Tag: vaccine injury

Organ-Specific Harms from the COVID Vaccines and Ingredients

I wrote the most thoroughly researched book to date on the mechanisms of harms to multiple bodily organs and systems following the COVID vaccines, especially the mRNA vaccines. That is in its 3rd edition, Neither Safe Nor Effective: The Evidence Against the COVID Vaccines, in which I cite over 1,000 studies from the peer-reviewed published medical literature. https://www.amazon.com/Neither-Safe-Nor-Effective-Evidence/dp/B0F1ZJGYKG

I have to admit that it is hard to follow these studies on either e-book or print format. So I summarized some of the largest studies involving the major organ systems affected, in the following tables. The 4th column in each of the tables below directs the reader to either the PMC number or a link to the study on PubMed in the footnotes following the tables. “PMC 1234567” for example should go directly to that study from a Google search. The last two columns in the tables below list the page and endnote in my print book, for another way of arriving at the same studies.

Keep reading

Lawyer Suing Gates & Bourla for Covid VAX Injuries Arrested and Imprisoned in Netherlands

In a stunning expression of the Globalist-Fascist takeover of the Netherlands, the Netherlands police have arrested Arno van Kessel, the lead attorney suing Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, Mark Rutte et al. for COVID-19 vaccine injuries.

The civil process was scheduled to begin on July 9; Mr. van Kessel was arrested in a Gestapo-reminiscent early morning raid by paramilitary police on June 11, where he was reportedly blindfolded, bound, and taken into detention, where he remains almost two months later.

Readers will note my tardiness in reporting this stunning story. The reason is because both the European and the American press have completely ignored both the civil trial against Gates, Bourla, Rutte et al. and van Kessel’s arrest.

I knew nothing about van Kessel’s arrest until last night, when my co-author, Dr. Peter McCullough, forwarded to me a report by INFOWARS journalist, Adan Salazar. Once again, the so-called “conspiracy theorist” Alex Jones has proven to be one of the first guys to report the shocking reality of what is going on.

Salazar’s report prompted me to do a Google Netherlands search with the key words Arno van Kessel gearresteerd — that is, “Arno van Kessel arrested”—and I got one search result for a June 27 report in an independent online journal called Der Andere Krant (The Other Newspaper). The following is an English translation.

Arno van Kessel will be held in custody for an additional ninety days because the Public Prosecution Service continues to designate him as a “suspect in an investigation into a criminal network,” yet without presenting any evidence. This means the Leeuwarden lawyer will definitely not be present at the public hearing on July 9th in the Leeuwarden District Court, where the first substantive hearing in the internationally high-profile case against, among others, the State of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, and Bill Gates is scheduled. His partner, Peter Stassen, is on his own, but says he will “appear fully equipped.”

In early June, this newspaper reported that there was finally some progress in the internationally high-profile lawsuit by Leeuwarden lawyer Arno van Kessel https://deanderekrant.nl/nieuw-hoofdstuk-in-rechtszaak-tegen-bill-gates-en-mark-rutte/and his Eindhoven colleague Peter Stassen. In 2023, the legal duo announced they would file legal proceedings against Bill Gates, Mark Rutte, and the Dutch State, among others. On behalf of their clients, they want to force the judge to issue a clear ruling on the question: was the COVID-19 mRNA injection a vaccine for the benefit of the population’s health, or a bioweapon? Van Kessel said: “It’s one or the other, and there’s no in between.”

The Northern Netherlands District Court, Leeuwarden location, announced in early June 2025 – finally – that the first substantive hearing of the case is scheduled for July 9th. On Wednesday morning, June 11th, there was a completely unexpected turn of events. Arno van Kessel was dragged from his bed early in the morning by a special intervention team with a considerable display of force. The lawyer, his daughter, and his wife were even briefly held at gunpoint.

A day later, the police published a report on the website politie.nl linking Van Kessel to “a criminal network.” According to a press release issued by the Public Prosecution Service, eight people were arrested that morning for “adhering to anti-institutional ideology and possibly intending to use violence.” One of them was quickly released, while the other seven were held in restricted custody for two weeks, meaning the suspects were not allowed any contact with the outside world. Van Kessel – as was announced last week – was being held in a cell in Vught.

In recent weeks, several stories have appeared in the mainstream media about a network of so-called sovereigns. These “anti-institutionalists” may have been planning something related to the NATO summit. Weapons and explosives may have been found, but any hard evidence or substantiation remains lacking to this day. The suggestion that Van Kessel is also part of a dangerous criminal group has been raised. The charges have since been partially withdrawn. The AD newspaper reported last week that the Public Prosecution Service has been unable to substantiate a plan to disrupt the NATO summit. “We have investigated whether there is an imminent threat. This has not been proven.”

On Thursday, June 26, the Public Prosecution Service released more news after a long silence. One suspect has been released, but “six suspects in the investigation into a criminal network, in which a large proportion of the arrested suspects espouse anti-institutional ideology and may have the intention to use violence, will remain in custody for an additional 90 days,” the Public Prosecution Service announced. Van Kessel is one of those suspects who will remain in custody for another 90 days. The Public Prosecution Service states that it needs more time for the investigation and that “given the state of the investigation, it is not possible to respond substantively to questions about the progress, suspicions, and findings,” according to the Public Prosecution Service.

Keep reading

New bill dismantles vaccine liability shield, seeks justice for the injured

For nearly four decades, vaccine manufacturers have operated with near-total legal immunity, shielded from accountability when their products injure or kill. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986—sold as a way to ensure vaccine availability—has instead become a corporate protection racket, denying justice to thousands of families while allowing pharmaceutical giants to profit without consequence. Now, a bold new bill, H.R. 4668—the End the Vaccine Carveout Act—introduced by Rep. Paul Gosar, seeks to dismantle this corrupt system, restoring the right of injured individuals to sue vaccine manufacturers directly. If passed, this legislation could finally force the industry to answer for its failures, remove dangerous products from the market, and compensate those who have suffered in silence for far too long.

Key points:

  • The 1986 NCVIA granted vaccine manufacturers blanket immunity from lawsuits, funneling injury claims into a flawed federal compensation program (VICP) that rejects nearly half of all cases.
  • The VICP operates as a “kangaroo court,” with strict criteria that prevent most families from receiving justice, while manufacturers face zero financial or legal consequences.
  • COVID-19 vaccines were further shielded under the PREP Act, preventing victims from suing—but H.R. 4668 would remove this protection.
  • The bill eliminates the statute of limitations for filing claims, allowing retroactive cases and giving families long denied justice a chance at restitution.
  • Vaccine manufacturers have avoided rigorous safety testing, relying on short-term studies and non-inert placebos, while enjoying guaranteed profits from government-mandated schedules.

The 1986 betrayal: How Congress sold out families to protect Big Pharma

The origins of the NCVIA trace back to the early 1980s, when lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers—particularly over the DTP (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis) vaccine—began piling up. Parents of children left with seizures, brain damage, and even death were winning multi-million-dollar settlements, threatening the financial stability of pharmaceutical companies. Instead of demanding safer vaccines, Congress caved to industry pressure, passing a law that stripped families of their right to sue.

Under the NCVIA, all injury claims were redirected to the VICP—a system critics call a “kangaroo court” where the deck is stacked against victims. The burden of proof is impossibly high, the definitions of “vaccine injury” are arbitrarily narrow, and the process drags on for years. Even when families win, compensation is often a pittance compared to the lifelong medical costs of caring for an injured child. Meanwhile, manufacturers continue raking in billions, shielded from any real accountability.

A rigged system: How the VICP denies justice

The VICP is not a court—it’s a bureaucratic maze designed to protect the industry. Unlike civil lawsuits, where discovery processes and jury trials expose corporate misconduct, the VICP operates behind closed doors. Cases are decided by a “Special Master,” not a judge, and plaintiffs are barred from presenting key evidence. Worse, the program is funded by a 75-cent excise tax on each vaccine dose—meaning the public, not the manufacturers, foots the bill for injuries.

Consider the case of Hannah Poling, a child who developed autism and encephalopathy after receiving nine vaccines in a single day. Though the government conceded her injuries were vaccine-related, her family spent years fighting for compensation. Thousands of others aren’t so lucky—their claims dismissed outright because their child’s condition isn’t on the VICP’s narrowly defined “injury table.”

COVID-19 vaccines: The ultimate liability scam

The PREP Act, passed in 2005, expanded Big Pharma’s liability shield to include “countermeasures” during public health emergencies—like COVID-19 vaccines. This meant that even as reports of heart inflammation, blood clots, and neurological damage surged, victims had no legal recourse. H.R. 4668 would strip COVID-19 vaccines of this special protection, allowing injured individuals to sue manufacturers directly.

Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson have made billions while dodging accountability. Internal documents reveal they knew about risks—like myocarditis in young males—yet downplayed them. Under the current system, they face zero consequences. But if H.R. 4668 passes, the floodgates could open, forcing these companies to answer for their negligence in real courts, before real juries.

Keep reading

Calls Grow For Journal To Retract Danish Study After Corrected Data Show Link Between Aluminum And Vaccines

The authors of a recent Danish study widely reported on by mainstream media claimed they found no link between the aluminum in vaccines and autism.

However, corrected data added after the study’s original July 15 publication date show the authors got it wrong — in fact, the data in the study of 1.2 million children clearly indicate a link between aluminum in vaccines and autism, according to scientists with Children’s Health Defense (CHD) who reviewed the study and the corrected data.

On July 17, the Annals of Internal Medicine, which published the Danish study, added a disclaimer stating that it “included an incorrect version of the Supplementary Material at the time of initial publication.”

The updated materials are available with the link to the study at “Correction: Aluminum-Adsorbed Vaccines and Chronic Diseases in Childhood.”

CHD Senior Research Scientist Karl Jablonowski broke the news of the buried autism link on Monday’s episode of “Good Morning, CHD.” Today, Jablonowski told The Defender:

“According to the corrected data, nearly 10 (9.7) of every 10,000 children who were vaccinated with a higher dose of aluminum (compared to a moderate dose) developed a neurodevelopmental disorder — mostly autism — between ages 2 and 5.”

Keep reading

Vaccine Risk vs. Disease Risk

Imagine you’re a parent considering the CDC’s vaccine schedule: 43 shots with somewhere around 63 doses of vaccine your child is supposed to get by age 18—measles, flu, Covid, the works. You’ve heard the pitch: vaccines save lives, protect the herd, keep diseases in check. But you may naturally wonder: What’s the actual risk to my kid from all these shots when compared to the diseases they’re meant to stop?

Here’s the catch—no one’s ever put out a full, public breakdown of those cumulative odds, assuming vaccines even work as advertised. (Spoiler: they don’t always—Covid shots don’t stop infection or spread, some vaccinated people still catch measles, mumps, and flu today, and all of the last cases of polio in the US were caused by the vaccine.)

Enter Grok, an AI from xAI, which I asked to crunch the numbers. Grok is imperfect, and yet it can still provide us a window and the best idea we, as outsiders, can get to arrive at ballpark numbers and some insight into a vexing controversy.

The results?

On paper, using publicly available data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and other sources, vaccinating looks way riskier for your kid than skipping the shots in 2025. There are caveats, but I’ll examine this conclusion step by step, and explain why, when parents raise eyebrows, it’s not just unfounded conspiracy talk.

An obvious note to add here is that the numbers are so shockingly clear, this article will doubtlessly inspire immediate fake “fact checks” and effort to censor, launched by the usual suspects. The propagandists will crunch different odds and figures, and try to poke holes in this analysis to make it sound as though this is a complete misinterpretation. Debunked. Conspiracy Theory.

For example, they would doubtlessly rather utilize calculations that incorporate worst case scenario numbers from decades past when diseases were at their height, without taking into account a disease’s natural ebb and flow. They would rather look at disease toll from a time when there were fewer medical advancements to prevent disease spread and serious illness. And— fair enough on this one— they would prefer to use calculations that look at disease risk in the distant past when nobody was vaccinated, rather than look at the risk today with most people vaccinated. I’ll address that in this article.

In any event, I offer this simply for your own analysis and consideration, to add to the body of knowledge.

Keep reading

VAX EYE SYNDROME: Pfizer COVID vaccine spike prions enter the EYES and CORNEA, causing serious damage

The researchers focused on the corneal endothelium, the innermost layer of the cornea responsible for maintaining corneal clarity by pumping out excess fluid. Using specialized tools such as specular microscopy and Sirius corneal topography, they observed changes in corneal thickness, a decline in endothelial cell count and alterations in cell size and shape — indicators of stress or damage to this delicate structure.

Specifically, corneal thickness increased by approximately 14 micrometers (a 2 percent rise), which in itself is not harmful but could signal inflammation or fluid retention. More concerning was the eight percent drop in endothelial cell density — from 2,597 to 2,378 cells per square millimeter — still within the safe range for healthy individuals, but potentially risky for those with already compromised eye health.

The study also found that the vaccine led to increased variability in cell size, known as the coefficient of variation, which rose from 39 to 42. This suggests some cells may have died and others stretched to fill the gaps, a typical response to stress. Additionally, the percentage of hexagon-shaped cells, which are vital for maintaining a healthy endothelial layer, dropped slightly from 50 percent to 48 percent.

Although none of the participants reported noticeable vision issues during the two-month follow-up, scientists caution that these microstructural changes could have long-term consequences, especially for people with existing eye problems or a history of eye surgeries such as corneal grafts. If the damage to the endothelium is permanent or worsens over time, it could result in conditions like corneal edema, bullous keratopathy or corneal decompensation — disorders that may lead to chronic vision impairment or even blindness if untreated.

Despite these findings, the researchers did not advise against COVID-19 vaccination. They emphasized the need for ongoing monitoring and further long-term studies to determine if the observed changes persist or resolve over time. Importantly, the study confirmed a high likelihood that the changes were directly associated with the vaccine and not random occurrences.

This research adds to a growing list of safety concerns surrounding COVID-19 vaccines. In May, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded warning labels on Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to more clearly highlight the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young men aged 16–25.

While the short-term effects of the Pfizer vaccine on eye health appear to be mild, the study underscores the importance of ongoing post-vaccination surveillance and personalized medical care for individuals at risk. As evidence continues to evolve, health agencies and physicians may need to consider more tailored guidance for those with existing ocular conditions.

Keep reading

Everyone Should Be Closely Watching This VAERS Whistleblower Case

A significant COVID-19 accountability case is heading to discovery, establishing critical legal precedents regarding the requirement to report adverse events to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) while receiving federal funding. The COVID jabs have caused harm, including death, to millions, making this a crucial case to watch. Whistleblower Deborah Conrad, a dedicated Physician Assistant, was fired in 2021 by her employer, United Memorial Medical Center (Rochester Regional Health), for purportedly spreading “vaccine misinformation” and “over-reporting” of adverse events following the experimental mRNA COVID-19 injections. But hold on a second—upon examining the entire situation, it appears evident that Deb was, quite simply, “doing the right thing” and reporting adverse events to VAERS.

Nonetheless, Deb was fired in October 2021. She was unexpectedly chaperoned into a conference room, where she was interrogated and then escorted out without due process. Deb and her attorney, Warner Mendenhall, are currently suing Rochester Regional Health for damages, including back pay and civil penalties in violation of the False Claims Act. On June 11, 2025, in a triumph for those who have fought hard throughout the COVID-19 tyranny to protect their patients, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York issued a landmark ruling in favor of Deb, denying the hospital’s motion to dismiss the core claims in Deb’s False Claims lawsuit. This move opens the door for Deb’s case to proceed to discovery.

As highlighted by Mendenhall, the court determined that Rochester Regional Health had a significant obligation under its CDC COVID-19 Vaccination Program Provider Agreement to report serious adverse events to VAERS (never mind that the CDC itself looked the other way regarding injuries reported in its V-safe app). Indeed, the hospital’s failure to comply with this requirement—instead literally blocking Deb from reporting serious adverse events after the COVID-19 jab—while continuing to seek federal reimbursement constituted potential fraud against the government. Additionally, the court agreed that the detailed allegations provided by Deb sufficiently met the stringent legal standards for fraud claims, despite her lacking access to internal billing records. Furthermore, the court found that her retaliation claim could proceed, as it was likely she was terminated for attempting to expose the hospital’s non-compliance with adverse event reporting. Mendenhall wrote:

“This ruling is significant beyond just Deborah’s case. It establishes that 1) healthcare providers cannot ignore federal safety reporting requirements while continuing to collect taxpayer money; 2) the False Claims Act can be used to hold institutions accountable for COVID-related misconduct; and 3) whistleblowers who expose these practices have legal protection.

We estimate over 500,000 were killed by the shots, millions lost their jobs for refusing them, and Big Pharma received billions for dangerous and experimental treatments. This case reveals a legal pathway to begin holding the system accountable.

The case now moves to discovery, where we will seek the hospital’s internal “vaccination,” treatment, and billing records to uncover the full scope of unreported adverse events, which we believe are in the 1000s in this hospital system alone.”

Incredibly, while successfully managing to submit 160 VAERS reports, Deb’s case involves a shocking 170 serious adverse events that the hospital allegedly stopped her from reporting. Again, under the terms of their vaccine provider agreement and the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §3729, all COVID-19 vaccine providers were legally bound to report adverse events related to the jabs to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Thus, when Deborah observed several adverse events, including fatalities, following COVID-19 injections in both her own patients and in the patients of her peers, she took the initiative to compile and submit patient reports to VAERS in her spare time.

However, she soon faced pressure from Rochester Regional Health to “dial it back” and was advised to limit her reporting to only her own patients, excluding those treated by other providers. But the hospital didn’t stop there. It further urged her to “toe the company line” by supporting the experimental vaccine to minimize vaccine hesitancy, despite the hospital’s legal duty, again, under its agreement with the CDC in order to receive federal funding during the pandemic, to report vaccine-related injuries.

Keep reading

Thomas Massie’s New Bill Would Let People Sue Pharma for COVID Vaccine Injuries

Several years after the COVID-19 vaccine’s rollout, the only federal program that provides compensation for COVID vaccine injuries continues to process claims at a snail’s pace while rejecting most of those claims that it does decide.

As of June 1, only 39 people have received compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) for a COVID-19 vaccine injury. It has rejected another 4,338 claims. Some 9,423 people are still waiting for the federal government to even review their case.

The long wait times and high rejection rates have prompted some lawmakers to propose repealing the liability protections created by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which prevents people from suing COVID vaccine makers in state courts and leaves them dependent on the CICP as the only possible source of compensation.

That includes Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), who introduced a bill last week to repeal the liability shields in the PREP Act.

“The PREP Act is medical malpractice martial law,” said Massie in a press release. “Americans deserve the right to seek justice when injured by government-mandated products.”

Passed as part of a defense spending bill in 2005, the PREP Act was intended to shore up companies’ willingness to produce novel “countermeasures” in the wake of a public health emergency like a pandemic or bioterror attack by shielding them from civil suits.

The law allows the Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) to issue blanket liability waivers to countermeasures produced in response to a public health emergency. People injured from a covered countermeasure can pursue compensation through the CICP, but they can’t sue in state court.

In February 2020, then-HHS Secretary Alex Azar invoked the PREP Act’s liability shield for COVID-19 countermeasures, which covered then-yet-to-be-invented vaccines, masks, tests, and more.

Massie’s PREP Repeal Act would end those liability protections, thus opening up vaccine makers to personal injury lawsuits in state courts.

Advocates for the vaccine injured say any attention to their plight is welcome.

Keep reading

Florida Surgeon General Highlights Vaccine Injuries, Calls on NIH to Act

At a press conference at Florida State University in Tampa, Florida, Florida Surgeon General Dr Joseph Ladapo made an urgent call for the NIH program funding to help Americans injured by Covid-19 vaccines and expressed support for the May federal changes in the HHS’s restrictive Covid-19 vaccine recommendations.

On the Ground in Tampa: What Ladapo Really Said

I was invited to Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo’s press conference in Tampa on July 17, 2025. In contrast to how some mainstream outlets later portrayed it, the event centered on a call to recognize and research Covid-19 vaccine injuries, rather than a mere anti-vaccine screed. Dr. Ladapo – a physician and Florida’s top health official since 2021 – emphasized the urgent need to support those suffering adverse effects from mRNA Covid-19 shots. He praised recent federal moves to scale back mRNA vaccine recommendations for certain groups, but went further by asserting that these products “should not be used in any human beings,” given their safety profile. From my front-row perspective, Dr. Ladapo’s tone was measured yet resolute. He recounted how unusual it is, in his experience, to encounter so many post-vaccination issues. “When was the last time that you had a vaccine that literally almost every single person knows someone who had a bad reaction from it?” Ladapo asked pointedly.

Before the Covid era, he noted, he never personally knew a patient who was clearly vaccine-injured. “Now,” he continued, “there are very few people that I run into who either themselves have not had a bad reaction from these mRNA Covid-19 vaccines, or who don’t know someone who’s had a bad reaction.” 

This was a striking report that hung in the air – one supported anecdotally by nods from some attendees sharing their own stories. Dr. Ladapo stressed that adverse reactions have become distressingly commonplace, and he even bluntly called the Covid shots “terrible vaccines” as a result.

Keep reading

3 New Plaintiffs Ask to Join COVID Vaccine Injury Lawsuit Against Bill Gates

Three COVID-19 vaccine injury victims are asking to join a Dutch lawsuit against Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and 15 other defendants, alleging they misled the public about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.

The lawsuit was filed last year by seven COVID-19 vaccine injury victims, one of whom has since died.

According to a filing by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Peter Stassen, the three new victims “were healthy people” who began experiencing health problems after receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

“The applicants are of the opinion that the serious side effects that occurred after having the Covid-19 (mRNA) injections are the direct result of the content / composition of these Covid-19 (mRNA) injections,” the filing states.

Doctors have repeatedly refused to diagnose a link between vaccination and their injuries, Stassen said.

During a hearing today at the District Court of North Netherlands in Leeuwarden, Stassen also asked the court to approve five expert witnesses who will testify about the risks and dangers of the COVID-19 shots:

  • Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former U.S. assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
  • Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical research and development executive.
  • Joseph Sansone, Ph.D., a psychotherapist who is litigating to prohibit mRNA vaccines in Florida.
  • Katherine Watt, a researcher and paralegal.
  • Mike Yeadon, Ph.D., a pharmacologist and former vice-president of Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research unit.

Another proposed witness, Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., who agreed in January to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs, has since died. Boyle was a professor of international law at the University of Illinois and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.

Keep reading