European Medicines Agency Recommends Adding “Heavy Menstrual Bleeding” to Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID Shots Product Information as a Side Effect

By Jim Hoft Published October 28, 2022  TGP

On Friday, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommended adding “heavy menstrual bleeding” to the list of side effects caused by Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA shots.

In April 2021, The Gateway Pundit first reported on the tens of thousands of women who complained about irregular menstruation after taking the COVID vaccines.

Women who received the Covid vaccine reported to have spotting in between their cycles, shortened cycles, and lengthened cycles.

However, anyone who spoke about a link between Covid vaccines and menstrual problems/fertility issues was labeled a “conspiracy theorist.”

Earlier this year, the EMA’s risk assessment committee announced that it would review reports of menstruation irregularities after thousands of women reported changes to their monthly cycle after getting the COVID vaccine.

“After reviewing the available evidence, the PRAC decided to request an in-depth evaluation of all available data, including reports from spontaneous reporting systems, clinical trials, and the published literature,” according to the news release.

“At this stage, it is not yet clear whether there is a causal link between the COVID-19 vaccines and the reports of heavy periods or amenorrhea. There is also no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 vaccines affect fertility,” the agency said.

Now, the regulatory body recommended including “heavy menstrual bleeding” as an adverse effect on the list of product warnings and precautions.

Read the EMA statement:

The PRAC has recommended that heavy menstrual bleeding should be added to the product information as a side effect of unknown frequency of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines Comirnaty and Spikevax.

Heavy menstrual bleeding (heavy periods) may be defined as bleeding characterised by an increased volume and/or duration which interferes with the person’s physical, social, emotional and material quality of life. Cases of heavy menstrual bleeding have been reported after the first, second and booster doses of Comirnaty and Spikevax.

The PRAC finalised the assessment of this safety signal after reviewing the available data, including cases reported during clinical trials, cases spontaneously reported in Eudravigilance and findings from the medical literature.

After reviewing the data, the Committee concluded that there is at least a reasonable possibility that the occurrence of heavy menstrual bleeding is causally associated with these vaccines and therefore recommended the update of the product information.

The available data reviewed involved mostly cases which appeared to be non-serious and temporary in nature.

Menstrual disorders in general are quite common and they can occur for a wide range of reasons. This includes some underlying medical conditions. Any person who experiences postmenopausal bleeding or is concerned about a change in menstruation should consult their doctor.

There is no evidence to suggest the menstrual disorders experienced by some people have any impact on reproduction and fertility. Available data provides reassurance about the use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines before and during pregnancy. A review carried out by EMA’s Emergency Task Force showed that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines do not cause pregnancy complications for expectant mothers and their babies, and they are as effective at reducing the risk of hospitalisation and deaths in pregnant people as they are in non-pregnant people.

The Committee reiterates that the totality of data available confirms that the benefits of these vaccines greatly outweigh the risks.

Healthcare professionals and patients are encouraged to continue to report cases of heavy menstrual bleeding to their national authorities.

The PRAC will continue to monitor for cases of this condition and will communicate further if new recommendations are warranted.

Psoriasis and COVID-19 Vaccine: What to Know

Authors: Christine Zink, MD  Updated on October 19, 2022 Medically reviewed by Casey Gallagher, MD Very Well Health Oct 19, 2022

Psoriasis is a skin disorder characterized by thick, inflamed patches with silvery scales. It is a complex autoimmune and inflammatory disorder in which immune cells inappropriately attack the skin cells, leading to rapid replacement and buildup.1

Psoriasis treatment depends on the disease severity. Sometimes, people with psoriasis and associated arthritis need to take medications to suppress the immune system. These medications can put people at risk for other diseases, including COVID-19. This immunosuppression underscores why it’s essential for people with psoriasis to obtain COVID-19 vaccination, which is safe for people with psoriasis.

This article discusses the benefits, risks, and complications of COVID-19 vaccination in people with psoriasis.

Psoriasis and COVID-19 Risks

According to the National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force, existing evidence suggests that people with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis—a type of arthritis linked to psoriasis—have the same likelihood of contracting the SARS-CoV-2 infection as the general population.2

The likelihood of a poor outcome from a COVID-19 infection is mainly due to age and other co-occurring conditions like:2

Experts are currently unsure if treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis change a person’s risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 or having a worse outcome from COVID-19.2

Healthcare providers agree that patients with psoriasis and COVID-19 should continue their current therapies. Should a person with psoriasis taking immunosuppressive therapies develop COVID-19, they should discuss stopping psoriasis treatment with their healthcare provider.

Preventing COVID-19 and Worsening Psoriasis

The best way to prevent COVID-19 is to wear a mask, wash your hands, and avoid crowded indoor areas. Since people with psoriasis can develop worsening skin lesions with frequent handwashing, dermatologists recommend washing with moisturizing soaps and avoiding alcohol-based sanitizers.3

People with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis have several different immunosuppressive treatment options. These treatments can put people at risk for other infections, but it seems that experts are less concerned about poor COVID-19 outcomes in people who take targeted immunosuppressive biologic drugs.

Instead, the more concerning immunosuppressants include:4

Experts also recommend avoiding using systemic corticosteroids (those that affect the entire body) to manage psoriatic arthritis when a person has COVID-19.2 The use of corticosteroids during acute infection with SARS-CoV-2 may be associated with worse outcomes. Still, corticosteroids are also used to improve COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.2

Patients should speak with their healthcare provider about the best course of action for their disease state and COVID-19.

Are COVID-19 Vaccines Safe for People With Psoriasis?

Experts agree that COVID-19 vaccination is safe for all people, including people with psoriasis.5 This includes people who take immunosuppressive therapy for their disease.

Live vaccines can be troublesome for people with chronic illnesses that require immunosuppressive therapy, but none of the COVID-19 vaccines are live vaccines. People who receive vaccination do not develop the disease.

Even though the clinical trials for these vaccines did not include patients on immunosuppressive therapy for conditions like psoriasis, experts agree that these vaccines are still safe.5

Contraindications to COVID-19 Vaccination

The only contraindication (a reason not to take a specific course of action due to possible harm) to COVID-19 vaccination is an allergy to the first dose of vaccine or a component in the vaccine. The only component that could be of concern is polyethylene glycol, which is used as a stabilizer and emulsifier to help keep ingredients in the liquid vaccine mixed.6

Psoriasis and COVID-19 Vaccine Complications

Psoriasis is a lifelong illness that fluctuates in intensity. Acute exacerbations—also called flares or flare-ups—can be caused by new medications, an infection, stress, physical trauma, and possibly vaccination.7

A recent report shows that COVID-19 vaccination can also lead to a psoriasis flare.7 The worsening skin symptoms typically occurred 10 days after vaccination, and they usually happened after the first dose of a two-shot series. In the study, almost no one developed worsening psoriasis after receiving the second dose of vaccine.7

Other vaccines have caused psoriasis flares in people with the disease. Culprit vaccines include:7

  • Influenza (the flu)
  • Tetanus-diphtheria  (prevents illnesses from the Clostridium tetani and Corynebacterium diphtheriae bacteria)
  • Pneumococcal (prevents diseases caused by the Spretococcus pneumoniae bacterium)

The exact reason for a psoriasis flare after COVID-19 vaccination is unclear. No single COVID-19 vaccine is more likely to lead to an exacerbation than another. The good news is that patients have a rapid resolution of the skin flare with ongoing disease management.7

This potential side effect is something to consider regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Still, experts recommend complete COVID-19 vaccination for all patients with psoriasis, despite their autoimmune disease severity and current medication regimen. This recommendation is based on the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines in preventing severe infection and death, which is a worse outcome than a psoriasis flare.7

Most people who develop psoriasis flare-ups after vaccination do so after the first shot, but not the second shot.7

COVID-19 Also Worsens Psoriasis

It’s important to remember that infection with COVID-19 can also lead to psoriasis exacerbation.7

Are COVID-19 Vaccines Effective in People With Psoriasis?

Experts agree that COVID-19 vaccination is not only safe but highly effective for all people, including people with psoriasis.5

The most important thing to remember is that all four vaccines are highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death.8

However, people with psoriasis might be taking immunosuppressive agents to control their disease. People who take these medicines were not included in the vaccine clinical trials.

Immunosuppressive agents prevent an effective immune response with vaccination. Experts suspect that the vaccines might not be as effective in people on immunosuppressive therapies, but they still recommend vaccination.5 

Continuing Taking Your Medications

People with psoriasis should continue their current biologic or immunosuppressive therapy when they are vaccinated. The only exception is in people age 60 and older who take methotrexate. This group should discuss whether to hold their medication with their healthcare provider.4

Although research studies have not been conducted, experts think that a person’s ability to develop immunity probably depends on the specific immunosuppressive agent being taken.5

For instance, patients who take methotrexate have a harder time building immunity with other vaccines, like influenza and pneumococcal, whereas people who take tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors develop strong immunity with vaccination.5

Overall, experts recommend complete vaccination for people with psoriasis. Some immunity is better than none.

Which Vaccine to Get?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has fully approved or granted emergency use authorization (EUA) to four COVID-19 vaccines in the United States:9

Due to possible side effects from the J&J COVID-19 vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that people seek one of the mRNA vaccines (Moderna or Pfizer) or the Novavax vaccine over the J&J vaccine.10 

People with psoriatic disease who take immunosuppressive or immune-modulating therapies are eligible for an additional dose of an mRNA vaccine 28 days after the completing the primary series.11 This is different from a booster shot. This third dose is offered to people who have difficulty building immunity because of their underlying disease or medications. 

People who are moderately or severely immunocompromised from their medication should consider getting this additional dose. Speak with your healthcare provider about this recommendation if you have additional risk factors for doing poorly with COVID-19 and are taking:4

  • Orencia (abatacept)
  • Sandimmune (cyclosporine)
  • Arava (leflunomide)
  • Trexall (methotrexate)
  • Xeljanz (tofacitinib)
  • Rinvoq (upadacitinib)
  • Glucocorticoids (e.g., prednisone)

The FDA recently granted EUAs for updated bivalent boosters of the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines.

Bivalent boosters have replaced all previous monovalent booster doses. Anyone who received a monovalent booster should also receive one bivalent booster two months after the second dose or last booster. 

The CDC recommends everyone 5 years and older get an updated bivalent booster. Children ages 5 years are only eligible to receive the bivalent Pfizer booster. Everyone ages 6 years and older can choose to get the Pfizer or Moderna bivalent booster.12

Summary

Psoriasis is a chronic autoimmune and inflammatory skin disorder that is often treated with immunosuppressive therapy. Healthcare providers have concerns that people on these medications are at higher risk of contracting and doing poorly with COVID-19.

Therefore, it is crucial to complete COVID-19 vaccination. The vaccines are safe and effective in people with psoriasis, and experts recommend complete immunization for all people. There is a chance that a person will develop a psoriasis flare as a result of the vaccine, but this is better than a poor outcome from COVID-19.

1 in 780 German Children Under 5 REQUIRES HOSPITALIZATION Due to Severe Adverse Event Following Pfizer’s mRNA COVID shots

BAuthors: Jim Hoft October 20, 2022 JAMA

According to the findings of German research, one in every 700 children under the age of five who received the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccine was hospitalized with severe adverse events (SAE), and one in every 200 children had ‘symptoms that were currently ongoing and thus of unknown significance.’

The study, “Comparative Safety of the BNT162b2 Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccine vs Other Approved Vaccines in Children Younger Than 5 Years,” was published in JAMA on Tuesday, two days before the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to recommend COVID-19 to be included in the 2023 childhood immunization schedule.

Participants in this retrospective cohort study were German parents or caregivers who had enrolled their children in a Covid-19 vaccination program at 21 outpatient care facilities. The survey used in the study was conducted in a secure online environment. From April 14th, 2022, till May 9th, 2022, a total of 19 000 email addresses were contacted using data from vaccine registration databases.

It concluded that the symptoms reported after Pfizer vaccination were “comparable overall” to those for other vaccines. Let’s see.

  • Any symptoms: 62% higher
  • Musculoskeletal (muscles and bones) symptoms: 155% higher
  • Dermatologic (skin) symptoms: 118% higher
  • Otolaryngologic (ears, nose and throat) symptoms: 537% higher
  • Cardiovascular (heart etc.): 36% higher
  • Gastrointestinal (stomach etc.): 54% higher

It calls these “modestly elevated.” (Note that not all are statistically significant and some confidence intervals are wide, see below.)

In 0.5% of the children (40 of 7,806) symptoms were “currently ongoing and thus of unknown significance”. This is in a study with a 2-4 month follow-up period. That means 0.5% of children had an adverse effect that lasted for weeks or months. In two cases (0.03%), symptoms were confirmed to have lasted longer than 90 days.

Ten children were hospitalised with reported serious adverse events (SAEs), compared to zero with the other vaccines. This reported as 0.1%, as it is out of 7,806. However, the study also states that no hospitalisations were reported for children administered the low dosage of 3 μg. Since it also tells us that 6,033 children received at least one dose of over 3 μg (or unknown dosage), the rate in the relevant cohort is closer to 0.2%, or around one in 500.

Four of the hospitalisations were for cardiovascular injury; one child was hospitalised after both doses for this reason. Four were pulmonary (lung) related. Symptoms of the hospitalised children lasted an average of 12.2 days and a maximum of 60 days. None reported a myocarditis diagnosis. Mercifully, no deaths were reported in this relatively small sample.

The mortality rate in under-20s has been shown to be 0.0003%. The figure for under-fives will be even lower. But even if we unrealistically assume this is the mortality rate for under-fives and the vaccines reduce it to zero, this still means that at least 500 children are hospitalised for every life the vaccines save. In reality the ratio will be much worse than this.

On Wednesday, The Gateway Pundit reported that the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to include the COVID-19 vaccine as part of the Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program.

The Vaccines For Children (VFC) program is a federally funded program that provides vaccines at no cost to children who might not otherwise be vaccinated because of their inability to pay, according to the CDC.

The CDC buys vaccine at a discounted rate for distribution to registered VFC providers. Children who are eligible* for VFC vaccines are entitled to receive those vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The advisory committee voted 15-0, without objection.

On Thursday, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to recommend COVID-19 to be included in the 2023 childhood immunization schedule in 15 unanimous votes.

Vascular and organ damage induced by mRNA vaccines: irrefutable proof of causality

Authors: Michael Palmer, MD and Sucharit Bhakdi, MD August 19, 2022 Popular Science

This article summarizes evidence from experimental studies and from autopsies of patients deceased after vaccination. The collective findings demonstrate that

  1. mRNA vaccines don’t stay at the injection site by instead travel throughout the body and accumulate in various organs,
  2. mRNA-based COVID vaccines induce long-lasting expression of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in many organs,
  3. vaccine-induced expression of the spike protein induces autoimmune-like inflammation,
  4. vaccine-induced inflammation can cause grave organ damage, especially in vessels, sometimes with deadly outcome.

We note that the damage mechanism is which emerges from the autopsy studies is not limited to COVID-19 vaccines only but is completely general—it must be expected to occur similarly with mRNA vaccines against any and all infectious pathogens. This technology has failed and must be abandoned.

While clinical case reports (e.g. [1,2]) and statistical analyses of accumulated adverse event reports (e.g. [3,4]) provide valuable evidence of damage induced by mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, it is important to establish a causal relationship in individual cases. Pathology remains the gold standard for proof of disease causation. This short paper will discuss some key findings on autopsy materials from patients who died within days to several months after vaccination. For context, some experimental studies are briefly discussed as well.

1. Most of the evidence presented here is from the work of pathologist Prof. Arne Burkhardt, MD

  • Dr. Burkhardt was approached by the families of patients deceased after “vaccination”
  • Autopsy materials were examined by standard histopathology and immunohistochemistry
  • Based on the findings, most deaths were attributed to “vaccination” with a high to very high degree of likelihood

Prof. Burkhardt is a very experienced pathologist from Reutlingen, Germany. With the help of his colleague Prof. Walter Lang, he has studied numerous cases of death which occurred within days to several months after vaccination. In each of these cases, the cause of death had been certified as “natural” or “unknown.” Burkhardt became involved only because the bereaved families doubted these verdicts and sought a second opinion. It is remarkable, therefore, that Burkhardt found not just a few but the majority of these deaths to be due to vaccination.

While all four major manufacturers of gene-based vaccines were represented in the sample of patients studied by Burkhardt and Lang, most patients had received an mRNA vaccine from either Pfizer or Moderna. Some of the deceased patients had received both mRNA- and viral vector-based vaccines on separate occasions.

2. Pfizer’s own animal experiments show that the vaccine quickly distributes throughout the body

In order to cause potentially lethal damage, the mRNA vaccines must first distribute from the injection site to other organs. That such distribution occurs is apparent from animal experiments reported by Pfizer to Japanese authorities with its application for vaccine approval in that country [5]. Rats were injected intramuscularly with a radioactively labelled model mRNA vaccine, and the movement of the radiolabel first into the bloodstream and subsequently into various organs was followed for up to 48 hours.

The first thing to note is that the labelled vaccine shows up in the blood plasma after a very short time—within only a quarter of an hour. The plasma level peaks two hours after the injection. As it drops off, the model vaccine accumulates in several other organs. The fastest and highest rise is observed in the liver and the spleen. Very high uptake is also observed with the ovaries and the adrenal glands. Other organs (including the testes) take up significantly lower levels of the model vaccine. We note, however, that at least the blood vessels will be exposed and affected in every organ and in every tissue.

The rapid and widespread distribution of the model vaccine implies that we must expect expression of the spike protein throughout the body. For a more in-depth discussion of this biodistribution study, see Palmer2021b.

3. Expression of viral proteins can be detected with immunohistochemistry

While the distribution of the model vaccine leads us to expect widespread expression of the spike protein, we are here after solid proof. Such proof can be obtained using immunohistochemistry, which method is illustrated in this slide for the vaccine-encoded spike protein.

If a vaccine particle—composed of the spike-encoding mRNA, coated with lipids—enters a body cell, this will cause the spike protein to be synthesized within the cell and then taken to the cell surface. There, it can be recognized by a spike-specific antibody. After washing the tissue specimen to remove unbound antibody molecules, the bound ones can be detected with a secondary antibody that is coupled with some enzyme, often horseradish peroxidase. After another washing step, the specimen is incubated with a water-soluble precursor dye that is converted by the enzyme to an insoluble brown pigment. Each enzyme molecule can rapidly convert a large number of dye molecules, which greatly amplifies the signal.

At the top right of the image, you can see two cells which were exposed to the Pfizer vaccine and then subjected to the protocol outlined above. The intense brown stain indicates that the cells were indeed producing the spike protein.

In short, wherever the brown pigment is deposited, the original antigen—in this example, the spike protein—must have been present. Immunohistochemistry is widely used not only in clinical pathology but also in research; it could readily have been used to detect widespread expression of spike protein in animal trials during preclinical development. However, it appears that the FDA and other regulators never received or demanded such experimental data [6].

4. Expression of spike protein in shoulder muscle after vaccine injection

This slide (by Dr. Burkhardt) shows deltoid muscle fibres in cross section. Several (but not all) of the fibres show strong brown pigmentation, again indicating spike protein expression.

While the expression of spike protein near the injection site is of course expected and highly suggestive, we would like to make certain that such expression is indeed caused by the vaccine and not by a concomitant infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This is particularly important with respect to other tissues and organs which are located far away from the injection site.

5. Coronavirus particles contain two prominent proteins: spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N)

To distinguish between infection and injection, we can again use immunohistochemistry, but this time apply it to another SARS-CoV-2 protein—namely, the nucleocapsid, which is found inside the virus particle, where it enwraps and protects the RNA genome. The rationale of this experiment is simple: cells infected with the virus will express all viral proteins, including the spike and the nucleocapsid. In contrast, the mRNA-based COVID vaccines (as well as the adenovirus vector-based ones produced by AstraZeneca and Janssen) will induce expression only of spike.

6. Infected persons express the nucleocapsid protein (and also the spike protein)

This slide simply illustrates that the method works: lung tissue or cells from a nasal swab of a person infected with SARS-CoV-2 stain positive for nucleocapsid expression, whereas cultured cells exposed to the vaccine do not (but they stain strongly positive for the spike protein; see inset at the top right of Slide 3).

7. Injected persons express only the spike protein, which implicates the vaccine

Here, we see immunohistochemistry applied to heart muscle tissue from an injected person. Staining for the presence of spike protein causes strong brown pigment deposition. In contrast, only very weak, non-specific staining is observed with the antibody that recognizes the nucleocapsid protein. The absence of nucleocapsid indicates that the expression of the spike protein must be attributed ot the vaccine rather than an infection with SARS-CoV-2.

We will see shortly that the strong expression of spike protein in heart muscle after vaccination correlates with significant inflammation and tissue destruction.

8. Expression of spike protein within the walls of small blood vessels

We see spike protein expression in arterioles (small arteries; left) as well as in venules (small veins) and capillaries (right). Expression is most prominent in the innermost cell layer, the endothelium. This makes the endothelial cells “sitting ducks” for an attack by the immune system.

9. Endothelial stripping and destruction of a small blood vessel after vaccination

We now turn to the evidence of immune attack on the endothelial cells which produce the spike protein. On the left, a normal venule, delimited by an intact endothelium and containing some red blood cells and few white blood cells (stained blue) inside.

The image on at the centre shows a venule that is being attacked and destroyed by the immune system. The outline is already dissolving, and the spindle-shaped (and swollen) endothelial cells have peeled off from the vessel wall. Furthermore, we see lymphocytes—the small cells with dark, round nuclei and with very little cytoplasm around them; a single lymphocyte (at much higher magnification) is shown on the right.

Lymphocytes are the backbone of the specific immune system—whenever antigens are recognized and antibodies are produced, this is done by lymphocytes. Also among the lymphocytes we find cytotoxic T cells and natural killer cells, which serve to kill virus-infected cells—or ones that look to them as if infected, because they have been forced to produce a viral protein by a so-called vaccine.

A crucial function of the endothelium is to prevent blood clotting. Thus, if the endothelium is damaged, as it is in this picture, and the tissues beyond it make contact with the blood, this will automatically set off blood clotting.

10. A crack in the wall of the aorta, lined by clusters of lymphocytes, leading to aortic rupture

On the left, a section through the wall of an aorta. This picture is taken at an even lower magnification than the one before; the lymphocytes now appear as just a cloud of tiny blue specks. To the left of this blue cloud, we see a vertical crack running through the tissue. Such a crack is also visible macroscopically in the excised specimen of an aorta shown on the right.

The aorta is the largest blood vessel of the body. It receives the highly pressurized blood ejected by the left ventricle of the heart, and it is thus exposed to intense mechanical stress. If the wall of the aorta is weakened by inflammation, as it is here, then it may crack and rupture. Aortic rupture is normally quite rare, but Prof. Burkhardt found multiple cases in his limited number of autopsies. Some of the affected aortas were also shown to have expressed the spike protein.

11. Healthy heart muscle tissue, and lymphocytic myocarditis

In Slide 7, we saw that heart muscle cells strongly expressed the spike protein after vaccine injection. Here, we see the consequences. The picture on the shows a sample of healthy heart muscle tissue, with regularly oriented and aligned heart muscle fibres. On the right, we see a heart muscle sample from one of the autopsies. The muscle fibres are disjointed and disintegrating, and they are surrounded by invading lymphocytes. Burkhardt found myocarditis in multiple of his deceased patients.

12. Lymphocytic infiltration and proliferative inflammation in lung tissue

On the left, we see healthy lung tissue, with air-filled spaces (the alveoli), delimited by delicate alveolar septa with embedded, blood-filled capillaries. We also see some larger blood vessels.

On the right hand side, we see lung tissue overrun by lymphocytes. The air-filled spaces have largely disappeared and been filled with scar (connective) tissue. This vaccine-injected patient would obviously have had very great trouble breathing.

Lymphocytic infiltration, inflammation and destruction were also observed in many other organs, including the brain, the liver, the spleen, and multiple glands. However, instead of illustrating them all, we will conclude the pathological evidence with another immunohistochemistry result, which strikingly shows the long duration of spike protein expression.

13. Vaccine-induced expression of spike protein in a bronchial biopsy nine months after vaccination

The slide shows a sample of bronchial mucous membrane, from a patient who is alive but has suffered respiratory symptoms ever since being vaccinated. We see several cells in the uppermost cell layer that strongly express spike protein—and this even nine months after his most recent vaccine injection! While this is indeed the most extreme case of long-lasting expression, there is evidence both from Burkhardt’s autopsies and from published studies on blood samples [7] or lymph node biopsies [8] to indicate that expression does last several months.

14. The Pfizer vaccine mRNA gets copied (“reverse-transcribed”) into DNA and inserted into the cellular genome

The official mRNA vaccine narrative maintains that the modified mRNA contained in the vaccine will not be replicated in vivo; expression of the spike protein should therefore cease once the injected RNA molecules have been degraded.

The limited experimental studies available [9,10] suggest that the injected modified mRNA should be degraded within days to a few weeks of the injection. This is obviously difficult to square with the observed long-lasting expression; in some form or other, the genetic information appears to be perpetuated in vivo.

A recent experimental study from Sweden [11] has shown that human-derived cells can copy the Pfizer mRNA vaccine into DNA and then insert it into their own chromosomal DNA. The image shows the key evidence from this study. The cells were exposed to the vaccine for the lengths of time indicated. Cellular DNA was then isolated, and inserted DNA copies of the vaccine mRNA detected by PCR amplification of a fragment 444 base pairs (bp) in length.

All samples labelled with “BNT” had been treated with the vaccine, and they all show a PCR product of the expected length, as is evident from comparison to a DNA fragment length standard (“L”). Samples labelled with “Ctrl n” were controls: Ctrl 1– 4 contained DNA from cells not incubated with vaccine, Ctrl 5 contained RNA (not DNA) from vaccine-treated cells; Ctrl 6 contained the same but was additionally treated with RNAse, which step was also performed in the purification of DNA samples. As expected, none of the control samples contain the PCR product.

Considering Aldén’s observation of DNA insertion in every single experimental sample, it seems highly likely that this will also occur in vivo. Beyond providing a plausible mechanism for perpetuating the expression of spike protein, DNA insertion also poses risks of genetic damage, leading to cancers and leukemias.

15. Summary

The evidence presented here clearly demonstrates a chain of causation from vaccine injection to

  • rapid distribution of the vaccine through the bloodstream,
  • widespread spike protein expression, prominently in blood vessels, and
  • autoimmune-like inflammation and organ damage.

Vaccine-induced vascular damage will promote blood clotting, and clotting-related diseases such as heart attack, stroke, lung embolism are very common in the adverse events databases [4,12].

In addition to autoimmune-like inflammation, other disease mechanisms, including prion-mediated CNS degeneration [13], aberrant vascular protein deposition (amyloidosis) [14,15], and lipid nanoparticle toxicity [16], are plausible but require further study and corroboration. Overall, these vaccines can no longer be considered experimental—the “experiment” has resulted in the disaster that many medical doctors and scientists predicted from the outset [17]. The vaccination must be stopped, and all approvals and authorizations of their use must be revoked.

References

  1. Bozkurt, B. et al. (2021) Myocarditis With COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines. Circulation 144:471-484
  2. Ehrlich, P. et al. (2021) Biopsy-proven lymphocytic myocarditis following first mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in a 40-year-old male: case report. Clinical research in cardiology official journal of the German Cardiac Society 110:1855-1859
  3. Rose, J. and McCullough, P.A. (2021) A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products. Current problems in cardiology p. 101011
  4. Shilhavy, B. (2022) 43,898 Dead, 4,190,493 Injured Following COVID Vaccines in European Database of Adverse Reactions.
  5. Anonymous, (2020) SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine (BNT162, PF-07302048) 2.6.4 Summary statement of the pharmacokinetic study [English translation].
  6. Latyopva, A. (2022) Did Pfizer Perform Adequate Safety Testing for its Covid-19 mRNA Vaccine in Preclinical Studies? Evidence of Scientific and Regulatory Fraud.
  7. Bansal, S. et al. (2021) Cutting Edge: Circulating Exosomes with COVID Spike Protein Are Induced by BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) Vaccination prior to Development of Antibodies: A Novel Mechanism for Immune Activation by mRNA Vaccines. J. Immunol. 207:2405-2410
  8. Röltgen, K. et al. (2022) Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. Cell (preprint)
  9. Andries, O. et al. (2015) N1-methylpseudouridine-incorporated mRNA outperforms pseudouridine-incorporated mRNA by providing enhanced protein expression and reduced immunogenicity in mammalian cell lines and mice. J. Control. Release 217:337-344
  10. Pardi, N. et al. (2018) Nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines induce potent T follicular helper and germinal center B cell responses. J. Exp. Med. 215:1571-1588
  11. Aldén, M. et al. (2022) Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 44:1115-1126
  12. Anonymous, (2021) OpenVAERS.
  13. Perez, J.C. et al. (2022) Towards the emergence of a new form of the neurodegenerative Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease: Twenty six cases of CJD declared a few days after a COVID-19 “vaccine” Jab. ResearchGate (preprint)
  14. Charnley, M. et al. (2022) Neurotoxic amyloidogenic peptides in the proteome of SARS-COV2: potential implications for neurological symptoms in COVID-19. Nat. Commun. 13:3387
  15. Nyström, S. and Hammarström, P. (2022) Amyloidogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144:8945-8950
  16. Palmer, M. and Bhakdi, S. (2021) The Pfizer mRNA vaccine: Pharmacokinetics and Toxicity.
  17. Bhakdi, S. et al. (2021) Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns.

*Peer Reviewed* Study Finds YOUNG Moderna Jab Recipients Have a Jaw-Dropping 44X HIGHER Risk of Developing Myocarditis Than the Unvaccinated

Authors: Julian Conradson Published July 2, 2022

peer-reviewed study from researchers in France has concluded that both the experimental Pfizer and Moderna vaccines significantly increase the risk of myocarditis compared to the unvaccinated.

While both mRNA therapies were found to be linked to the life-threatening heart condition, the Moderna jabs results were particularly shocking, especially among young adults, as researchers found the risk for myocarditis diagnosis following the Moderna jab was 44 times higher risk for individuals aged 18 to 24 years old.

As for Pfizer’s jab – which fared better, but not by much – the same age group experienced a 13x elevated risk for the serious condition, according to the study that was published last week in the scientific journal, “Nature.”

The new data mirrors several other recent studies that show a link between the treatments and numerous severe medical complications in addition to myocarditis, including, but not limited to, pulmonary embolism, blood clots, and even “sudden” death.

Editor of the British Medical Journal tells the FDA about Serious Concerns over Pfizer Trial Data Integrity

And the lack of FDA oversight

Dr Doshi in an associate professor of pharmaceutical health at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, as well as a senior editor at the British Medical Journal. “His research focuses on the drug approval process, how the risks and benefits of medical products are communicated, and improving the credibility and accuracy of evidence synthesis and biomedical publications.”

In the most recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee meeting in the US (6 April 2022), Peter dialled in to the Open Public Hearing Session. This is where members of the public can present their own information to the FDA. The committee was meeting to discuss considerations for the use of COVID-19 vaccine boosters and the process for COVID-19 vaccine strain selection to address current and emerging variants.

Peter told the FDA about Brook Jackson, a whistle-blower from Ventavia, which ran Pfizer’s vaccine trials. He discussed how unblinding of trial participants seems to have occurred and how this creates serious concerns about data integrity.

Last November, The BMJ reported the disclosures of a whistle-blower named Brook Jackson, who worked for Ventavia, a contract research company that ran three of the clinical trial sites for Pfizer’s vaccine. Jackson alleged the company had falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events. She provided The BMJ with company emails, internal documents, text messages, photos and recordings of her conversations with company employees.

This photo, for example, shows vaccine packaging materials that are only supposed to be seen by unblinded staff, just left out in the open.

And unblinding may have occurred on a far wider scale. Here you can see the document containing the instructions Ventavia staff were given to file each trial participant’s randomization and drug assignment confirmation sheet into each participant’s chart. This contained unblinded information.

Unblinding, as I think everybody knows, creates serious concerns about data integrity. Once this massive error was discovered, Ventavia asked staff to go through each and every chart to take out the randomization and drug assignment confirmations. You can see here an email from Ventavia’s COO reacting after discovery of the problem: they had not even realized that the drug assignment confirmation contained unblinding information.

In the heat of a pandemic, it’s not hard to imagine that corners were cut and mistakes were made. Some mistakes are benign, but others carry serious consequences to data integrity. One hopes Ventavia is an extreme outlier, but we need more than just hope. We need evidence that the data were dealt with properly. We need regulatory oversight. But despite whistleblower Brook Jackson’s direct complaint to the FDA, FDA never inspected Ventavia. In fact, FDA only inspected 9 of the trial’s 150-plus sites before approving the vaccine. Just 9 sites. And Pfizer continues to use Ventavia for trials.

What about Moderna? FDA had over a year and inspected just one – ONE – of the trial’s 99 sites. How can FDA feel confident in the Moderna data based on a 1% sample?

Data integrity requires adequate regulatory oversight. Trustworthy science requires data transparency. It’s been over a year, but anonymised participant level data remain inaccessible to doctors, researchers, and the public. The public paid for these products, and the public takes on the balance of benefits and harms post vaccination. The public has a right to data transparency, and FDA has an obligation to act. Thank you.

The video for the meeting is below. Peter Doshi’s statement starts at 5:34:44 but all of the public presentations are interesting and these begin at around 5:15.

Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine Much Weaker in Kids Against Omicron and More

Authors: Mark Terry Published: Mar 01, 2022  BIOSPACE

Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine Only 12% Effective Against Omicron in 5-11-Year-Olds 

In a new study that is yet to be peer-reviewed, the New York State Department of Health found that the PfizerBioNTech vaccine was only about 12% effective for children ages 5 to 11 years against the Omicron variant. In that age group, it was about 68% effective against Delta, but the effectiveness dropped significantly during the Omicron surge from Dec. 13, 2021, to Jan. 24, 2022. Protection against hospitalization also plummeted from 100% to 48% in the same period. 

The authors of the report think this drop may be the result of the lower dosage the children received. They were dosed with two 10-microgram shots, compared to 30-microgram doses for children 12 to 17 years of age.  

“Given rapid loss of protection against infections, these results highlight the continued importance of layered protections, including mask-wearing, for children to prevent infection and transmission,” the authors wrote. 

Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine Integrates into Liver Cells in Cell Cultures 

Researchers at Lund University in Sweden conducted research into the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and human liver cell lines to determine what kind of effect the vaccine might have on liver cells. The research was published in Current Issues in Molecular Biology. The authors, noting the safety and efficacy of the vaccine against COVID-19, also point out that long-term studies have not been conducted. They note pharmacokinetics data provided by Pfizer to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) showed that the “injection site and the liver were the major sites of distribution, with maximum concentrations observed at 8-48 hours post-dose.

Furthermore, in animals that received the BNT162b2 injection, reversible hepatic effects were observed, including an enlarged liver, vacuolation, increased gamma-glutamyl transferase levels, and increased levels of aspartate transaminase (AST) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP).” They add that transient liver effects caused by the lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery systems used with mRNA vaccines have been previously reported, although LNP with no mRNA in it doesn’t cause any significant liver injury. 

Working with the specific human liver cell line Huh7 and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, they found that the vaccine was able to enter the cell line as quickly as six hours after exposure. They cite a report saying some people who received the vaccine developed autoimmune hepatitis, and they question if the human liver cells, integrating the vaccine mRNA, produce SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that then catches the attention of the body’s immune system, inadvertently attacking the liver.

However, there does not appear to have been many other cases of this happening, which would make it extremely rare, assuming it was actually caused by the vaccine and not something else. 

The researchers note, “At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination.” 

Adamis’ COVID-19 Trial Surpasses Enrollment Expectations 

San Diego-based Adamis Pharmaceuticals reported that due to the acceleration of enrollment in its Phase II/III study for Tempol for COVID-19, its Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) decided the study could continue. No safety or clinical problems were observed. The data from the first 50 participants will be reviewed again in March as part of the first planned interim analysis. 

Tempol has strong, broad in vitro anti-cytokine activity, and in animal studies, appeared to have anti-inflammatory effects in the lungs. 

“We are pleased with the progress of the trial, which has already exceeded the required number of subjects (124) for the second planned interim DSMB analysis,” said Dr. Dennis J. Carlo, president and CEO of Adamis. “We appreciate the feedback from the DSMB. Following the first planned interim analysis, if the DSMB advises for the study to continue, we will also report on the second planned DSMB review following its completion, which may provide additional insight into the safety and clinical results at that time.” 

Study into mRNA vaccine death rates sends ‘danger signals’

A new Danish study reveals disparities in all-cause mortality between mRNA and adenovirus vaccines

Do the covid vaccines save lives? That is the question on many people’s minds, that has led to heated discussions across the world.

A bombshell new study by a distinguished team of Danish researchers led by Prof. Christine Stabell-Benn suggests a surprisingly nuanced answer. In the randomized trials of the covid vaccines, the adenovector-based vaccines, including the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines, reduced all-cause mortality of study participants relative to people randomly assigned a placebo. Indeed, the reduction in mortality is larger than expected from the Covid effect and may suggest additional beneficial “non-specific effects” from those vaccines against other health threats.

On the other hand, Stabell-Benn and her colleagues found no statistically meaningful evidence in the trial data that the mRNA vaccines reduced all-cause mortality. The numbers of deaths from other causes including cardiovascular deaths appear to be increased in this group, compensating for the beneficial effect of the vaccines on Covid. Stabell-Benn is keen to stress that the sample is relatively small and is calling for further investigation, and also that the study took place during very low levels of Covid, so the relative advantage of protection against Covid would have been smaller at that time compared to at other points in the pandemic.

However, these preliminary results stand in sharp contrast to the unambiguous message from public health agencies and governments worldwide, which granted emergency authorization to the vaccines based on evidence from the trials that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of getting symptomatic covid. From a purely scientific perspective, preventing symptomatic covid is an interesting outcome to study. From a public health perspective, prevention of covid symptoms is not as important as prevention of death or disease transmission, which the randomized trials did not study. Dr. Stabell Benn and her colleagues have now looked at overall mortality for the first time.

At the very least, the plain implication (since both sets of vaccines are available) is that public health authorities should have recommended the cheaper adenovector vaccines over the mRNA vaccines all along for most patients.

In other words, the international move to de-authorise the AstraZeneca vaccine across Europe and elsewhere looks like it may have been a mistake, and that AZ was actually a better option than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

It offers a potential contributory explanation for the better overall mortality outcomes in the UK (which overwhelmingly used the AZ vaccine) than much of continental Europe (which phased out the AZ vaccine) after the vaccine programme in the second half of 2021. 

Since its publication in pre-print, the Stabell-Benn study has received very little coverage in the media. As Dr Stabell-Benn told Freddie Sayers in her UnHerd interview, she has become used to this reticence: I have been in this game for now almost thirty years, studying vaccines and finding these non-specific effects which have been very controversial. There are strong powers out there that don’t really want to hear about them. But to me this is good news: it means that we can optimize the use of vaccines to not only be strong protective effects against vaccine disease, but we can also optimize their use in terms of overall health. – PROFESSOR CHRISTINE STABELL-BENN, UNHERD

The reaction 

For a study with such a consequential conclusion, review from independent experts is crucial. In the past, such peer-review took place in anonymity, behind the closed doors of a scientific journal, with a single editor or associate editor serving as an umpire. Because of the small number of people involved in the review, the peer-review process is subject to well-known biases and long delays (months or longer). Worse, the public never had access to these deliberations and was asked to take it as an article of faith that a published peer-reviewed paper presented accurate conclusions.

A better process for the scientific review of some important papers has emerged during the pandemic – open peer review whereby the public can see the conversation among scientific experts. Though the Danish team released their paper in early April, it was an online review by vaccine safety expert and world-renowned epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff that catalyzed a discussion by scientists about it.

In his review, Kulldorff pointed to the clear implication of the results of the Danish paper. When both mRNA and adenovector vaccines are available, it’s better to take the vaccine with good randomized evidence of reductions in all-cause mortality rather than taking a vaccine where we cannot tell from the best evidence whether it reduces mortality. Kulldorff called for a new randomized controlled trial of the mRNA vaccine to find out if they can compete with the adenovirus-vector vaccines – as should occur in medicine whenever an effective intervention exists and another intervention seeks to show that it is as good or better. He also suggested that it is inappropriate to mandate vaccines for which the randomized clinical trials show a null result for mortality. 

Kulldorff’s open peer-review stoked some discussion among scientists about the feasibility of running a randomized trial comparing the vaccines. Mortality rates from covid infection – due partly to high levels of population immunity from covid recovery – are low, so a large sample size would be necessary to detect a difference. Whether such a study is even feasible is an open question, as is the importance of such a study. This kind of constructive discussion happens all the time in science.

However, some scientists – including zero-covid advocate Deepti Guradsani – reacted to Kulldorff’s article with public smears, false accusations of spreading vaccine misinformation, and the usual claims about right-wing connections. Even Jeremy Farrar, the head of the Wellcome Trust and a prominent architect of the pandemic policy in the UK, joined the fray by promoting such smears on his Twitter feed. 

Kulldorff is a prominent vaccine scientist who has presented his honest views on the covid vaccines, even when they go against the established narrative. In March 2021, he lost his position as an advisor to the US CDC for recommending against pausing the Johnson & Johnson vaccine for older Americans – an action that effectively killed the demand for the adenovirus vector vaccines in the US. He is the only person I know who the CDC has fired for being too pro-vaccine.  

When scientists slander prominent vaccine scientists, that damages vaccine confidence. Scientists should be encouraged to evaluate, compare and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of different vaccines, and to be free to advocate for one vaccine over another. Farrar’s promotion of the lies is particularly insidious because it sends a signal to scientists who might be interested in funding from the Wellcome Trust to shy away from voicing their honest thoughts about the Danish study or vaccines in general.

The stakes in the discussion about this paper are tremendously high. Of course, for the public at large, what covid vaccine is best for them is literally a life-and-death question. For scientists, at stake is the ability to participate honestly in open scientific reviews of hot button topics without having to face smears and reputational damage based on lies by other prominent scientists. If scientists lose their ability to reason publicly about studies like the ground-breaking Danish study, physicians will have no solid basis for their advice to patients on this topic or much else, and the public will have no reason to trust physicians and scientists.

Myocarditis Cases Reported After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US From December 2020 to August 2021

Authors: Matthew E. Oster, MD, MPH; David K. Shay, MD, MPH; John R. Su, MD, PhD, MPH; Julianne Gee, MPH; C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH; Karen R. Broder, MD; Kathryn Edwards, MD; Jonathan H. Soslow, MD, MSCI; Jeffrey M. Dendy, MD; Elizabeth Schlaudecker, MD, MPH; Sean M. Lang, MD; Elizabeth D. Barnett, MD; Frederick L. Ruberg, MD; Michael J. Smith, MD, MSCE; M. Jay Campbell, MD, MHA; Renato D. Lopes, MD, PhD, MHS; Laurence S. Sperling, MD; Jane A. Baumblatt, MD; Deborah L. Thompson, MD, MSPH; Paige L. Marquez, MSPH; Penelope Strid, MPH; Jared Woo, MPH; River Pugsley, PhD, MPH; Sarah Reagan-Steiner, MD, MPH; Frank DeStefano, MD, MPH; Tom T. Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA
IMPORTANCE Vaccination against COVID-19 provides clear public health benefits, but
vaccination also carries potential risks. The risks and outcomes of myocarditis after COVID-19
vaccination are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To describe reports of myocarditis and the reporting rates after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination in the US.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Descriptive study of reports of myocarditis to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that occurred after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine administration between December 2020 and August 2021 in 192 405 448 individuals older than 12 years of age in the US; data were processed by VAERS as of September 30, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Reports of myocarditis to VAERS were adjudicated and summarized for all age groups. Crude reporting rates were calculated across age and sex strata. Expected rates of myocarditis by age and sex were calculated using 2017-2019 claims data. For persons younger than 30 years of age, medical record reviews and clinician interviews were conducted to describe clinical presentation, diagnostic test results, treatment, and early outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis. Of those with myocarditis, the median age was 21 years (IQR, 16-31 years) and the median time to symptom onset was 2 days (IQR, 1-3 days). Males comprised 82% of the myocarditis cases for whom sex was reported. The crude reporting rates for cases of myocarditis within 7 days after COVID-19 vaccination exceeded the expected rates of myocarditis across multiple age and sex strata. The rates of myocarditis were highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males aged 12 to 15 years (70.7 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), in adolescent males aged 16 to 17 years (105.9 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), and in young men aged 18 to 24 years (52.4 and 56.3 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine and the mRNA-1273 vaccine, respectively). There were 826 cases of myocarditis among those younger than 30 years of age who had detailed clinical information available; of these cases, 792 of 809 (98%) had elevated troponin levels, 569 of 794 (72%) had abnormal electrocardiogram results, and 223 of 312 (72%) had abnormal cardiac magnetic resonance imaging results. Approximately 96% of persons (784/813) were hospitalized and 87% (577/661) of these had resolution of presenting symptoms by hospital discharge. The most common treatment was nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (589/676; 87%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Based on passive surveillance reporting in the US, the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men. This risk should be considered in the context of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination. JAMA. 2022;327(4):331-340.

doi:10.1001/jama.2021.24110
Supplemental content
Author Affiliations: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Atlanta, Georgia (Oster, Shay, Su, Gee, Broder, Sperling, Marquez, Strid, Woo, Pugsley, Reagan-Steiner, DeStefano, Shimabukuro); School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia (Oster, Sperling); Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia (Oster); Vanderbilt University
Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee (Creech, Edwards, Soslow, Dendy); Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio (Schlaudecker, Lang); Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts (Barnett, Ruberg); Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (Smith, Campbell, Lopes); US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland (Baumblatt, Thompson).
Corresponding Author: Matthew E. Oster, MD, MPH, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30333 (eocevent416@cdc.gov). Research J

To Read The Full Journal Publication in JAMA Click Below:

https://jamanetwork.com/ on 01/25/2022

American Scientists Confirm Toxic Graphene Oxide, and More, in Covid Injections

Authors: RHODA WILSON   

It is a human right, and global law governed under the Nuremberg Code, that vaccine specific ingredient information is disclosed.  It is critical, required and necessary information so anyone, from any country in the world, can make an informed decision whether or not to consent to medical intervention.  Because the full list of ingredients of the Covid “vaccines” have not been made available, Dr. Robert Young and his team conducted research to identify the specific ingredients in the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson Covid injections.  On 20 August, they published their findings.

Dr. Young is a biochemist, microbiologist, and clinical nutritionist.  He and his team of scientists have confirmed what the La Quinta Columna researchers found – toxic nanometallic content which are magneticotoxic, cytotoxic and genotoxic to plants, insects, birds, animals and humans – all life on the planet.  One of the “vaccines” even contained life-threatening parasites. Taken together, the “vaccine” components – which include graphene oxide among many others and which may be influenced by radiation sources external to us – create a toxic chemical and radiative soup inside our bodies.  Anyone who has a Covid injection is seriously putting their lives at risk.

We previously covered some of La Quinta Columna’s research in two articles: Spanish Researchers Find Covid-19 Vaccines Contain TOXIC Levels of Graphene Oxide; and, The real pandemic – Covid-19 or Graphene Oxide? Poisonous Nano-Material found in Covid Vaccines and Face Masks. For additional resources visit Orwell City, a website that translates, transcribes and adds English subtitles to a good portion of La Quinta Columna’s materials.

“Vaccines” from the four major pharmaceutical companies were analysed by Dr. Young: Pfizer/BioNTech (“Pfizer”); Moderna/Lonza mRNA-1273 (“Moderna”); Vaxzevria by AstraZeneca (“AstraZeneca”); and, Janssen by Johnson & Johnson (“Janssen”).

Liposome capsids are fatty lipid capsules. We are told their purpose is to envelope the mRNA to protect the genetic material from breaking down before it has reached its target – our body’s cells.  All four Covid “vaccines” contain relatively high levels of graphene oxide but both the Pfizer and Moderna liposome capsids are 100% graphene oxide (after extracting the mRNA). 

Graphene oxide is cytotoxic, genotoxic, and magneticotoxic.  The image below shows the liposome capsid containing graphene oxide in the Pfizer “vaccine.” The liposome delivers the graphene oxide to specific organs, glands and tissues, namely: the ovaries and testes; bone marrow; heart; and, brain.

Liposome Capsid from the Pfizer Covid injection

Also found in the Pfizer injection was Trypanosoma cruzi – a parasite of which several variants are lethal and is one of many causes of acquired immune deficiency syndrome or AIDS.  It’s not known if this was just a random ingredient or was purposefully placed and will be found in all Pfizer “vaccines.”

Trypanosoma parasite found in the so-called Pfizer “vaccine”

In the AstraZeneca “vaccines,” Dr. Young and his team identified histidine, sucrose, poly-ethylene glycol (“PEG”) and ethylene alcohol, which were also contained in the Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen Covid injections. PEG was the only adjuvant declared on the data sheet listing the ingredients of the AstraZeneca injection.

The injection of PEG and ethylene alcohol are both known to be carcinogenic and genotoxic.

Janssen also contains particles which are composed of stainless steel which are glued together with a “Carbon-based glue” of reduced graphene oxide.

This aggregate is highly magnetic and can trigger pathological blood coagulation and the “Corona Effect” or the “Spike Protein Effect”

Cells on the left are healthy, concave. Cells on the right are hollow, not concave, they have lost their haemoglobin which is the “Spike Protein Effect” or “Corona effect”
Coagulation of the blood. On the left, white blood cells with lactic and citric acid crystals and pathological blood coagulation. On the right, blood analysis showing disseminated intravascular coagulation, thrombosis, immature neutrophils, the ‘Corona Effect’ and Acanthocytosis

The Moderna “vaccine” also contains many spherical foreign bodies with some bubble-shaped cavities. These highly toxic nano particulate composition are quantum dots of cadmium selenide which are cytotoxic and genotoxic. Quantum dots are semiconductor nanoparticles that glow a particular colour after being illuminated by light. The colour they glow depends on the size of the nanoparticle.  The black spots on the image below are graphene oxide.

Nano dots and graphene oxide found in the Moderna so-called “vaccine”

Dr. Young’s paper concludes, these Covid injections “are NOT vaccines but nanotechnological drugs working as a genetic therapy … All these so-called “vaccines” are patented and therefore their actual content is kept secret even to the buyers, who, of course, are using taxpayers’ money. So, consumers (taxpayers) have no information about what they are receiving in their bodies by inoculation.”

Summary of undisclosed ingredients extracted from Dr. Young’s published scientific paper

According to Dr. Young an estimated 500 million people worldwide have already been injured, with potentially 35 million deaths, due to Covid injections. This is likely to increase in the coming months with people who have had two injections being 13 times more likely to be injured, hospitalized or killed by the “Delta variant” compared to those with natural immunity. But what is actually causing the Covid “variants” and future “waves”?

The genetic code for the Spike Protein in the “vaccines” is computer generated, it is “man-made”, and can be easily altered.  And, the graphene oxide in the body’s tissues – brain, connective tissue, potentially in the muscles – will interact with pulsating frequencies within the 5G range, said Dr. Young, this will be what causes the next “wave” predicted in October.

Stop putting poison into your body, Dr. Young said, “these [Covid] inoculates are dangerous because the nano particulates can pass right through the blood-brain barrier, they can pass right through the air-blood barrier.  That’s why these inoculations are so dangerous.  It’s because the particulates break through: the blood-brain barrier, which is protected; the air-blood barrier; and, the testicular or ovarian-blood barrier.  The particulates go right in.” To poison the body in order to heal the body makes no sense – it is a failed narrative.

Dr. Young’s published scientific paper, Scanning & Transmission Electron Microscopy Reveals Graphene Oxide in CoV-19 Vaccines, can be read by following this LINK or in the pdf document as attached:Robert-Young-GrapheneOxideVaccinePaperUpdatedDownload

The paper is technical and those of us who have not made a career in science or medicine may struggle to understand its full implications.  Dr. Young discussed his findings in depth during an interview which you can watch HERE.  Beginning at the one hour mark he works methodically through the paper’s highlights.  What he has to say is of enormous importance to us all. Whether we have had, are considering having or decline to have a Covid injection it’s worth taking the time to hear what he has to say.

Further reading:

Why would they put graphene oxide in the Covid injections?  At the end of July a Pfizer whistle-blower, Karen Kingston, confirmed there is undisclosed graphene oxide in the Covid injections.  She gives some insight as to the reason why which aligns with that given by Dr. Young.  You can watch Kingston’s interview HERE.

On 26 August, Japan announced it was suspending the use of the Moderna “vaccines” due to reports of contamination with “a substance that reacts to magnets … it could be metal.”

Previously all Covid injections had emergency use authorization only but on 23 August, for America, the FDA approved the Pfizer “vaccine”.  Last Wednesday in a second interview Kingston discussed the impact this approval had on disclosure of ALL ingredients, including those not previously disclosed: https://rumble.com/embed/vj26z2/?pub=4#?secret=puKEYSNBOa