Tag: vaccine injury

The Study That Changes Everything: McCullough Foundation Drops Bomb on Autism Debate

The most comprehensive analysis of autism risk factors ever conducted just landed, and it’s about to blow up decades of carefully constructed lies. The McCullough Foundation Report titled “Determinants of Autism Spectrum Disorder” reviewed more than 300 studies across every known risk domain—genetic, environmental, and vaccine-related—and the conclusion is devastating for the vaccine cartel: combination routine childhood vaccination is the dominant modifiable risk factor for autism.

Let me be blunt: This isn’t another small study you can dismiss. This is 80 pages of systematically integrated evidence spanning epidemiologic, clinical, mechanistic, and molecular domains. This is Dr. Peter McCullough, cardiologist and epidemiologist. This is Dr. Andrew Wakefield returning to the scientific literature after years of being crucified by the pharmaceutical industry. This is a team of researchers who had the guts to do what the CDC has refused to do for decades—actually compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Keep reading

Pneumonia vaccine may raise risk of pneumonia

A new study published in BMC Infectious Diseases challenges current recommendations for the pneumonia vaccine. Researchers say people who received the shot were actually more likely to develop pneumonia.

“A landmark population-based study published in BMC Infectious Diseases has shattered the rationale for current pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) recommendations”

Nicolas Hulscher, M.P.H.

Nicolas Hulscher, M.P.H., discusses the findings on CHD.TV and says they could be used to push for changes in vaccine policy.

Watch the video here.

Read the study here.

Keep reading

The Truth About Excess Deaths Since COVID Vaxx Is Mind-Blowing!

Jimmy Dore and guest Dr. John Campbell discuss the rise in excess deaths following the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, arguing that mortality rates have remained unusually high even after the pandemic should have subsided.

Dr. Campbell explains that “excess deaths” refers to deaths occurring above the expected baseline, which is typically calculated from prior years’ averages, and notes that data transparency has declined in the U.K. since 2023.

The two suggest a possible temporal link between vaccine distribution and the increase in deaths, while acknowledging that definitive proof is lacking due to limited research funding and institutional resistance.

Both imply that governments and pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to investigate the issue, leaving independent researchers struggling to uncover the truth.

Explanation of Excess Deaths

Dr. Campbell defines excess deaths as the number of deaths observed in a given period that exceed the expected baseline, calculated from historical averages (e.g., 2015–2019 data). This baseline accounts for predictable mortality rates by age groups (e.g., so many deaths per 1,000 people aged 60–70 annually) and is generally stable, except during major events like wars or pandemics (citing historical spikes from the bubonic plague).

  • Pre-2020 Baseline: Used 5–10 years of data to establish “normal” annual deaths.
  • Post-2020 Observations: In the UK, early studies (via the Office for Health Care Improvement and Disparities, which ceased detailed reporting around 2023) showed deaths far exceeding this baseline in 2021 and 2022 across countries like the UK and US.
  • Counterintuitive Trend: After 2020’s high COVID deaths (which killed many vulnerable elderly), excess mortality should have dropped due to a “harvesting effect” (fewer at-risk people left). Instead, it rose sharply in 2021–2022, correlating temporally with vaccine rollout.

Keep reading

How Vaccine Brain Injuries Were Rebranded and Erased From Memory

I’ve long believed that public relations (propaganda) is one of the most powerful but invisible forces in our society. Again and again, I’ve watched professional PR firms create narratives that most of the country believes, regardless of how much it goes against their self-interests. What’s most remarkable is that despite the exact same tactics being used repeatedly on the public, most people simply can’t see it. When you try to point out exactly how they’re being bamboozled by yet another PR campaign, they often can’t recognize it—instead insisting you’re paranoid or delusional.

That’s why one of my major goals in this publication has been to expose this industry. Once you understand their playbook—having “independent” experts push sculpted language that media outlets then repeat—it becomes very easy to spot, and saves you from falling into the traps most people do. The COVID-19 vaccines, for instance, were facilitated by the largest PR campaign of our lifetime.

One of the least appreciated consequences of this industry is that many of our cultural beliefs ultimately originate from PR campaigns. This explains why so many widely believed things are “wrong”—if a belief were actually true, it wouldn’t require a massive PR investment to instill in society. Due to PR’s power, the viewpoints it instills tend to crowd out other cultural beliefs.

In this article, we’ll take a deeper look at what’s behind one of those implanted beliefs: “vaccines don’t cause autism.”

Keep reading

First Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Direct Molecular Evidence of mRNA “Vaccine” Genomic Integration

For the first time in the peer-reviewed literature— we present direct molecular evidence that genetic material from a COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” has integrated into the human genome.

In our sentinel peer-reviewed case report, Genomic Integration and Molecular Dysregulation in Aggressive Stage IV Bladder Cancer Following COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination—published in the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (John A. Catanzaro, Nicolas Hulscher, and Peter A. McCullough; a Neo7Bioscience–McCullough Foundation collaboration)—we describe a previously healthy 31-year-old woman who developed rapidly progressive stage IV bladder cancer within 12 months of completing a three-dose Moderna mRNA injection series.

Bladder cancer is exceedingly rare in young women, and such aggressive presentations are almost unheard of.

To investigate, we performed comprehensive multi-omic profiling, including plasma-derived circulating tumor DNA, whole-blood RNA, and urine exosome proteomics. What we uncovered was striking:

  • Direct genomic integration event: Within circulating tumor DNA, a host–vector chimeric read mapped to chr19:55,482,637–55,482,674 (GRCh38), in cytoband 19q13.42, positioned ~367 kb downstream of the canonical AAVS1 safe harbor and ~158 kb upstream of ZNF580 at the proximal edge of the zinc-finger (ZNF) gene cluster. This sequence aligned with perfect 20/20 bp identity to a segment (bases 5905–5924) within the Spike open reading frame (ORF) coding region (bases 3674–7480) of the Pfizer BNT162b2 DNA plasmid reference (GenBank accession OR134577.1).
  • Oncogenic driver hyperactivation (KRAS, NRAS, MAPK1, ATM, PIK3CA, SF3B1, CHD4) — unleashing uncontrolled proliferative and malignant signaling cascades.
  • Critical DNA repair pathway collapse (ATM, MSH2) — leaving the genome acutely vulnerable to instability, double-strand breaks, and catastrophic mutations.
  • Severe transcriptomic and proteomic disarray across plasma, blood, and urine biospecimens — consistent with systemic molecular breakdown.

Although the patient received only Moderna injections, the sequence aligned to Pfizer’s published BNT162b2 plasmid reference because Moderna has never deposited its proprietary plasmid in NCBI. Crucially, both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines encode the same prefusion-stabilized SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein and therefore share identical stretches of nucleotide sequence within the Spike ORF coding region. It is within one of these conserved regions that the integration was captured, producing the perfect 20/20 bp match to the Pfizer reference.

Keep reading

Bombshell Vax vs. Unvax Study Finally Sees the Light of Day — And the Results Are Staggering

Health journalist and film producer Del Bigtree has just released his new film An Inconvenient Study, which follows Bigtree’s years-long exchange with Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease at Henry Ford Health in Detroit, a doctor who is about as pro-vaccine as they come.

In 2016, Dr. Zervos crossed paths with Bigtree, who urged him to take on something public health had avoided for decades: a study comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

Dr. Zervos agreed, determined to prove Bigtree and other vaccine skeptics wrong. At the time, he vowed, “Whatever the results, they get published.”

Both the buried study and the film are now available for everyone to see.

Before diving into Zervos’s findings, the film laid out prior evidence raising serious questions about vaccine safety.

One striking example came from Dr. Peter Aaby. Once a vaccine believer, Dr. Aaby became a skeptic after discovering that the DTP vaccine he helped promote for African children led to 2.3 times higher mortality among the vaccinated.

Decades after launching the DTP program in Guinea-Bissau, Dr. Aaby realized only half the children there had received the shot — giving him a perfect comparative study between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

The DTP vaccine did protect against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, but there was also more than a twofold increase in overall mortality. The results stunned Aaby, who now speaks openly about what he discovered.

“It’s important to recognize that no routine vaccine was tested for overall effect on mortality in randomized trials before being introduced. I guess most of you think that we know what our vaccines are doing. We don’t,” he now teaches.

Keep reading

Vaccine Amnesia: Why Did The Media Stop Covering Vaccine Disasters?

A key theme I’ve tried to highlight in this publication is that the same medical catastrophes keep repeating (because those responsible are never held accountable), so by understanding what happened in the past, you can see and understand what is happening now and what will likely happen in the future.

For example, because vaccines are “risky but necessary,” the medical profession and government, again and again, concluded that they needed to tell the public all vaccines were “safe and effective” as the potential injuries a mass vaccination campaign would cause were outweighed by “necessary” benefit the vaccines could offer. As such, examples can be found again and again of severe injuries being systematically covered up for the “greater good” (e.g., the earliest documented example I know of this happened in 1874 with the smallpox vaccine) and health authorities concocting the same set of excuses we’ve seen since smallpox as to why those vaccines failed to prevent the diseases they were supposed to.

Since the risks outweigh the benefits for most vaccines (detailed here), a mass vaccination paradigm can only be sustained by censoring all evidence of harm, and then using that absence of evidence as proof the vaccines are safe. As such, over the decades, we’ve seen more and more be done to conceal those harms.

For example, as I showed here, for almost a century, severe neurological injuries following vaccination were routinely reported in the medical literature. Now however, vaccine injuries are censored, and it is virtually impossible to get anything critical of vaccines published in a “reputable” academic journal.

Likewise, despite the “science” saying vaccines are safe, it’s nearly impossible to get ahold of any raw dataset which could objectively answer that question—which Steve Kirsch awoke the public to throughout COVID-19 by publicizing the endless stonewalling he ran into during his relentless quest to get that data.

Note: VAERS, a publicly available injury database the public could submit to, was originally created as part of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to address an unwillingness by both doctors and vaccine makers to ever report injuries (and hence claim the absence of them was evidence they didn’t happen). Once the act was enacted, the media, government, and medical industry has done all they could to sabotage and disparage it (as they never wanted an open reporting system).

Oddly enough, one of the few datasets we got access to on the dangers of the COVID vaccines originated from South Korea, where electronic medical records from the national health insurance service (totaling roughly half of Seoul’s population) were analyzed, which revealed a large increase in many common disorders.

Keep reading

Aluminium in Vaccines Is Harmful

It has been surprisingly difficult to get an answer to a simple and highly relevant question: Is aluminium in vaccines harmful? After having studied the best evidence we have, the randomised trials, in great detail, I conclude that the answer is yes. 

Like lead, aluminium is a highly neurotoxic metal. We will therefore expect vaccines containing aluminium adjuvants to cause neurological harms if the aluminium enters the nervous system in neurotoxic amounts. 

The aluminium in the adjuvant is important for eliciting a strong immune response in non-live vaccines and their efficacy is related to their toxicity at the injection site.1-3 Immune-reactive cells engulf particles of aluminium adjuvant and distribute their load throughout the body, including to the brain, where they are killed, releasing their contents into the surrounding brain tissue where they can produce an inflammatory response.

The precise mechanism of action is not so important, but the data we have on the harms are, and they have been systematically distorted. 

False Information from the European Medicines Agency (EMA)

In October 2016, my research group complained to the European Ombudsman about the EMA’s mishandling of their investigation into the suspected serious neurological harms of the HPV vaccines.4 In his reply to the Ombudsman, EMA’s Executive Director Guido Rasi stated that the aluminium adjuvants are safe; that their use has been established for several decades; and that the substances are defined in the European Pharmacopoeia.5,6 

Rasi gave the impression that the aluminium adjuvants in the HPV vaccines are similar to those used since 1926. However, the adjuvant in Gardasil, Merck’s vaccine, is amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulfate, ‎AlHO9PS-3 (AAHS), which has other properties than aluminium hydroxide, the substance Rasi mentioned. Moreover, its properties are not defined in the pharmacopoeia. AAHS has a confidential formula; its properties are variable from batch to batch and even within batches. The harms caused by the adjuvant are therefore likely to vary. When we investigated whether the safety of AAHS has ever been tested in comparison with an inert substance in humans, we were unable to find any evidence of this. 

Rasi mentioned that the assessment of the evidence for the safety of the adjuvants had been performed over many years by the EMA and other health authorities, such as the European Food Safety Authority, the FDA, and the WHO. 

Keep reading

OSHA Admits It Told Healthcare Employers Not to Report COVID Vaccine Injuries

The federal agency that oversees workplace safety exempted healthcare employers from reporting workers’ adverse reactions to mandated COVID-19 vaccines, according to a healthcare industry whistleblower who alerted The Defender

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued the directive on June 28, 2021, to encourage vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The directive also stated that OSHA, a division of the U.S. Department of Labor, would not track workers’ COVID-19 vaccine adverse events — even though it acknowledged that the vaccines may cause injuries that would require employees to take time off work.

OSHA continued to track reactions to other vaccines.

A Labor Department official confirmed for The Defender that OSHA didn’t track COVID-19 vaccine injuries, and said those policies remained in place until February 2025.

OSHA also outlined its COVID-19 reporting policy on its website’s frequently asked questions page for COVID-19, which stated:

“OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA does not intend to enforce … recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination.”

The policy was removed from the website after The Defender contacted OSHA earlier this month. However, it is visible on an archived version of the webpage from Sept. 1, under the heading, “Vaccine Related.”

Zowe Smith, a former medical coder for an Arizona hospital, called OSHA’s policy “especially inflammatory” and “an admission they know the vaccine is not safe and carries a risk of injury serious enough to affect one’s ability to work.”

Legal and medical experts suggested OSHA’s policies may have concealed the true extent of COVID-19 vaccine-related injuries in the U.S., denied American healthcare workers informed consent and violated federal law.

Policies implemented under the Biden administration forced millions of U.S. healthcare workers to choose between getting the experimental COVID-19 vaccine or losing their jobs.

Keep reading

Devastating COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effect Confirmed by New Data: Study

In one of the greatest violations of medical ethics in modern history, a new study from South Korea has uncovered devastating consequences from promoting and mandating the COVID-19 injections on the population.

These shots were pushed on babies and pregnant women, directly contradicting the ethical rule against introducing new medical interventions to such vulnerable groups before long-term effects are fully understood.

But they weren’t just aggressively promoted; they were enforced. Refusing the COVID-19 injection could cost you your job, bar you from concerts, businesses, and museums, and, in some cases, even deny you a life-saving surgery unless you complied with the mandate.

Now, as many doctors long warned, the consequences of such reckless health policy are surfacing, and one of the most alarming outcomes is a dramatic rise in cancer risk.

A large-scale population study out of South Korea has now found a 27% overall increase in cancer linked to the COVID-19 injections that were marketed as “safe and effective.”

Dr. John Campbell noted: “There’s a one in a thousand chance that this result arose by chance.” He illustrated the overall cancer rise with a stark graph, as seen in the short video below:

Keep reading