The virus was safer than the vaccine. Whoops!

A quick summary of what we know so far

  1. The COVID vaccines were all downside risk for no benefit. The vaccine provided no protection against hospitalization or death, and actually increased your risk of getting COVID. So there was no benefit whatsoever.They all (except maybe Novavax) increased your all-cause mortality, something a vaccine is never supposed to do.
  2. Virus safer than the shots. The adverse event profile is, in general, much higher for those taking the jabs than for those infected with COVID.
  3. The medical community is willfully blind to the harms. It is appalling that the medical literature refuses to accept 1 and 2.
  4. COVID shots are not equally safe, but nobody will publish the relative brand safety data. There are significant mortality differences between the vaccine brands. It is beyond shameful that none of the health authorities anywhere in the world will expose the numbers or even want to see them. Hiding that safety information is not in the public interest.
  5. They need to stop hiding the data. As long as they keep the record level data secret on vaccines and mortality, nobody should take them.
  6. They need to acknowledge that fully unvaccinated kids are healthier. Every study in the peer-reviewed literature shows fully unvaccinated kids are healthier than their fully vaccinated counterparts.
  7. Vaccines are the primary cause of autism and a large number of chronic disorders. The data also points very strongly that vaccines are the major cause of sexual orientation and gender dysphoria conditions. A lot of people can’t accept that but the data is stunning and cannot be explained away.
  8. It’s hard to get the truth published nowadays. It is ridiculously hard to get a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal that goes against mainstream beliefs.
  9. The Czech Republic data where we found that Moderna increases all-cause mortality by 30%. If that’s wrong, what’s the right number and how come nobody knows what it is?
  10. You can’t keep hiding the truth. Sooner or later, however, we will see papers emerge that validate everything I’ve said above. I just can’t predict when that will happen.

Keep reading

World-Renowned Vaccinologist Publishes Paper Admitting Lack of Vaccine Safety Studies

In a stunning reversal, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, widely regarded as the godfather of modern vaccinology, has co-authored a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine1 (NEJM) acknowledging significant gaps in vaccine safety research and calling for increased funding to address these shortcomings.

This admission comes after decades of the medical establishment insisting that vaccines are among the most thoroughly studied and safest medical interventions. In the paper, titled “Funding Postauthorization Vaccine-Safety Science,”2 they make a series of revelations that validate concerns long raised by vaccine safety advocates. In a commentary, Aaron Siri, managing partner of New York law firm Siri & Glimstad, writes:3

“Wow. After decades of Dr. Stanley Plotkin and his vaccinologist disciples insisting vaccines are the most well studied products on the planet, they just penned an article admitting precisely the opposite.

They just admitted vaccines are not properly studied — neither prelicensure nor post-licensure. They admitted, for example, ‘prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations’ and that ‘there are not resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies.'”

Key Admissions Shine Light on Lack of Vaccine Safety Studies

One of the most striking admissions in the paper is the acknowledgment that prelicensure clinical trials for vaccines are inadequate for assessing safety. The authors state:4

“Postauthorization studies are needed to fully characterize the safety profile of a new vaccine, since prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes, follow-up durations, and population heterogeneity. It is critical to examine adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) that have not been detected in clinical trials, to ascertain whether they are causally or coincidentally related to vaccination.”

This contradicts previous claims by vaccine proponents that clinical trials provide robust evidence of safety prior to approval. The admission that these trials have limited follow-up periods is particularly notable, as critics have long argued that potential long-term effects of vaccines are not adequately studied before they are approved and recommended for widespread use.

“Let me translate,” Siri writes, “the clinical trials relied upon to license childhood vaccines are useless with regard to safety since they virtually never have a placebo control, typically review safety for days or weeks after injection, and often have far too few participants to measure anything of value.”5

Keep reading

Meta-Analysis Finds Massive Failure of COVID-19 Vaccines to Stop SARS-CoV-2

Virtually every vaccinated person I meet has contracted COVID-19. Many still believe vaccination was worth the risk because they did not end up in the hospital in 2021 through the present day. Vaccine-takers tended to be younger working age individuals who were mandated by work or school, and therefore healthier than those not forced into taking the jab. In my practice, the senior citizens who took the vaccine tended to be healthier and far more worried about COVID-19. They were the first to get early treatment for the illness. Finally, we all saw COVID-19 illness become far milder on the second, third, and fourth infections because of natural immunity as we were faced with milder strains. So in the midst of this confounded set of relationships, how did the COVID-19 vaccines perform?

Wu et al, published a meta-analysis of 68 studies evaluating efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination. Keep in mind only favorable studies were accepted by editors. The results indicate a stunning failure of vaccination. Because the data are not from high-quality, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trials, and publication bias, we must be conservative and consider the lower-bound of the confidence interval as the statistic of interest. This means that vaccine performance could be as bad as that number.

Keep reading

What the Australian excess deaths inquiry refused to publish

A committee investigating potential causes of Australia’s record excess deaths has refused to publish a comprehensive interdisciplinary submission by the Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS), of which I am a contributor.

Since 2021, Australia has experienced excess mortality at rates not seen outside of wartime. Not all of it is due to Covid. Therefore, the Australian Parliament established the world’s first excess deaths inquiry to get to the bottom of what’s causing so many more Australians to die than would normally be expected.

The AMPS submission includes :

  • Evidence of an uptick in all-cause mortality (ACM) with the introduction of Covid vaccines to a zero Covid community,
  • An estimate of the true contribution of Covid to excess deaths (29% at most),
  • An estimate of the true number of Australian cumulative excess deaths throughout 2021-2023 in the ballpark of 40,000 as opposed to the official Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimate of 29,601,
  • Discussion of how the ABS drastically reduced its excess deaths estimate overnight by changing its baseline modelling,
  • Evidence that Covid vaccine injuries and deaths are under-reported in official record keeping,
  • A review of the Australian Government’s unscientific response to the Covid pandemic and its detrimental impact on health outcomes, likely contributing to excess deaths,
  • And evidence that deaths in the vaccine arm of the Pfizer trial were concealed prior to the US Emergency Use Approval (EUA) data cut-off date, plus evidence of a 3.7-fold increase in cardiac events in vaccinated vs. placebo arm subjects.

After AMPS made its submission to the inquiry earlier this year, the organisation was invited to testify at a public hearing. This resulted in some rather explosive content going in the public record, including Dr Jeyanthi Kunadhasan asking the committee,

“If the clinical sponsor can hide deaths and autopsy results, ignore a sudden adult death and cardiac event signal in the clinical trial, with the regulator waving this along, what else can they hide?”

Keep reading

Study of 125 Countries Finds ‘No Apparent Benefit’ From COVID Vaccines

A new study by a team of Canadian researchers into excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic found that patterns of excess death globally could not be explained by the virus, including long COVID.

The study, by researchers with Correlation Research in the Public Interest, examined excess mortality in 125 countries during the pandemic. It found that mortality patterns correlate closely with the imposition of restrictions such as lockdowns and with the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

The investigation determined that pandemic-related restrictions resulted in 30 million deaths globally and that 17 million deaths can be attributed to the COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers concluded that “nothing special would have occurred in terms of mortality had a pandemic not been declared and had the declaration not been acted upon.”

Joseph Hickey, Ph.D., one of the paper’s co-authors and president of Correlation, joined “The Defender In-Depth” this week to discuss the study’s findings and analyze the likely causes contributing to increases in excess deaths and overall mortality.

Excess death data ‘not compatible’ with ‘particularly virulent special pathogen’

Hickey explained that “all-cause mortality” refers to “the number of deaths without filtering by the cause of death” during a given period, while “excess deaths” refers to “how many deaths occurred that are above and beyond what would have been predicted” for a certain period.

Hickey and the study’s co-authors analyzed pre-pandemic raw data from 2015 to 2019, and data collected between 2020 and 2023. Hickey said the data, collected from 125 countries, found “a large amount of excess deaths.”

“We calculate that over the COVID period … about 0.39% of the global population died in excess. That compares to about 0.97%” during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918.

Hickey said this was “the largest non-war mortality event in 100 years” globally.

Keep reading

Vaccine by Cop

Heads up New Zealand

Every person alive right now PAY ATTENTION

New laws going in that involve those in charge of civil authority having the ability to use their position, and force for assistance to the chief medical officer of health. THE POLICE

  • for quarantine
  • for assistance with the medical treatment the medical officer of health prescribes

Section 71A

states that a member of the police may do anything reasonably necessary (including the use of force) to help a medical officer of health or any person authorised by the medical officer of health in the exercise or performance of powers or functions under sections 70 or 71.

section 70(1)(f)

The power to detain, isolate or quarantine allows a medical officer of health to ‘require persons, places, buildings, ships, vehicles, aircraft, animals, or things to be isolated, quarantined, or disinfected’ 

thus a medical officer can suddenly detain, isolate or quarantine you.

section 70(1)(h)

The power to prescribe preventive treatment allows a medical officer of health, in respect of any person who has been isolated or quarantined, to require people to remain where they are isolated or quarantined until they have been medically examined and found to be free from infectious disease, AND UNTIL THEY HAVE UNDERGONE SUCH PREVENTATIVE TREATMENT AS THE MEDICAL OFFICE OF HEALTH PRESCRIBES

(va÷÷ine) Va÷÷ine by cop.

This get invoked is easy-

Page 125 of the Pandemic Plan-

“Special powers are authorised

  • by the Minister of Health or
  • by an epidemic notice or
  • apply where an emergency has been declared under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002.”

So lots of ways.

Keep reading

No Means No: The Child in Vermont Said No, So What Good is the Vermont Supreme Court Ruling?

During the height of the COVID19 pandemic debacle, suggestive reasoning in advocating for Federal vaccine mandates was used to nudge the unthinkable. This observation is directed at a 2022 article by Fraser and Neuss in the journal Chest. At a time when it was already known that the vaccines failed to prevent transmission, the authors nevertheless attempted to nudge subtly toward a nationalized approach to vaccine mandates without explicitly stating this position. Their approach is easily criticized for its passive-aggressive tone, lack of clarity, and failure to fully engage with counterarguments.

I will argue that via a detailed analysis of the principle of informed consent. I will argue that solicited, explicit, and voluntary agreement before administering medical procedures, particularly vaccinations, without pretext, coercion or presumption, is a basic human right. The Vermont Supreme Court’s recent ruling, interpreted by some as allowing schools to vaccinate children without explicit parental consent, is highlighted as an anomalous but significant threat to informed consent and parental rights. In particular, in addition to rights to choose (accept or decline) proferred medical options, this ruling potentially enables the state to enroll children in long-term vaccine safety studies without parental knowledge or consent, contravening ethical standards outlined in 45 CFR 46, the Common Rule, and other federal regulations designed to protect vulnerable populations.

Case examples, such as Murthy v. Missouri (2024) and Medical Professionals for Informed Consent v. Bassett (2023), are used to illustrate the importance of maintaining individual rights and informed consent in public health policies. These cases underscore the necessity for clear legislative frameworks and robust protections to prevent overreach and maintain public trust.

I call for more direct and transparent discussions on vaccine mandates, urging a balanced approach that respects individual autonomy and informed consent while addressing public health needs. The current trend of suggestive reasoning and ambiguous policy advocacy undermines ethical principles and fails to provide a solid foundation for public health strategies.

Keep reading

‘Stunning’ 620% Higher Risk of Myocarditis After mRNA COVID Vaccines. Korean Study

Researchers found a striking 620% increased risk of myocarditis and 175% increased risk of pericarditis in people who received the vaccine compared to historical controls.

The study also revealed a 62% increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), a rare neurological disorder.

The researchers did not highlight the the cardiac and GBS risks, but only used the data to confirm the validity of their study design, which focused on determining the risks of autoimmune diseases associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers found a 16% increased chance of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE — the most common lupus type) and a 58% higher risk of bullous pemphigoid (BP — large, fluid-filled blisters).

The study also revealed that booster shots were associated with slightly increased risks of several autoimmune connective tissue diseases (AI-CTDs), including alopecia areata (patchy hair loss), psoriasis (scaly, inflamed skin) and rheumatoid arthritis.

“Given that the risk of SLE and BP was increased in certain demographic conditions such as age and sex, long-term monitoring is necessary after mRNA vaccination for the development of AI-CTDs,” the study authors noted.

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer at Children’s Health Defense (CHD), noted how the authors minimized the most alarming data but told The Defender the study was otherwise “very robust.”

Hooker said several other studies also show relationships between autoimmune disorders — including systemic lupus — and mRNA vaccination.

The Nature Communications article follows another South Korean study published in May that found significant increases in the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

Keep reading

Leaked German COVID Data Unveils Disturbing Revelation About Shots, Use of Children During Pandemic: Report

Journalist Aya Velazquez obtained non-redacted Covid protocols from the Robert Koch Institute, basically the German version of America’s CDC, through a whistleblower. 

These shocking documents, initially reported in German, were deciphered and explained in English by biotechnologist Dr. Simon Goddek. 

The contents have sparked widespread concern and disbelief, particularly in their implications about the Covid-19 response in Germany.

The documents reveal a startling fact: individuals vaccinated against Covid-19 suffered more severely from the virus compared to those who remained unvaccinated

This information, known to the German CDC as early as 2020, has raised questions about the effectiveness and safety of the Covid vaccines. 

Keep reading

‘Really Chilling’: Five Countries to Test European Vaccination Card

Five European Union (EU) countries in September will pilot the newly developed European Vaccination Card (EVC), which “aims to empower individuals by consolidating all their vaccination data in one easily accessible location.

The pilot program marks a step toward the continent-wide rollout of the card, according to Vaccines Today.

Belgium, GermanyGreece, Latvia and Portugal will test the new card in a variety of formats, including printed cards, mailed copies and digital versions for smartphones.

The program aims to “pave the way for other countries by harmonising vaccine terminology, developing a common syntax, ensuring adaptability across different healthcare settings, and refining EVC implementation plans,” Vaccines Today reported.

The plans will be made public in 2026, “extending the EVC system beyond the pilot phases and enabling broad adoption across all EU Member States.”

Keep reading