Tag: covid-19

60% of Young People With COVID Vaccine-induced Myocarditis Showed Heart Damage 6 Months Later

Sixty percent of young people who were hospitalized with myocarditis after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine still showed signs of myocardial injury roughly six months after getting the shot, according to a new peer-reviewed study funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Critics said the study authors — who published their report in The Lancet on Sept. 6 — downplayed the seriousness of the study’s findings. They also noted that some authors had ties to the government and Big Pharma that may have influenced the research.

The study authors, led by Dr. Supriya S. Jain, a pediatric cardiologist and researcher at Maria Fareri Children’s Hospital in Valhalla, New York, analyzed health outcome data and biomarkers from 333 patients ages 5-30, from 38 U.S. hospitals, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-induced myocarditis.

The researchers used late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in cardiac MRIs to determine which areas of the patients’ heart tissue were injured.

Gadolinium is a metal used to help doctors see abnormal tissues in MRI scans with more detail, according to Drugwatch. The presence of LGE is often associated with worse outcomes, such as a higher risk of heart failure or arrhythmias, according to Trial Site News in its coverage of the study.

The authors followed up with 307 of the 333 patients by analyzing their health data collected from April 2021 to November 2022. The time between vaccination and follow-up varied, with a median of 178 days.

The results revealed that LGE persisted in the cardiac MRIs of 60% of the patients at the follow-up. Jain and her co-authors called these results “reassuring,” noting that there had not been any reported cardiac-related deaths or heart transplants at the time of writing their report. They recommended “continued clinical surveillance and long-term studies.”

Keep reading

CDC wants to inject BABIES with COVID-19 shots – but they aren’t licensed for kids under 12

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) wants babies to get doses of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine. However, no COVID-19 vaccine is licensed for children under the age of 12.

According to the public health agency’s guidance issued on Aug. 30, children as young as six months old should get injected with either two doses of the 2024-2025 Moderna COVID-19 vaccine or three doses of the 2024-2025 Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

For the latest Moderna injection, the CDC recommends that babies get the first dose at six months and the second dose a month after the first. For the latest Pfizer shot, the agency advises that the first dose should be given at six months. The second dose should be given three weeks after the first, and the third dose should be given at least eight weeks after the second.

Following the CDC’s guidance, nine-month-old babies must have been injected with the COVID-19 vaccine to be considered “up to date” with their vaccination. But the problem is that both the latest versions of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines are not licensed for use on children under 12. This is because the Food and Drug Administration only granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the new vaccines.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) CEO Mary Holland remarked that the CDC is “absolutely misleading” the public by asserting that COVID-19 vaccines granted EUA are safe and effective. This is because EUA vaccines are not held to the same safety or efficacy standards as licensed vaccines.

“By law, EUA products ‘may be effective’ and they have not undergone the safety testing required to permit licensing. This is one more horrific example of the CDC putting profits before people and acting as an unethical arm of Big Pharma’s marketing operation,” she said.

“The earlier COVID-19 shots have been proven unsafe and ineffective. Now we’re asked to believe that newer versions are miraculously safe and effective?”

Keep reading

Oxford’s new COVID jab aimed to sterilize 60% – 70% of recipients, developer admits

Prof. Sir John Bell, a key figure in the development of the University of Oxford‘s Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccine,” let slip the other day the fact that the school’s latest COVID injection is capable of sterilizing between 60 and 70 percent of those who take it.

In a recent interview about the new shot, Sir John, who teaches medicine at Oxford, seemed to suggest that one of the goals behind these injections is to mass sterilize the planet under the guise of protecting public health against the “COVID virus.”

“These vaccines are unlikely to completely sterilize a population,” Sir John said with seeming disappointment during the interview.

“They’re very likely to have an effect which works in a percentage, say 60 or 70 percent. We’ll have to look quite carefully, and the regulators will have to look quite carefully to make sure that it’s done what we need it to do before it gets approved.”

A clinical trial for the shot is still ongoing and Sir John says there will be a “delay” between when the results are in and when regulators give the shot the green light for public release.

Sir John was barely able to complete his sentence before the interviewer cut him off, apparently to keep him quiet from revealing any further incriminating information about the new Oxford shot.

Keep reading

DEADLY mRNA clot shots revealed to be a MILITARY PROJECT developed by NIH, not Moderna and Pfizer, as we were all led to believe

Did you know that military contractors created the experimental gene therapy injections that trick human cells into producing billions of toxic spike prions in the blood? Did you know that NIH owns 50 percent of the patents for the mRNA vaccines that Moderna and Pfizer pushed out on the populace? Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is blowing the whistle on the whole operation, and should Trump win the presidency this fall, look for the crooks and criminals responsible for this plandemic tragedy to serve hard time in federal prison for it. In fact, Pfizer and Moderna were “paid to put their stamps on those vaccines as if they came from the pharmaceutical industry,” according to RFK Jr., because it was a military project from the very beginning.

Why would the military be involved in developing heart-crippling biological weapons of mass destruction that were distributed and injected into 270 million Americans?

There is a long history of the Communist Chinese Party (CCP) employing their People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to create biowarfare weapons, and now it appears that they partnered with National Institutes of Health (NIH) to use gain-of-function research to create Covid-19, create deadly vaccines to “prevent” it and its spread. Then, the CCP colluded with NIH and pretended that the pharmaceutical industry created the jabs to “save” everyone, even though the spike protein injections are military-grade biological weapons of mass destruction, designed to kill humans and were created for that reason by the military.

Never forget the United States used small pox virus as a biological weapon to wipe out the indigenous Native Americans, so if you’re thinking this coverage of mRNA jabs as biological weapons used by the U.S. military and Big Pharma against Americans is too far-fetched, think again.

Keep reading

Doctors who advise a healthy child to get a 2024 fall booster are committing malpractice

It’s easy to hide behind, “the experts said to do it.” You can point to Peter Marks at FDA or Mandy Cohen at CDC and say they told me to do it. But these people and these agencies have repeatedly displayed that they aren’t capable of good medical advice.

Peter Marks famously demoted Phil Krause at FDA to rush full biological licensing agreement (BLA) for covid vaccines so Biden could ram unethical mandates. Mandy Cohen supported the CDC policy of toddler masking, an illogical idea that punished young kids for no purpose.

Ultimately, however we all own our actions. If you are a doctor, you can’t blame others for the advice you give patients. You have to evaluate the evidence and do what you think is best.

This fall, the US is once again a major global outlier by recommending COVID19 boosters to little children, even those who have already and repeatedly had COVID19. In this essay I am going to argue not only that doctors should not advise parents to give their kids the booster, and not only that the FDA should not have approved it, and the CDC not recommended it: I am going to argue the strongest thesis of all: It is malpractice for a doctor to recommend the booster to children. Consider the case.

Keep reading

The Public is No Longer Listening to Scientific ‘Experts’ and their Covid Vax Propaganda, Making them Upset

The Gateway Pundit explains that scientific ‘experts’ are upset that Covid vax propaganda is not working any more.

Emphases are mine.

Infectious disease experts are upset that four years on from the coronavirus pandemic, members of the public are no longer listening to their “recommendations” regarding vaccines and other supposed prevention methods against COVID-19.

According to a report from the leftist The Guardian newspaper, infectious disease experts are complaining that COVID-19 is still a massive threat to the public and people need to continue taking booster vaccines at every opportunity.

The report states:

Infectious disease experts say many people are not taking the latest Covid-19 wave in the US seriously enough and are not getting vaccinated or using antiviral drugs when sick, despite a summer wave that was larger and came earlier than anticipated.

Epidemiologists are saying that while symptoms of this wave are more mild than earlier strains, the virus remains a threat – particularly for older adults and people with underlying health conditions.

In response, public health officials are urging people to get a booster now – unless they recently had Covid, in which case they should wait three to four months – and to take a rapid test when sick. And if they have Covid, they should ask their doctors about antiviral treatments.

For the benefit of newcomers, if you have Covid, your God-given immune system produced antibodies against it; that’s why you don’t need a shot.

The rapid test and the PCR test don’t diagnose anything. They are laden with false positives – don’t do a PCR test because you could die from it!

Keep reading

Covid Lockdown Accelerated Aging of Teen Brains — Study

A study published Monday documented how the Covid lockdowns triggered an accelerated rate of brain aging in teens, particularly in female teens.

“We report that the lockdown measures enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in unusually accelerated brain maturation in adolescents and that this accelerated maturation was much more pronounced in females than in males,” the study said in the ‘Significance’ section.

Perhaps not surprisingly, lockdowns, which inhibited social interaction, had a greater effect on females, as anyone who’s been around humans knows females are the more social gender, making them more vulnerable to social upheaval.

“These findings indicate greater vulnerability of the female brain, as compared to the male brain, to the lifestyle changes resulting from the pandemic lockdowns,” the study said in the ‘Significance’ section.

The research showed that the lockdowns served as an interesting, albeit malicious, neuropsychological experiment on the developing human brain.

“They additionally provide a potential neurophysiological mechanism for alterations in adolescent mental health and other behaviors associated with the lockdowns,” the study said in the ‘Significance’ section.

While ‘maturity’ is widely regarded as a positive aspect of the aging process, it should be noted that the ‘maturation’ term used in the scientific research is not a positive attribute.

Keep reading

Unlawful Discrimination

In the wake of governmental actions during the pandemic, much of the public discourse has focused on individuals who suffered physical or financial injury due to vaccine-related mandates. However, a lesser-explored but equally significant group is those who resisted these mandates for personal, medical, or ethical reasons. As highlighted in the article, “Government Negligence in Pandemic Response,” there were potential breaches of duty by the government in rolling out unproven or harmful treatments, but there are additional implications for those who were indirectly harmed by resisting pandemic policies. This article explores the legal avenues these individuals might pursue, focusing on unlawful discrimination, economic losses, and the broader concept of public authority misuse.

The Legal Foundation for Claims

While individuals who experienced vaccine-related injuries may have clearer paths to compensation, those who resisted mandates may also have endured substantial harm—such as loss of income, restrictions on freedom of movement, and social exclusion. Their legal recourse could vary significantly based on the context, jurisdiction, and the specific nature of their resistance. Below, we explore key areas where legal claims may arise.

1. Loss of Income

One of the most direct and widespread effects of resisting pandemic mandates was loss of income. Many individuals faced termination, suspension, or reduced employment opportunities due to their refusal to comply with vaccine mandates. Employment-related claims often center around wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal, or discrimination in the workplace. However, the pandemic created a new legal frontier, raising questions such as whether vaccine mandates violated constitutional rights or unfairly discriminated against those who refused compliance.

Potential Violations of Constitutional Rights

In many jurisdictions, the right to work and the right to make personal medical decisions are fundamental legal principles. Mandates requiring medical interventions, such as vaccination, could be challenged as potential violations of bodily autonomy or personal choice. For example, individuals who refused vaccination for personal or religious reasons may argue that they were coerced into choosing between their job and their bodily autonomy. This argument could gain traction in contexts where courts have recognized an individual’s right to refuse medical treatment, provided that such refusal does not pose a direct and imminent threat to others.

Possible Discrimination Based on Medical Choice

A particularly contentious issue is whether being terminated for refusing vaccination constitutes discrimination. While personal medical choices are not universally recognized as a protected category under anti-discrimination laws, some legal arguments might focus on whether pandemic mandates created new grounds for exclusion or inequality. This could be compared to other forms of discrimination, such as those based on religious beliefs or personal health conditions. Some individuals may explore claims arguing that vaccine mandates disproportionately impacted them based on philosophical beliefs, religious values, or even pre-existing medical conditions that precluded vaccination.

Keep reading

Trump’s 63 Million Doses of Hydroxychloroquine Could Have Been Great for America

Early in the pandemic, President Donald Trump and White House senior official Peter Navarro arranged the donation of 63 million doses of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to America’s strategic drug stockpile to combat Covid-19. The government began securing HCQ in March 2020, after Trump, on the advice of his medical and scientific advisors, lauded HCQ as “very encouraging,” “very powerful,” and a “game-changer.” While HCQ (and its structurally similar analogue chloroquine) was not FDA-indicated for Covid-19, it was well-known to have specific off-label pharmacological functionality for preventing viral particle entry into cells, chemical derivatives of which have been utilized for antiviral use as far back as 1934. 

Following Trump’s proposal, HCQ suddenly came under an unwarranted full-scale attack from federal officials, the press, so-called “fact-checkers,” and university professors. Many of the attacks contained outright falsehoods about HCQ’s pharmacology and safety or Trump’s endeavor to make HCQ available to eligible patients. 

The FDA initially issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for HCQ in March 2020, but withdrew authorization on June 15th 2020, stating the drug is “unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the [EUA] authorized uses.” Around the same time, the FDA also wrote a methodologically questionable report criticizing HCQ’s safety. The FDA’s narrative was based on preliminary and time-compartmentalized findings, and not a reflection of historical safety or based on the appropriate clinical use of HCQ dosing, prescribing, timing, and duration. The FDA then seemed to label its findings as conclusive, figuratively slamming the door shut on the consideration of new findings. 

Keep reading

The Media Wants a Return to 2020

They’re never going to stop.

We’re a few months away from the end of 2024, four and a half years after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. It’s a truth that should clearly be universally acknowledged by now, that the pandemic policies enacted by global governments were a catastrophic failure.

Mask mandates were pointless, harmful, and completely ineffective. School closures were one of history’s biggest mistakes, causing learning loss among young people that will set them back an entire generation. Business shutdowns achieved little except for hurting small business owners at the expense of massive corporations and necessitating a rolling series of money printing leading to rampant inflation.

Then we witnessed the formerly unimaginable emergence of vaccine passports.

Regardless, those policies have generally, and thankfully, come to an end. Overwhelming evidence, data, and scientific studies have confirmed that the Anthony Fauci-CDC doctrine was based on nothing, and accomplished less. But among the fearless media columnist set, there’s a desperation to return to the glory days of pandemic restrictions. The latest example coming from an opinion article published over at The Hill, complete with the usual misinformation, poor reasoning, and willful ignorance of current realities.

Keep reading