Tag: vaccines

People injured or bereaved by Covid vaccines ‘speak in code online over censorship fears’

People left injured or bereaved from vaccines are being forced to speak in code online about their symptoms for fear of censorship, the Covid Inquiry has heard.

Baroness Hallett, the inquiry’s chair, was also told at a hearing on Wednesday that healthcare workers are afraid to speak out about side effects they have had from the jab, over fears they will be punished by their bosses.

It comes as campaign groups representing hundreds of people who suffered illness or lost loved ones after being vaccinated will be allowed to give evidence to the public inquiry.

Anne Morris KC, representing UK CV Family, Vaccine Injured Bereaved UK (VIBUK) and the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group, told the inquiry: “Censorship is a very real issue for the vaccine injured and bereaved.

“Their support groups have been shut down by social media platforms and their experiences censored by the mainstream media.

“They have to speak in code online for fear of having the only source of support taken away from them.”

She added: “They face stigma and abuse for sharing their symptoms in the context of the Covid vaccine, even being branded as anti-vax for sharing very real and medically proven vaccine injuries.”

The inquiry was told that those left genuinely injured or bereaved from vaccines are unable to express or record their experiences without being “misunderstood, misrepresented or used for somebody else’s agenda”.

A survey of UK CV Family members reported that 73 per cent have considered suicide, with a member of the group having taken his own life last August.

Keep reading

Journal Rejects Request To Retract Study Suggesting Negative COVID Vaccine Effectiveness

A scientific journal is rejecting a request to retract a study that found people who received a COVID-19 booster were more likely to become infected when compared to unvaccinated people.

Analyzing numbers from California’s prison system, a research group found that those who received one of the bivalent boosters had a higher infection rate than people who have never received a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Their study was published by the journal Cureus following peer review.

Each study has an author who fields questions and comments. They are known as the corresponding author.

Cureus confirmed that the study’s corresponding author has asked the journal to retract the article.

“I can confirm that we were contacted by the corresponding author with a request to retract. However, we have determined that there is no basis for retraction and therefore it will remain published,” Graham Parker-Finger, director of publishing and customer success for Cureus, told The Epoch Times via email.

The study was listed as beginning to undergo peer review on Aug. 16. Peer review finished on Aug. 23. The paper was published on Sept. 4. The peer review has not been made public.

Keep reading

‘Statistically Significant Increase’ In Myopericarditis And Single Organ Cutaneous Vasculitis Found After COVID-19 Vaccination

A large nationwide study of more than 4 million people in New Zealand identified a statistically significant association in two adverse events following vaccination with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

In the post-marketing safety study recently published in Springer, researchers examining 12 specific adverse events found an increase in myopericarditis during the 21-day period following both Pfizer vaccine doses. Myopericarditis describes two distinct inflammatory heart conditions that occur simultaneously, myocarditis and pericarditis.

The highest rate of myopericarditis was observed in the youngest participants under 39 years of age following the second vaccine dose—with an estimated five additional myopericarditis cases per 100,000 persons vaccinated regardless of age. Researchers also observed an increase following both vaccine doses in individuals aged 40 to 59.

“Our findings align with international postmarketing studies, case series reports, and cases detected through reports to New Zealand’s spontaneous system that identify an association between the BNT162b2 vaccine and myo/pericarditis, especially in younger people and after the second dose,” the researchers stated.

In addition to myopericarditis, the study found an increase in single-organ cutaneous vasculitis (SOCV) in the 20- to 39-year-old age group following the first vaccine dose. SOCV is a syndrome characterized by inflammation and damage to the skin’s blood vessels without the involvement of other organ systems.

Keep reading

Court Orders Facebook To Comply With Subpoena For Data On All Users That Broke “Covid-19 Misinformation” Rules

The District of Columbia (DC) Court of Appeals has rejected Meta’s appeal to quash a sweeping subpoena that demanded it hand over “documents sufficient to identify all Facebook groups, pages, and accounts that have violated Facebook’s COVID-19 misinformation policy with respect to content concerning vaccines” to the DC government.

Millions of users, many of whom made truthful statements that challenged the government’s Covid narrative, are likely to be swept up in this government data grab due to the scope of Facebook’s “Covid-19 misinformation” rules and the number of users that were impacted by them.

Facebook’s Covid-19 misinformation rules prohibited many truthful statements during the pandemic. For example, at one point claiming that “vaccines are not effective at preventing the disease they are meant to protect against” was banned — an assertion that health officials have now reluctantly admitted is true.

Even Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has acknowledged that Facebook censored truthful information.

And millions of people were impacted by these far-reaching censorship rules. In some quarters, Facebook censored over 100 million posts for violating these rules. Some of the groups Facebook took down under these rules also had hundreds of thousands of users.

Meta had challenged the subpoena on free speech and privacy grounds, arguing that it violated the First Amendment and that a warrant was required to compel disclosure of the requested data.

Specifically, Meta argued that the subpoena violated Meta’s own First Amendment rights by “prob[ing] and penaliz[ing]” its ability to exercise editorial control over content on its platform and also violated Meta users’ First Amendment rights because it would deter them from engaging in future online discussions of controversial topics.

Additionally, Meta cited the warrant requirements in the Stored Communications Act (SCA) — a law that sought to provide Fourth Amendment-like privacy protections by statute to communications held by third party service providers.

However, the DC appeals court rejected Meta’s arguments.

The court stated that Meta had not shown the subpoena will result in its free speech or associational rights being chilled. Additionally, it said Meta users’ First Amendment rights wouldn’t be chilled because “the users who made those posts have already openly associated themselves with their espoused views by publicly posting them to Facebook.”

The court also insisted that the warrant requirement in the SCA does not apply to public posts and that the subpoena “does not require Meta to ‘unmask’ any anonymous Users.”

Furthermore, the court characterized this mass request for user data as “reasonably relevant” to the DC’s investigation and said the subpoena is “narrowly tailored to the government’s asserted interest.”

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

Keep reading

The real data behind the new COVID vaccines the White House is pushing

What if I told you one in 50 people who took a new medication had a “medically attended adverse event” and the manufacturer refused to disclose what exactly the complication was — would you take it?

And what if the theoretical benefit was only transient, lasting about three months, after which your susceptibility goes back to baseline?

And what if we told you the Food and Drug Administration cleared it without any human-outcomes data and European regulators are not universally recommending it as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is?

That’s what we know about the new COVID vaccine the Biden administration is firmly recommending for every American 6 months old and up.

The push is so hard that former White House COVID coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha and CDC head Mandy Cohen are making unsupported claims the new vaccine reduces hospitalizations. long COVID and the likelihood you will spread COVID.

None of those claims has a shred of scientific support.

In fact, if the manufacturers said that, they could be fined for making false marketing claims beyond an FDA-approved indication.

The questions surrounding Moderna’s new COVID vaccine approved this week are still looming.

Keep reading

IT’S BACK! Providence Hospital System Imposes Draconian Mandatory COVID Vaccine for Healthcare Workers – Non-Compliance Results in Unpaid Leave and Potential Termination

Providence Hospital System has just dropped a bombshell on its employees in a move that can only be described as Orwellian.

The healthcare giant announced on its InOurCircle app—a platform designed for employees to “stay up-to-date on company news”—that all workers (including those who are vaccinated and boosted by previous shots) are now required to receive the latest COVID-19 vaccine. And get this: failure to comply could result in unpaid leave or even job termination!

According to the announcement, all employees are now required to receive the latest COVID-19 vaccine, which was recently granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). The updated mRNA vaccines were approved on Tuesday, September 12 and are expected to be available soon.

“PROVIDENCE FAMILY OF ORGANIZATIONS – We’ve all heard that cases of COVID-19 are on the rise and the latest updates to COVID-19 vaccines are proving effective at preventing serious illness from the latest strains. We updated our COVID-19 Vaccination Policy and caregivers need to receive the most up-to-date COVID-19 vaccine available,” according to the post obtained by X user Chester Tam.

Keep reading

FDA Authorizes New Covid-19 Shots From Pfizer, Moderna

Now that only the most mentally unstable liberals are demanding that the government protect them from near certain death by forcing them to wear face diapers that don’t – and have never – worked, on the afternoon of September 11 US drug regulators – many of whom are undoubtedly hoping to get a job offer at either Pfizer or Moderna as soon as they quit the public sector – authorized new COVID-19 vaccines to try to counter the poor effectiveness the current slate provide.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared shots from Moderna and Pfizer that will be available to Americans as young as 6 months of age later this month. It’s a different question if anyone will take said shots following the recent newsflow suggesting that the side effects of the covid shots are far more dangerous than the so-called “vaccine” which doesn’t actually prevent infection.

“Vaccination remains critical to public health and continued protection against serious consequences of COVID-19, including hospitalization and death,” Dr. Peter Marks, a top FDA official, said in a statement. 

“We very much encourage those who are eligible to consider getting vaccinated.”

The FDA approved the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines for people aged 12 and older. Regulators granted emergency authorization for the shots for people aged 6 months to 11 years of age. There was no mention of Novavax, whose vaccine is also available in the United States.

The shots target XBB.1.5, a subvariant of the Omicron virus variant. That subvariant has already largely been displaced by newer strains, including EG.5, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The authorizations came despite a lack of data from clinical trials.

Keep reading

Scientists hide details of questionable taxpayer-funded pro-vaccine study

In May of this year, your journal pubished 2023 a study purportedly monitoring for serious neurological adverse events connected to Covid-19 vaccine. The study was entitled: “Observational Study of Patients Hospitalized With Neurologic Events After SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination, December 2020–June 2021.” 

The study, funded by CDC, was conducted by researchers at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and New York Presbyterian Hospital in New York City. Although it is well established that side effects from vaccines and other medicine can arise years after the medicine is taken, the study scientists say they limited their examination to a six-week time period after a Covid-19 vaccine. They report looking at 138 people who had gotten vaccinated and then ended up hospitalized with any conditions on a list of neurologic conditions such as stroke, encephalopathy, seizure, and intracranial hemorrhage (bleeding). 

What got my attention was the odd conclusion. The study said that all 138 patients had “risk factors” or “established causes” for their illnesses, such as high blood pressure for stroke victims, and, therefore, this somehow, supposedly proves the vaccines are safe.

“All cases in this study were determined to have at least 1 risk factor and/or known etiology accounting for their neurologic syndromes. Our comprehensive clinical review of these cases supports the safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” reads the study discussion.

Surely these preeminent researchers understand the basic science that shows people with risk factors are more likely to suffer adverse events from medication. It is obvious that the fact that the patients had risk factors prior to vaccination doesn’t exonerate the vaccines at all; in fact, it potentially implicates the vaccines as yet another medicine that can add risks to people who already have illnesses— as do most Americans. Additionally, this conclusion raises eyebrows because it is well-established in literature that the vaccines are associated with a host of neurological events.*

I contacted the primary study author, Dr. Kiran Thakur, to see if it was I who was missing something. I asked: “The study seems to imply that because people who suffered certain neurological events shortly after Covid vaccination had risk factors, it exonerates the vaccines from blame. But did the authors consider that people with existing risk factors could be at greater risk for vaccine adverse events?” Instead of answering the question, Dr. Thakur replied: “Can you clarify the purpose of your questions (to be published, personal inquiry or otherwise).” When I told him it might be published, he went dark. When I persisted in asking if he would please respond, he finally answered: “Declining, thank you.” 

Why isn’t a legitimate scientist happy to answer a simple question about his work? What’s the big secret? 

Keep reading

Boosted People More Likely Than Unvaccinated to Be Infected: Study

People who received a new COVID-19 vaccine booster were more likely to contract COVID-19 than people who received no COVID-19 vaccine doses, according to a new study of prisons in California.

Researchers analyzed data from 33 state prisons from January to July 2023 to try to assess the effectiveness of the bivalent shots, which were introduced in the fall of 2022.

Among 96,201 inmates with data on COVID-19 testing and vaccination, researchers identified 2,835 cases.

They found that 1,187 of the cases were among people who had received a bivalent vaccine, versus just 568 cases among the unvaccinated.

The rest were among people who received only monovalent, or old vaccines. That group was excluded from further analysis.

While the population of bivalent recipients was higher than the unvaccinated—36,609 compared to 20,889—the rate of infection was still elevated in the bivalent group owing to nearly double the number of infections, the researchers found.

Infection rates in the group that received bivalent shots was 3.2 percent, over the 2.7 percent in the unvaccinated.

“The bivalent-vaccinated group had a slightly but statistically significantly higher infection rate than the unvaccinated group,” Dr. Robert Mayes of the California Correctional Healthcare Services and the other authors wrote.

Keep reading

‘I Regurgitated the Party Line’ – Cardiologist Regrets Pushing Vax After ‘Undeniable’ Rise in Heart Conditions.

Famed cardiologist Dr. Anish Koka has expressed his regret at “regurgitating the party line” on mRNA vaccines being “safe and effective” for young people, vowing he would never behave the same way in a similar situation.

Koka, a cardiology fellow at Jefferson Health – with degrees from Penn State and Temple University – said he “certainly saw an increase” in heart conditions at his Philadelphia clinic after mRNA vaccines were rolled out en masse, “…like many of us in the cardiology community did.”

“It’s undeniable,” he stressed.

Koka was especially regretful about his personal role in propagandizing for the vaccines: “Me running around saying it’s ‘safe and effective,’ and giving it to 17-year-olds, given that most of the patients that were in the vaccine studies weren’t 17-years-old — I wasn’t technically correct.”

“I wasn’t correct at all in saying it was safe and effective because there weren’t enough people in that group to say that,” he lamented, emphasizing that he “would not give it to low-risk people again. That was a mistake on my part.”

Keep reading