Tag: vaccine injury

Vaccine Hesitancy Reflects Appropriate Concerns

The World Health Organization (WHO) considers vaccine hesitancy one of the top ten threats to global health. If that is the case, is it always a bad thing? AlterAI assisted with this analysis.

The Lancet manuscript “Profiling vaccine attitudes and subsequent uptake in 1.1 million people in England: a nationwide cohort study” (Whitaker et al, 2026) presents one of the most exhaustive longitudinal analyses of COVID‑19 vaccine hesitancy ever conducted. Using data from the Real‑time Assessment of Community Transmission (REACT) study, the researchers tracked English adults’ views and actions surrounding vaccination between January 2021 and March 2022, linking survey responses with verified NHS vaccination records.

  • Population: Over 1.1 million adults (aged ≥ 18 years; 57% female).
  • Initial hesitancy: At the beginning of 2021, 8% were hesitant about vaccination.
  • Hesitancy decline: By early 2022, the hesitant fraction dropped to roughly 1%.
  • Behavioral outcome: Among those initially hesitant, 65% later received at least one vaccine dose.

This significant attitudinal shift demonstrates that while early-stage doubts about vaccine safety and efficacy were widespread, the majority were transient and susceptible to persuasion, propaganda, and mandates.

Keep reading

‘Tip of a Very Damaging Iceberg’: COVID Vaccines Linked to Several Cancer Types in New Review

A systematic review of 69 studies and reports on COVID-19 and cancer identified a possible safety signal linking COVID-19 vaccines and SARS-CoV-2 to certain types of cancer.

The study identified safety signals for leukemia, lymphoma, breast and lung cancer. The authors of the paper, published last week in the journal Oncotarget, said their findings suggest the need for further research.

The paper identified mechanisms — including the spike protein and DNA contamination found in some COVID-19 vaccine types — that might be responsible for triggering cancer.

The authors also addressed “several recurrent themes” in the studies they examined:

  • The “unusually rapid progression, recurrence, or reactivation” of preexisting conditions.
  • The “atypical” appearance of cancers near the point of vaccination.
  • The reactivation of dormant tumors.

Wafik El-Deiry, M.D., Ph.D., one of the co-authors, told The Defender that the paper “is the first most comprehensive presentation summarizing the world‘s literature on the subject matter of COVID vaccines, COVID infection and cancer.”

He said some of the review’s findings “look like a smoking gun” linking COVID-19 shots to cancer.

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense, said the review’s findings may represent “the tip of a very damaging iceberg.”

“It is not remotely surprising that a gene-therapy rebranded as a vaccine, never tested for oncogenic safety, with severe immune dysregulating effects, injected into a billion people would correlate with an increased risk of cancers worldwide,” Jablonowski said.

El-Deiry said the review may provide insights into rising cancer rates in recent years, including an increase in so-called “turbo cancers.”

“I believe there is a risk of cancer associated with COVID vaccination,” El-Deiry said. “The magnitude of the risk remains to be more precisely defined, including the risk of hyperprogression.” Hyperprogression refers to cases where “a pre-existing tumor grows more aggressively.”

“The paper doesn’t say that COVID vaccines cause cancer, but it does argue that when the same pattern of aggressive cancer keeps appearing across different cancers and different countries, they can no longer be brushed aside,” investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., said in a video posted Monday on Substack.

Keep reading

Shocking study linking covid jabs and cancer ‘censored’ by mysterious cyberattack

A global review examining reported cases of cancer following Covid vaccination was published earlier this month, just as the medical journal hosting it was hit by a cyberattack that has since taken the site offline.

The study appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Oncotarget on January 3 and was authored by cancer researchers from Tufts University in Boston and Brown University in Rhode Island.

In the review, researchers analyzed 69 previously published studies and case reports from around the world, identifying 333 instances in which cancer was newly diagnosed or rapidly worsened within a few weeks following Covid vaccination.

The review covered studies from 2020 to 2025 and included reports from 27 countries, including the US, Japan, China, Italy, Spain, and South Korea. No single country dominated, suggesting the observed patterns were reported globally. 

The authors emphasized that the review highlights patterns observed in existing reports, but does not establish a direct causal link between vaccination and cancer. 

Days after publication, Oncotarget’s website became inaccessible, displaying a ‘bad gateway’ error that the journal attributed to an ongoing cyberattack.

The journal reported the incident to the FBI, noting disruptions to its online operations. 

In social media posts, one of the paper’s authors, Dr Wafik El-Deiry of Brown University, expressed concern that the attack disrupted access to newly published research. 

‘Censorship is alive and well in the US, and it has come into medicine in a big, awful way,’ El-Deiry wrote in a post on X.

The FBI told Daily Mail that it ‘neither confirms nor denies the existence of any specific investigation’ into a cyberattack on Oncotarget. 

The Daily Mail has reached out to Oncotarget for comment on the cyberattack investigation. 

In a post that can no longer be accessed because of the website hacking, Oncotarget noted disruptions to the availability of new studies online. Although they did not accuse a specific group of wrongdoing, the journal alleged without evidence that the hackers may be connected to the anonymous research review group PubPeer.

The researchers alleged that the cyberattack targeted Oncotarget’s servers to disrupt the journal’s operations and prevent new papers from being properly added to the site’s index. 

The message was shared on social media by El-Deiry before the website crashed, with the doctor adding, ‘Censorship of the scientific press is keeping important published information about Covid infection, Covid vaccines and cancer signals from reaching the scientific community and beyond.’

In a statement to the Daily Mail, PubPeer declared: ‘No officer, employee or volunteer at PubPeer has any involvement whatsoever with whatever is going on at that journal.’

PubPeer is an online platform where researchers can anonymously comment on peer-reviewed scientific papers after they’ve already appeared in journals.

Its stated goal has been post-publication peer review, meaning people discuss, critique, or point out potential issues in studies that have already passed the usual pre-publication checks.

Keep reading

Higher mortality rates found among vaccinated 3-month-old infants

Infants vaccinated in their second month of life were more likely to die in their third month than unvaccinated infants, according to an analysis of data from the Louisiana Department of Health. The analysis also found higher mortality rates among female and Black infants.

Children’s Health Defense scientists Brian Hooker, Ph.D., and Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., conducted the analysis, which was published on Preprints.org.

Depending on which vaccines were administered, vaccinated infants were between 29% and 74% more likely to die than unvaccinated infants. Vaccinated Black infants faced a 28% to 74% higher risk of death, while vaccinated female infants had a 52% to 98% greater risk.

Overall, infants who received all six vaccines recommended at the 2-month visit were 68% more likely to die in their third month of life.

The researchers analyzed linked immunization and mortality records from the Louisiana Department of Health for infants who died before 3 months of age between 2013 and 2024.

Keep reading

Cleveland Clinic Flu Shots Study Shows Vaccine INCREASED Risk of Getting the Flu

For decades, Americans have been lectured, pressured, and in many cases coerced into getting annual flu shots under the promise that “the science is settled” and that vaccination is an unquestionable public good.

But a growing body of research is blowing that narrative apart, and the latest data are nothing short of explosive.

A new study from the prestigious Cleveland Clinic has found that the 2024-2025 flu shot not only failed to protect people but also increased their risk of contracting the flu.

The study, published as a preprint on medRxiv and led by Dr. Nabin K. Shrestha and colleagues from the Departments of Infectious Diseases, Infection Prevention, and Quantitative Health Sciences, tracked 53,402 Cleveland Clinic employees across Ohio during the 2024–2025 respiratory viral season, which began on October 1, 2024.

By the end of the 25-week observation period (ending March 26, 2025), 82.1% of the cohort (43,857 individuals) had been vaccinated, primarily with the trivalent inactivated vaccine.

A total of 1,079 employees (2.02%) tested positive for influenza, with 98.8% being influenza A cases.

Using a time-dependent analysis (treating vaccination as a variable that changes over time), the researchers calculated a vaccine effectiveness of -26.9% (95% CI: -51.0% to -6.6%). This means vaccinated individuals had a 27% higher hazard ratio (HR 1.27) for contracting influenza compared to unvaccinated ones, after adjusting for factors like age, sex, job type (e.g., clinical nursing), and work location.

The study addressed potential biases by examining testing rates. Vaccinated employees were more likely to get tested, but the proportion of positive tests was similar between groups, suggesting the higher infection rate wasn’t due to testing differences but actual increased susceptibility.

A Simon-Makuch plot showed that early in the season, infection rates were similar, but they rose more rapidly among the vaccinated over time.

Keep reading

Lawsuit claims Covid vaccine injury compensation program violates Constitution

Two women, with support from Children’s Health Defense (CHD), are suing the government agency that oversees the compensation program for Covid vaccine injuries.

Angela K. McInish and Christina Gay Fible say they developed debilitating injuries after receiving Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines. They allege the program violated their constitutional rights by setting eligibility criteria so restrictive that neither woman qualifies for compensation.

The lawsuit, filed against the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA), challenges the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), alleging it violates constitutional due process and equal protection guarantees by leaving injured individuals with no legal remedy.

CICP was established under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act and processes claims for injuries related to medical countermeasures, including Covid vaccines, administered during a public health emergency.

The PREP Act shields Covid vaccine manufacturers, healthcare workers, and others who administer the shots from liability for most injuries. As a result, people injured by Covid vaccines cannot sue in regular court and must file a claim with CICP within 12 months of injury.

CICP says it “provides compensation for covered serious injuries or deaths.” However, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Ray Flores, said the program’s definition of “serious physical injury” is arbitrary.

Keep reading

Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla Ordered to Testify in Dutch COVID Vaccine Injury Lawsuit

Bill Gates and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla will have to appear in person in the Netherlands to testify at a hearing in a COVID-19 vaccine injury lawsuit, a Dutch court ruled late last month.

The court order relates to a lawsuit filed in 2023 by seven people injured by COVID-19 vaccines. One of the victims has since died.

The lawsuit centers around the question “of whether the COVID-19 injections are a bioweapon,” Dutch newspaper De Andere Krant reported. In addition to Gates and Bourla, the suit names 15 other defendants, including former Dutch prime minister and current NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Dutch state, and several Dutch public health officials and journalists.

De Andere Krant said last month’s ruling “is a significant setback for the defendants, who are accused of misleading victims about the ‘safety and effectiveness’ of the vaccines.” However, it “remains to be seen” whether the defendants will comply with the court’s order and appear at next year’s hearing.

The defendants may face additional legal challenges in Dutch courts in the new year. A second lawsuit, filed in March by three COVID-19 vaccine injury victims in the Netherlands, presents a similar set of allegations and names the same defendants.

At a press conference last week, Dutch attorney Peter Stassen, who represents the vaccine-injured plaintiffs in both cases, earlier this month petitioned the courts in both cases to hear in-person testimony by five expert witnesses regarding the safety and efficacy of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

According to Stassen, oral hearings will be held in both cases next year, but hearing dates have not yet been scheduled. Stassen seeks to consolidate the cases.

Keep reading

Infant Vaccination Increases Death Risk by Up to 112% vs Unvaccinated

A new study by Drs. Karl Jablonowski and Brian Hooker of Children’s Health Defense titled, Increased Mortality Associated with 2-Month Old Infant Vaccinations, analyzed linked Louisiana Department of Health immunization and death registry data to evaluate whether routine 2-month infant vaccinations (administered at 60–90 days of life) are associated with mortality in the subsequent month (90–120 days).

Using individual-level records from 1,225 infants who later died before age three, investigators compared infants vaccinated in the 2-month window with those unvaccinated during the same period, while holding age-at-death constant.

Infants vaccinated at 2 months showed consistently higher odds of death in the following month, with statistically significant risk increases spanning individual vaccines, cumulative exposure, sex, race, and combination products.

Most alarming, infants who received all six recommended 2-month vaccines had a 68% higher odds of death overall (OR = 1.68; p = 0.0043), with the risk surging to +68% in Black infants and +112% in female infants (OR = 2.12; p = 0.0083).

Keep reading

Fauci Warns “Normalization Of Conspiracy Theories Threatens Democracy”

Dr. Fauci warns the “normalization of untruths and conspiracy theories” could collapse democracy.

“Do not accept the normalization of untruths as something that’s normal… from things as ridiculous as that COVID vaccines have killed more people than COVID.”

“And when you normalize untruths, then no one knows what really is true.”

“And guess what? When you look at history, when that happens, that’s when democracies fall apart.”

This clip is from a conversation with Dr. Anthony Fauci at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, as part of the Dr. Lawrence H. and Roberta Cohn Forum series.

It was moderated by Bailey Bowcutt, a PhD candidate at the school, and focused on Fauci’s career in public health, including topics like communicating science and addressing misinformation.

Keep reading

Our CENSORED Study Showing mRNA Injections Induce Severe Genetic Disruption Linked to Cancer and Chronic Disease Is Now Peer-Reviewed and Published

Finally, we declare a major victory against the Academic Journal Cartel and their PubPeer Mob enforcement apparatus.

Earlier this year, our landmark study—“Synthetic mRNA Vaccines and Transcriptomic Dysregulation: Evidence from New-Onset Adverse Events and Cancers Post-Vaccination”— became one of the most-read and most-downloaded preprints in the world.

Shortly thereafter, it was abruptly withdrawn by MDPI for a vague and unexplained reason.

It was also wiped from ResearchGate, leaving no trace of this important study behind.

We identified that this unethical removal was likely the result of coordinated Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex pressure and PubPeer mob attacks, intended to shield the deadly mRNA platform.

Their efforts have failed miserably.

Now, our landmark study — Synthetic messenger RNA vaccines and transcriptomic dysregulation: Evidence from new-onset adverse events and cancers post-vaccination — documenting severe, long-lasting transcriptomic disruption following COVID-19 mRNA injections has been officially peer-reviewed and published in the World Journal of Experimental Medicine, a PubMed.gov indexed journal.

The study was conducted by scientists from Neo7Bioscience (Dr. John Catanzaro, Dr. Natalia von Ranke, Dr. Wei Zhang, Dr. Philipp Anokin), the McCullough Foundation (Dr. Peter McCullough and Nicolas Hulscher) and Medicinal Genomics (Kevin McKernan).

Using high-resolution RNA sequencing of blood samples and differential gene expression analysis, we found that COVID-19 “vaccines” severely disrupted the expression of thousands of genes—inducing mitochondrial failure, immune system reprogramming, and oncogenic activation that persisted for months to years after injection.

Keep reading