Before New Zealand’s covid vaccine rollout, 2,000 people attended A&E for chest pains in a year – now it is more than 30,000

A response to a freedom of information request, which in New Zealand is called an Official Information Act (“OIA”) request, showing chest pain and cardiac incidences in younger people has brought mixed responses from New Zealanders, most displaying an underlying sense of incredulity.

“Making sense of the scale of the disaster is hard,” Dr. Guy Hatchard says.  But “the OIA data for chest pain and cardiac events is not an isolated statistic.”

A follow-up survey of New Zealanders who had been diagnosed with mRNA vaccine-induced myopericarditis was conducted by Health New Zealand and, after delaying publishing the survey results for two years, the results were published this month.

The lack of information has had the effect of myopericarditis being greatly underdiagnosed or a diagnosis and clinical response delayed, even in some cases for years. Yet, this information deficit continues to this day.

“Well over 30,000 people [ ] will report to Accident and Emergency with chest pains this year, compared to just 2,000 pre-pandemic,” Dr. Hatchard says.

Keep reading

Covid Booster Shot Efficacy Becomes Negative After One Month — Study

A recent preprint study documented how the effectiveness of the Covid booster shots is not just non-existent, but negative, leading to boosted individuals having higher rates of Covid infection.

The researchers analyzed data from healthcare workers in the country of Georgia during the Omicron variant circulation between January to June 2022. The data demonstrated that in the first month after boosting, there was an effective result from the shot, but in the second and third months, that effectiveness went negative. In the fourth month that negative effectiveness rate got dramatically worse.

“Absolute VE [vaccine effectiveness] for a first booster was 40% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -56 – 77) at 7– 29 days following vaccination, -9% (95% CI -104 – 42) at 30 – 59 days, and – 46% (95% CI -156 – 17) at ≥ 60 days,” the study said in the ‘Results’ section.

Keep reading

Covid Vaccine Nanobot Detection Method Developed — Study

study recently posted on social media by BeyondBio CEO John Catanzaro and reposted by Dr. Peter McCullough detailed research into a novel detection method for the nanotechnology within the exotic Covid injections.

“In summary, we have demonstrated simple and efficient plasmonic-magnetic nanorobot-based SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection assay,” the study said in the ‘Conclusion’ section.

The researchers began by explaining how the novel pandemic led to exotic technology injections.

“The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has prompted an urgent demand for nanotechnological solutions towards the global healthcare crisis, particularly in the field of diagnostics, vaccines, and therapeutics. As an emerging tool for nanoscience and technology, micro/nanorobots have demonstrated advanced performances, such as self-propelling, precise maneuverability, and remote actuation, thus hold great potential to provide breakthroughs in the COVID-19 pandemic,” the study said in the ‘Abstract’ section.

They then went into their detection method for this exotic technology.

“Here we show a plasmonic-magnetic nanorobot-based simple and efficient COVID-19 detection assay through an electronic readout signal. The nanorobots consist of Fe3O4 [iron oxide] backbone and the outer surface of Ag [silver], that rationally designed to perform magnetic-powered propulsion and navigation, concomitantly the probe nucleic acids transport and release upon the hybridization which can be quantified with the differential pulse voltammetry (DPV) technique,” the study said in the ‘Abstract’ section.

Nanorobots, also called nanobots (a form of nanotechnology) are defined by the researchers.

Keep reading

Pfizer BioNTech COVID19 Solution Builds Mesogen Microchips When Left At Room Temperature. Exactly What We See In COVID Unvaccinated Blood From Shedding. Two Week Follow Up

I have shown extensive research on mesogen microchips that have self assembled in COVID19 unvaccinated blood. My work was built on Toxicologist Dr. Hildegard Staningers research on mesogen brain chips found in Targeted Individuals, published in 2012.

GLOBAL BRAIN CHIP AND MESOGENS Nano Machines for Ultimate Control of False Memories – Computer System For Collective Mind Control

Are Programmable Nanotechnology Biosensing Mesogen “Computer Chip” Devices Being Self Assembled In C19 Uninjected Blood ? How Dangerous Is Self Spreading Nanotechnology?

Nano Robot Swarm Self Assembly Of Nanotechnology Mesogen in C19 Unvaccinated Blood – Darkfield Live Blood Analysis

Darkfield Live Blood Microscopy Of A Discoid Mesogen Self Assembly Nanotechnology Device In C19 Unvaccinated Blood

Here is further video footage in the Pfizer BioNTech COVID19 Injection solution after 2 weeks left on room temperature on a slide. Ongoing nano and microrobotic swarming seen and in the center the outline of a mesogen is seen. This contains many microrobots and usually a polymer background.

Keep reading

Part 2 of the results of the Swedish bad batch analysis that confirms the Danish study – 3/4 of adverse events in Sweden were amongst women

Not so fun fact: 75% of Swedish adverse events were reported on behalf of women.

Not a single Danish newspaper is publishing these results. The research was crowd funded, instead of being compiled by government agencies – these agencies could give a rat’s hairy ass!

From this 18-minute video here.

Swedish pfizer side effects (youtube.com)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1… Reports of Batch-Dependent Suspected Adverse Events of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine: Comparison of Results from Denmark and Sweden https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39202… 2023, Nationwide study from Denmark Identified a batch-dependent safety signal for the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine 2024, Suspected adverse events (SAEs) Denmark and Sweden SAEs reported to national authorities”

Keep reading

Sudden ‘Unexpected’ Infant Death Increased Post-Covid Shot Rollout — Study

study published Thursday documented how sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) increased slightly during the Covid pandemic of 2020, after which a massive increase was documented following the Covid exotic technology injection rollout in 2021.

“In this cross-sectional study of 14,308 SUID cases, the risk of SUID and SIDS increased during the intrapandemic period (March 2020 to December 2021) compared with the prepandemic period (March 2018 to December 2019), with the greatest increases noted in 2021 (9% for SUID and 10% for SIDS). A marked statistically significant monthly increase in SUID from June to December 2021 was observed,” the study said in the ‘Findings’ section.

While there was an uptick in infant deaths beginning in July 2020, between June 2021 and December 2021 there was a massive increase of up to 14 percent. Notably, the lethal Covid injections generally rolled out around the start of 2021.

“Monthly assessments revealed an increased risk of SUID beyond the prepandemic baseline starting in July 2020, with a pronounced epidemiologic shift from June to December 2021 (ranging from 10% to 14%),” the study said in the ‘Results’ section.

The researchers defined these deadly syndromes as umbrella terms for dead babies. It should also be noted that there is now ‘post Covid vaccine syndrome‘.

“Sudden unexpected infant death is an umbrella term used to describe the sudden death of an infant younger than 1 year for whom the cause of death is not apparent prior to investigation. Deaths from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), which occur during sleep and remain unexplained after a thorough postmortem investigation, comprise more than one-third of SUID cases,” the study said in the ‘Introduction’ section.

Ironically, the researchers bypassed the elephant in the room and claimed that the cause of the 2021 increase came down to ‘altered infectious disease transmission’.

Keep reading

Journal Pressured to Retract Study on Covid-19 Vaccine Harms

Avaccine manufacturer based in India launched defamation proceedings against researchers who published a study that reported adverse events in people following Covid-19 vaccination.  

The manufacturer also sued the editor of the international journal that published the study and demanded that the offending article be retracted immediately.

The Peer-Reviewed Study

The study at the centre of the controversy is a post-marketing safety analysis (phase IV) of Covaxin, one of India’s homegrown Covid-19 vaccines.

The researchers concluded that serious adverse events of special interest (AESI) after vaccination “might not be uncommon” and that the majority of AESIs in people persisted “for a significant period.”

Of the 635 participants involved, one-third reported developing AESIs such as new-onset skin disorders, nervous system disorders, and menstrual and ocular abnormalities.

Serious AESI, such as stroke and Guillain-Barre syndrome, were experienced by 1% of participants, but no causal link could be established in the study.

The researchers called for “enhanced awareness and larger studies” to carefully examine the potential for long-term harms of the vaccine.

The study was published in the journal Drug Safety on May 13, 2024, after it was examined by two independent peer-reviewers and the editor of the journal.

Keep reading

Response To Critics Of Lee & Broudy (2024) On The Toxicity And Self-Assembling Technology In Incubated Samples Of Injectable mRNA Materials

Our article “Real-Time Self-Assembly . . . ” (Lee & Broudy, 2024) published in this journal has attracted attention from scholars, commentators, and professional fact-checkers from around the world, most of it featuring generous praise and some of it impassioned pleas for its authors to stick to their own areas of expertise. Our reply to the critics of this study is an attempt to address and accommodate scholarly critique and answer other concerns about our perceived lack of know-how to engage in such research. In this response, we suggest that a reflexive and singular focus on the declared components of the COVID injectables represents a bias of its own, and a lack of due diligence on our critics’ part. The “Nano– Bio–Info–Cogno (NBIC)” era of the 21st century (see Jamali et al., 2018) is an already very well-documented development (Cevallos et al., 2022; The White House, 2022), and our aim is to urge scholars to enlarge the critical lens they use to assess these phenomena. This broadening of perspective has direct bearing on science and scholarship, direct implications for the status of legacy biosciences, and requires inclusion in any explanatory framework, which we discuss briefly in this reply.

Introduction

Professor Ian Akyildiz, pioneer of the Internet of Bio-Nano Things (IoBNT), pointed out in an advanced technology symposium in 2023:

… the Bio-nanoscale machines [behind the IoBNT] are for injecting into the body … and that is going really well with these Covid vaccines. It’s going that direction. These mRNAs are nothing [other] than small scale, nano-scale machines. They are programmed, and they are injected [Akyildiz, 2023; also see Akyildiz et al., 2015].

In the article, “Real-Time Self-Assembly of Stereomicroscopically Visible Artificial Constructions in Incubated Specimens of mRNA Products Mainly from Pfizer and Moderna: A Comprehensive Longitudinal Study”, Lee and Broudy (2024) described the results of an observational and exploratory study of 54 samples of COVID injectable products, viewed under a stereomicroscope. The samples were incubated for up to 630 days and observed for both morphology and behavior.

Various self-assembling structures were found to form over time, some of which showed responsiveness to conditions of incubation, including a marked acceleration in development upon exposure to wireless radiation. In the context of relevant scholarly discussions in the diverse fields of interest, we noted that, “our observations suggest the presence of some kind of nanotechnology in the COVID-19 injectables” (in our abstract on p. 1180). We added that, “both the morphology and behavioral characteristics of these observed phenomena suggest that far from being pure (Finn, 2011 p. 138), these injectables are composed of, hitherto, undisclosed additional engineered components responsive to a range of internal and ambient forms of energy, all of which are traceable to and described throughout the scholarly literature” (p. 1229).

Reactions to the incubation study after publication have been offered by scholars and interested observers — some productive, others not. We are sincerely grateful to Professor Anne Ulrich (2024) for offering her thoughtful and detailed perspective on our efforts and, thus, confine our response to her analysis. As a professional of 35 years in the pharmaceutical industry and professor of organic chemistry, Ulrich has taken time to offer an alternate interpretation of our findings. We are heartened to see she takes no issue with the methods, noting that, “the experiments were carried out diligently and the resulting images are well documented” (p. 1244.7). Ulrich also agrees that the structures we observed to develop over time were formed from self-assembling nanoparticles.

The point of departure between our two interpretations concerns the nature of the nanoparticles from which the incubated structures formed. We proposed that the self-assembling components may be consistent with nanotechnologies relevant to the Internet of Bodies. Ulrich, in contrast argues that they arise from lipid nanoparticles and cholesterol ingredients in the modRNA injectable platforms. Absent compositional analysis, which is forthcoming, neither interpretation can be decisively ruled in or out based solely upon the observational data obtained to date. We remain open to disconfirmation should compositional analysis support Ulrich’s interpretation over ours. However, we maintain that our interpretation fits the extant observational data and appears consistent with the much wider range of relevant scholarly literature and research.

Keep reading

Robert Kadlec, Project Bioshield and mpox vaccines

In 2022, an outbreak of mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) garnered global attention, leading to a public health emergency declaration by the WHO.

In 2023, a new variant of the virus emerged, resulting in over 21,000 reported cases by August 2024. WHO declared the epidemic a public health emergency of international concern in August 2024.

The Project BioShield Act of 2004 aimed to defend against bioterrorism by accelerating the research and availability of medical countermeasures. This led to the development of Jynneos, the first approved monkeypox vaccine developed by Bavarian Nordic.

A second smallpox vaccine, ACAM2000, was approved for use against mpox by the US Food and Drug Administration last month.  This second vaccine is manufactured by the controversial Emergent BioSolutions.

Among ACAM2000 horrifying adverse effects is that the live vaccinia virus, which the vaccine contains, can be transmitted to persons who have close contact with the vaccinee causing the same horrific adverse effects, including death.

How could ACAM2000 have gotten approval in the first place?  Former US Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services (Preparedness and Response) Robert Kadlec and his connections might provide the answer.

Keep reading

Shocking CDC Revelation: COVID Vaccine Linked to 24-Year Lifespan Reduction – Is Your Health at Risk?

The long-term consequences of Covid-19 vaccination are now being realised…

Over a year ago, double vaccinated Australians were 10.72x more likely to catch Omicron than the unvaxxed. Now they are 20x more likely and the triply or more vaxxed are 35x more likely, as the latest NSW Health stats show (see below).

Meanwhile, the latest Cleveland Clinic Data and the latest US data analysed by Josh Stirling, founder of Insurance Collaboration to Save Livess and former #1 ranked Insurance Analyst, shows a really really disturbing trend.

The damage to health caused by each vaccine dose does not lessen over time. It continues indefinitely

In fact, CDC All-Cause Mortality data show that each vaccine dose increased mortality by 7% in the year 2022 compared to the mortality in year 2021.

So if you have had 5 doses then you were 35% more likely to die in 2022 than you were in 2021. If you have had one dose then you were 7% more likely to die in 2022 than you were in 2021. If you are unvaxxed then you were no more likely to die in 2022 than you were in 2021.

Keep reading