
You may be entitled to compensation…


Three children in the UK were left without a mother after she died from a massive stroke determined to be caused by blood clots that formed after she received the AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine, but Twitter is labeling conversations about this information taking place on the platform as “misinformation.”
Previously healthy Lucy Taberer, whose youngest is a five-year-old boy, succumbed to the consequences of the Covid shot 22 days after she was vaccinated. At first, the 47-year-old experienced mild side-effects, described in reports as common, to then develop a bruise, skin rash, and pain that the doctors at first dismissed as being caused by kidney stones.
In the end, it turned out that the victim’s reaction to the vaccine had been to develop blood clots that proved to be fatal.
Her death certificate reads that Taberer died of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and vaccine-associated thrombosis with thrombocytopenia.
Local media, including Leicester Mercury, reported about it, and Taberer’s step daughter tweeted a link to the story, but was quickly shut down by Twitter, which labeled the post as “misleading.”
To add insult to injury, she was advised to click another link, provided by Twitter’s “fact-checkers,” that would “explain” why health officials think Covid vaccines are safe “for most people.”

Doctors and scientists are seeing an increase in the reactivation of the chickenpox virus, known as varicella-zoster virus (VZV), following the COVID-19 injections.
The chickenpox virus is one of the eight herpes viruses known to infect humans. After a person contracts and recovers from chickenpox, the virus never leaves the body but lies dormant in the nervous system for life.
The chickenpox virus will show up as shingles, or herpes zoster (HZ) when it gets reactivated.
Federal health authorities claim that there’s no correlation between COVID-19 injections and shingles, but studies show that there is a higher incidence of shingles in people who’ve received the vaccine.
Israel was one of the earlier countries to publish a case series of six women (out of 491 participants) with an autoimmune disorder who developed shingles 3 to 14 days after receiving the first or second dose of Pfizer COVID-19 shot. None of the 99 participants in the control group developed shingles. The study was published in the journal Rheumatology in April 2021.
“To our knowledge, there were no reports of varicella-like skin rash or HZ in the mRNA-based vaccines COVID-19 clinical trials and our case series is the first one to report this observation in patients within a relatively young age range: 36–61, average age 49 ± 11 years,” the authors wrote.
They hoped that publishing the case series would “raise awareness to a potential causal link between COVID-19 vaccination as a trigger of HZ reactivation in relatively young patients with stable AIIRD [autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases].”
Covid-19 vaccination is going to lead to mass depopulation.
This is a pretty bold claim to make. ‘Your Government is trying to kill you’ is even bolder.
But unfortunately, these bold claims are now backed up with a mountain of evidence, and most of that evidence can be found in the confidential Pfizer documents that the U.S. Food & Drug Administration has been forced to publish by court order.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to delay the release of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine safety data for 75 years despite approving the injection after only 108 days of a safety review on December 11th, 2020.
But in early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered them to release 55,000 pages per month. They released 12,000 pages by the end of January.
Since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents on its website. The latest drop happened on 1st June 2022.
One of the documents contained in the data dump is ‘reissue_5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf’. Page 12 of the confidential document contains data on the use of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection in pregnancy and lactation.
Pfizer stated in the document that by 28th February 2021 there were 270 known cases of exposure to the mRNA injection during pregnancy.
Forty-six percent of the mothers (124) exposed to the Pfizer Covid-19 injection suffered an adverse reaction.
Of those 124 mothers suffering an adverse reaction, 49 were considered non-serious adverse reactions, whereas 75 were considered serious. This means 58% of the mothers who reported suffering adverse reactions suffered a serious adverse events ranging from uterine contraction to fetal death.

A total of 4 serious fetus/baby cases were reported due to exposure to the Pfizer injection.

But here’s where things get rather concerning. Pfizer state that of the 270 pregnancies they have absolutely no idea what happened in 238 of them.
A new peer-reviewed study published in the journal Andrology on June 17 vindicates another dark suspicion about COVID-19 vaccines: they harm male fertility. Specifically, researchers find declining sperm counts for up to five months after the second dose of Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 jab.
Previously, any legitimate questions about COVID-19 vaccination affecting fertility were dismissed using the perverse rhetoric of “there’s no evidence” (it’s dependent upon the advocates of a universally distributed medical product to prove it’s safe, not the other way around). Then, there was a published study that seemingly disproved any male fertility concerns.
“We now have evidence that should reassure you that the risk of immunization compromising your sperm count is extremely low,” Dr. David Cohen, a reproduction expert, told CNN.
“Because the vaccines contain mRNA and not the live virus, it is unlikely that the vaccine would affect sperm parameters,” stated study author Dr. Ranjith Ramasamy, director of the Reproductive Urology Fellowship program at the University of Miami.
After the publication of the study and positive support from the scientific community, all male fertility concerns were brushed aside. Anyone who dared question the parameters of the study or the longer-term effects was now relegated to a conspiracy theorist. As someone who generally doesn’t like to engage in speculation, I was not one of these people—but I vividly recall it happening.
There was one severe limitation of the study: it only looked at sperm counts before the first dose and 70 days after the second. What happens after two months remained a mystery, but a mystery not worth worrying about as we were told.
The new study published in Andrology tested beyond 70 days and tested sperm counts from men who donated sperm to three fertility clinics in Israel. The study had four phases: a pre-vaccination baseline control, and a short-term (15–45 days), intermediate (75–120 days), and long-term (>150 days) test.
In the first phase (15–45 days), no significant change in sperm concentration or motility was found.
However, the intermediate evaluation (75–120 days) showed a temporary 15.4 percent sperm concentration decrease, which led to a total motile count (TMC) reduction of 22.1 percent compared to the pre-vaccination baseline control. The study authors concluded that the immune response induced by the Pfizer vaccine “is a reasonable cause for transient semen concentration and TMC decline.”
This study isn’t without its limitations. There was no control group of unvaccinated sperm donors to compare to. Moreover, only relative reduction rates were given rather than absolute sperm counts. If the broader data paints an even darker picture, it’s possible it was obscured given the tremendous amount of public and institutional pressure to support the unchallengeable holy biotechnology (see the backlash Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg and colleagues faced for publishing the vaccine myocarditis studies).
The biggest unanswered question from this study is the reproductive side effects associated with a booster shot. Study participants were given a third dose, but data collection ended after the second shot. Moreover, this data is only for the Pfizer vaccine. As we’ve seen with myocarditis, the Moderna vaccine has severalfold (approximately three to five times) higher rates of myocarditis compared to Pfizer. If the differential vaccine damage for myocarditis in any way aligns with sperm count impairment, this would be a medical disaster.
Vaccine fanatics have always dismissed concerns as “conspiracy theory.” That vaccines are wildly ineffective at preventing transmission was once a conspiracy theory. Former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson was kicked off Twitter for making this claim, alongside other “misinformation.”
Robust evidence showing vaccines cause an unacceptably high rate of myocarditis in men has also been bizarrely challenged, ignored, and distorted (see Dr. Sanjay Gupta on The Joe Rogan Experience).
In a stunning development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) last week admitted — despite assurances to the contrary — the agency never analyzed the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines.
The admission was revealed in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by Children’s Health Defense (CHD).
In September 2021, I published an article in The Defender in which I used the CDC’s published methodology to analyze VAERS for safety signals from COVID-19 vaccines.
The signals were loud and clear, leading me to wonder “why is nobody listening?”
Instead, I should have asked, “Is anybody even looking for them?”
After that article was published, I urged CHD’s legal team to submit a FOIA request to the CDC about its VAERS monitoring activities.
Since CDC officials stated publicly that “COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring is the most robust in U.S. history,” I had assumed that at the very least, CDC officials were monitoring VAERS using the methods they described in a briefing document posted on the CDC website in January 2021 (and updated in February 2022, with minor changes).
I was wrong.
The lynchpin of their safety monitoring was to mine VAERS data for safety signals by calculating what are known as proportional reporting ratios (PRR’s).
This is a method of comparing the proportion of different types of adverse events reported for a new vaccine to the proportion of those events reported for an older, established vaccine.
If the new vaccine shows a significantly higher reporting rate of a particular adverse event relative to the old one, it counts as a safety signal that should then trigger a more thorough investigation.
The briefing document states, “CDC will perform PRR data mining on a weekly basis or as needed.”
According to the British Heart Association, there are about 500 cases of SADS in the UK each year.5 The British Office for National Statistics, on the other hand, show far fewer cases.6 The ONS lists a total of 128 cases of SADS (all age groups, whether listed as cardiac-related or unknown) in 2016, 77 cases in 2017, 70 in 2018, 107 in 2019 and 139 cases in 2020.
While data on SADS incidence for 2021 and 2022 are hard to come by, incidence has apparently risen sufficiently enough to cause concern in some countries. Before the pandemic, SADS was the acronym for sudden arrhythmia death syndrome, which was rare and with scant research on it except to mention that it accounted for about 30 percent of unexpected cardiac deaths among young people.7
But today, it’s no longer rare and SADS is virtually on steroids as the numbers of sudden deaths in young adults pile up around the world. The numbers are so concerning that in Australia, for example, the Melbourne Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute is setting up a new SADS registry “to gain more information” about the phenomenon.8,9
According to a spokesperson, there are approximately 750 SADS cases per year in Australia. In the U.S., the average annual death toll from SADS is said to be around 4,000.10
Since the rollout of the COVID jabs, the news has been chockful of reports of young, healthy and often athletic people dying “for no reason” and doctors claim to be “baffled” by it. Doctors and scientists in Australia are even urging everyone under the age of 40 to get their hearts checked, even if they’re healthy and fit.11
Any thinking person, on the other hand, can clearly see the correlation between the shots, which are now well-known for their ability to cause heart inflammation, and the rise in sudden death among young and healthy people.
A White House official on June 20 made a false claim about COVID-19 vaccines while encouraging parents to get their young children vaccinated.
Dr. Ashish Jha, the White House’s COVID-19 coordinator, said that “there have not been any serious side effects of these vaccines,” which is not true.
Severe allergic reactions, blood clotting, heart inflammation, and paralysis are among the serious side effects linked to the three COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States.
“There is a well-documented risk of myocarditis from the COVID vaccine, especially in young men and adolescent boys, and an elevated risk of clotting in young women with the Moderna vaccine,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, told The Epoch Times in an email.
“It’s not right for government scientific advisors to downplay documented risks of the vaccine because it ultimately undermines confidence in public health,” Bhattacharya added.
The White House did not return a request for comment.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to delay the release of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine safety data for 75 years despite approving the injection after only 108 days of safety review on December 11th, 2020.
But in early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered them to release 55,000 pages per month. They released 12,000 pages by the end of January.
Since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents on its website. The latest drop happened on 1st June 2022.
One of the documents contained in the latest data dump is ‘125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001 fa interim discontinued patients.pdf’.
The document provides a 112-page list of subjects who withdrew from the phase 1 clinical trial of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection, and provides a vague description as to why.
The first 14 pages list 102 subjects who withdrew from the study. This equates to an average of 7.2 subjects per page. So based on a further 93 pages detailing withdrawn subjects this equates to approximately 780 people who withdrew from the first phase of the clinical trial alone. The actual number could be slightly more or slightly less.
Many of the subjects mysteriously revoked consent to continue in the trial due to reasons such as re-reading the consent form and deciding it is not what they had originally agreed to.
You must be logged in to post a comment.