses the challenges of using observational data and difference-in-differences (DiD) analysis to estimate the impact of public health interventions, particularly in rapidly changing situations like a pandemic.

The difference-in-differences (DiD) methodology is a statistical technique commonly used in social sciences to estimate the causal effect of a policy intervention or treatment when randomization is not possible. It compares the changes in outcomes over time between a group that is exposed to a treatment (intervention group) and a group that is not (control group).

Keep reading