Pfizer Vaccine Whistleblower Responds To Motion To Dismiss False Claims Suit

Authors: Alex Giordano via The Epoch Times AUG 27, 2022 

Pfizer cannot use the government as a shield from liability for making false claims about its COVID-19 vaccine, lawyers for a whistleblower argued in response to Pfizer’s motion to dismiss a False Claims Act lawsuit.

Respondents claim fraudulent certifications, false statements, doctored data, contaminated clinical trials, and firing of whistleblowers can be ignored based on the theory that they contracted their way around the fraud,” lawyers for Brook Jackson, who worked as regional director at one of the clinical trials used to develop the Pfizer vaccine, wrote in their Aug. 22 response.

“A drug company cannot induce the taxpayers to pay billions of dollars for a product,” they countered, “that honest data would show poses more risks than benefits, and that ignores the actual contract and the law itself.”

Jackson’s lawsuit alleges that Pfizer and two of its subcontractors violated the False Claims Act by providing bogus clinical trial results to garner the FDA approval of its COVID-19 vaccine.

Under federal law, individuals can sue on behalf of the government and win treble damages if they can prove an individual or company deliberately lied to the government.

One of Jackson’s attorneys, Warner Mendenhall, told The Epoch Times that the payout could be as much as $3.3 trillion.

It would be enough to bankrupt Pfizer,” Mendenhall said.

Mendenhall, whose law firm has won multimillion-dollar False Claims Act cases, based his estimates on the more than $2 billion the U.S. government has paid Pfizer for more than 100 million doses of its COVID-19 vaccine.

In motions to dismiss the lawsuit, Pfizer and its subcontractors argued that besides Jackson’s allegations being false, the government, not a private citizen, can initiate a False Claims Act complaint and that the lawsuit against them should, therefore, be dismissed.

“The Relator may not pursue the claims against Pfizer without the Government first pursuing them in an administrative proceeding,” Pfizer’s motion states.

The companies also argued that the FDA was well aware of Jackson’s claims for at least two years before the lawsuit was filed against them and that it publicly responded to Jackson’s allegations by expressing the agency’s “full confidence” in the data used to support the vaccine.

However, Mendenhall said a false claims action is independent of the government’s knowledge and that Jackson only has to prove Pfizer and its subcontractors presented fraudulent information to the FDA.

Jackson was third in command of the clinical trials conducted by Ventavia Research Group as part of Pfizer’s application for emergency use authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine. She was there for only 18 days before being fired by Ventavia after reporting what she called “absolute mayhem” and an utter disregard for safety protocols and federal regulations in developing the vaccine.

Jackson has submitted over 400 exhibits as part of her complaint. Jackson said that a former Taco’s cashier was among those tasked with injecting patients with the experimental jab. She alleged that the trial staff falsified patient signatures on informed consent paperwork. And she has described a daily mess of unsanitary conditions.

Jackson also responded for the first time to Pfizer’s characterization of her as an anti-vaccine, anti-government individual out for money as vengeance for her firing.

Jackson has worked on a long list of government-run clinical trials for vaccines and said she is pro-vaccine. She pointed out that her children have had all their childhood vaccines and that her entire family gets the flu vaccine yearly. Jackson received the COVID-19 vaccine as soon as it was available and was initially one of its biggest cheerleaders.

While she is seeking compensation for her termination as part of her actions against Pfizer and the other companies, Jackson said she plans to donate any money she receives under her legal action against the companies to those injured by the vaccine.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s blood money,” she said. “The world should be disgusted by what went on here with the shameful actions behind this dangerous vaccine.”

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.

THIS STUDY SHOWING THAT Report: 44 Percent of Pregnant Women in Pfizer Trial Lost Their Babies; FDA and CDC Recommended Jabs For Expectant Mothers Anyway IS INACCURATE. A MATH ERROR CAUSED A DOUBLE COUNT. THE PERCENT SHOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 22% OF ALL PREGNANT WOMEN!

Authors:  Debra Heine August 16, 2022

More than 40 percent of pregnant women who participated in Pfizer’s mRNA COVID vaccine trial suffered miscarriages, according internal Pfizer documents, recently released under court order. Despite this, Pfizer, and the Biden administration insisted that the vaccines were safe for pregnant women. Out of 50 pregnant women, 22 of them lost their babies, according to an analysis of the documents.

In a January court ruling, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas, ordered the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to release around 12,000 documents immediately, and then 55,000 pages a month until all documents were released, totaling more than 300,000 pages.

The nonprofit group, Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, sued the FDA last September, after the agency denied its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to expedite the release of mRNA vaccine review documents. In a November 2021 joint status report, the FDA proposed releasing only 500 pages of the documents a month, which would have taken up to 75 years.

Trial documents released in April revealed that Pfizer had to hire 1,800 additional full-time employees in the first half of 2021 to deal with “the large increase” of adverse reactions to its COVID vaccine.

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine was made available under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) on Dec. 11, 2020. By February of 2021, the company was seeing so many safety signals, including in pregnant and breastfeeding mothers, it had to immediately hire 600 employees to process the data.

A batch of documents released in late July showed that 44 percent of women who were pregnant during the trial suffered miscarriages, feminist author and journalist Dr. Naomi Wolf revealed on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast. Wolf has been spearheading research and analysis of the Pfizer documents through her website Daily Clout.

In the past, only 10 to 15 percent of known pregnancies ended in miscarriage.

“Pfizer took those deaths of babies—those spontaneous abortions and miscarriages—and recategorized them as recovered/resolved adverse effects,” Wolf told Bannon. “In other words, if you lost your baby, it was categorized by Pfizer as resolved adverse event, like a headache that got better,” she added.

Wolf said adverse event cutoff report showing the miscarriages was March 13, 2021, and the FDA received the report on April 1, 2021.

Therefore, the FDA had this data nearly a year and a half ago, and instead raising an alarm, they, along with the CDC, went ahead and recommended the experimental injections for expectant mothers anyway.

“Over a year ago, the FDA received this report that out of 50 pregnant women, 22 of them lost their babies, and they did not say anything,” Wolf said, choking back tears. “Thus the FDA was aware of the horrifying rate of fetal death by the start of April 2021 and were silent.”

The CDC, as recently as last month, still recommended the experimental mRNA vaccines for pregnant and breastfeeding “people.”

“COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all people 6 months and older. This includes people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant now, or might become pregnant in the future,” the CDC claims in a July 2022 post on its website. “CDC also recommends COVID-19 vaccines for infants 6 months and older who’s mother was vaccinated or had a COVID infection before or while pregnant.”

The FDA and CDC could conceivably claim they were unaware of high rate of miscarriages in the trial because Pfizer attempted to obscure the data.

“Pfizer notes the miscarriages as serious adverse events with moderate or severe toxicity ratings,” Wolf explained. “However, all of them were recategorized, by Pfizer, in the internal documents under the category of adverse events that were ‘recovered’ or ‘resolved.’”

Wolf noted that the Pfizer trial data correlates with the massive increase in miscarriages seen worldwide since the vaccine rollouts.

“If you extrapolate, globally, to all the pregnant women who are injected, it could explain what we’re seeing now of a baby die-off. 200 percent rise in neonatal deaths or spontaneous abortions and miscarriages in Scotland,” she said, adding, “86 babies died in Ontario when they usually have five or six [per quarter], and in Israel, a 34 percent rise of spontaneous abortions and miscarriages to vaccine.”

Back in January, three military doctors who had access to vaccination data in the DoD’s Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) disclosed that miscarriages and cancers among members of the US military had increased by about 300 percent in 2021 over the five year average.

These alarming safety signals were among several others brought to light by Thomas Renz, a member of America’s Frontline Doctors’ legal team, during a panel discussion convened by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) in January.

The CDC, however, still maintains on its website that “evidence continues to build showing that: COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is safe and effective.”

The agency also claimed “there is currently no evidence that any vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, cause fertility problems in women or men,” despite recent studies showing otherwise.

Dr. James Thorp, an physician MD board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology, as well as maternal-fetal medicine, said in a recent interview that he has seen a massive spike in fetal death and adverse pregnancy outcomes after the mass vaccination campaign began.

Dr. Thorp told Epoch Times he has practiced obstetrics for over 42 years and sees 6,000–7,000 high-risk OB patients a year.

The obstetrician declared that the use of the experimental COVID vaccines on expectant mothers “broke all the rules.”

“We have always been guided by that principle, that longstanding, six millennia principle—the golden rule of pregnancy—you never, ever use an investigational drug, a new substance, a new drug, a new vaccine—even if there’s a potential benefit,” he said. “You don’t ever use a new substance in pregnancy.”

Thorp said that in his practice, he’s seen a “significant increase” in problems, including “extraordinarily abnormal menstrual periods” before pregnancy.

“The vaccine I’m very concerned about and I do believe that in pregnancy, it’s contraindicated,” he said.

He said that his attempts to disclose these adverse events has been hampered by the imposition of gag orders on physicians and nurses that were imposed in September 2021.

In September of 2021, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) put out a statement in support of the Federation of State Medical Boards’ (FSMB) contention that “providing misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine contradicts physicians’ ethical and professional responsibilities.” The ABOG said physicians disseminating “misinformation” would be subject to “disciplinary actions, including suspension or revocation of their medical license.”

The ACOG, like the CDC, recommends the experimental injections for “pregnant people.”

“The fact that ABOG would recommend this “vaccine” in pregnancy is an abomination and may well be the greatest disaster in the history of obstetrics,” Thorp wrote in an article in the Gazette of Medical Sciences (GMS), titled: Patient Betrayal: The Corruption of Healthcare, Informed Consent and the Physician-Patient Relationship.

Doctors Criticize Fauci For Saying COVID Vaccines Induce ‘Only Temporary’ Menstrual Irregularities

Authors: Enrico Trigozo Epoch Times August 6, 2022

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s recent comments on menstrual irregularities met with serious rebuttal from gynecologists, who say COVID-19 vaccines should not have been injected into pregnant women without adequate safety testing.

Well, the menstrual thing is something that seems to be quite transient and temporary, that’s one of the points,” Fauci said in an appearance on Fox News on July 25, upon being asked about the effect of vaccines on menstrual cycles.

“We need to study it more,” Fauci added.

Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and has been a frontman for COVID vaccine information in the United States.

Dr. Christiane Northrup MD, a former fellow in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, remarked to The Epoch Times on Fauci’s comments: “Unfortunately the menstrual problems we are seeing are far from transient and temporary. Many women have been bleeding daily or having heavy, irregular, painful periods for an entire year. And some of these are well past menopause. Something is way off here. ”

Dr. James Thorp is an extensively published 69-year-old physician MD board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology, as well as maternal-fetal medicine, who has been practicing obstetrics for over 42 years.

The significant and dramatic changes in menstrual patterns occurring after COVID-19 vaccines should not be marginalized. It is indicative of major adverse effects on women of reproductive age. The stakeholders claimed that the vaccine would remain at the injection site in the deltoid muscle. This was misinformation. The lipid nanoparticles (LNP’s) are now known to be distributed throughout the entire body and to be concentrated in the ovaries, according to at least two studies. Schadlich and colleagues demonstrated concentration of the LNP’s in ovaries of different mouse species and Wistar rats, in vivo, in vitro and by sophisticated microscopic imaging in 2012,” he told The Epoch Times.

A lipid nanoparticle is an extremely small particle, a fat-soluble membrane that is the cargo of the messenger RNA.

Pfizer’s Internal Documents

Pfizer’s internal documents, obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, show a 118-fold increase in the concentration of LNPs from the time of injection to 48 hours.

“The LNP’s are known to include toxic substances including polyethylene glycol and pseudo-uridinated mRNA. The limited number of ovum in the ovaries (about 1 million) are exposed to potentially toxic substances and could potentially have catastrophic effects on human reproduction,” Thorp said.  

The stakeholders claimed that the pseudo-uridinated mRNA could not be reverse transcribed into the human DNA. This was misinformation,” he added, referring to a Swedish study published in February 2022 that concluded that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is able to enter human liver cells and is converted into DNA.

Thorp and former Pfizer VP Michael Yeadon believe that the medical industrial complex had unequivocal evidence on the vaccine’s danger in pregnant women.

This is proven not only by VAERS but also by Pfizer’s own internal document ‘Pfizer 5.3.6 post-marketing experience” Thorp said.

Within the first 90 days of trials, there were 1,223 deaths, multiple severe adverse effects, and a 45 percent complication rate in pregnancy cases (274) that occurred in vaccinated mothers (124).

The 2012 study, mentioned by Thorp earlier, says that after testing with different mouse species and Wistar rats, “a high local accumulation of nanoparticles, nanocapsules and nanoemulsions in specific locations of the ovaries was found in all animals.”

Yeadon believes that the pharmaceutical industry “definitely knew,” since 2012, that the lipid nanoparticles would accumulate in the ovaries of women that took the vaccines.

“No one in the industry or in leading media could claim ‘they didn’t know about these risks to successful pregnancy,’” Yeadon told The Epoch Times in April.

The Feds Pile Up Vaccine ‘Adverse Event’ Reports As They Decry Scaremongering Elsewhere

Authors: Clayton Fox RealClear Investigations, July 17, 2022

Since the Food and Drug Administration authorized the first vaccines for COVID-19 in late 2020, the government and much of the media have insisted that the medicines developed in record time are safe and effective. Those who raised questions about them have been routinely dismissed as conspiracy theorists.

And yet an online database co-administered by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control has compiled more than 1.3 million reports of vaccine-implicated  “adverse events” running the gamut from mild to severe, including 29,000 deaths.

Representative entries include:

  • 44-year-old male from California with a blood clot in the brain (CVST) five days after receiving Pfizer vaccine, dose unknown.
  • 31-year-old female from Pennsylvania with heart inflammation (myocarditis) two days after receiving Moderna’s booster.
  • 58-year-old female from California with blood clots in legs (DVT) after receiving Johnson & Johnson booster. She reported:

“Day after booster on 11/16/21 my right leg was aching. 7 days later on 11/23/21 my sole of my right foot was very painful upon walking. This resolved 2 days later by 11/25/21. On day 11 (11/26/21) my ankle was slightly swollen and painful to touch. These symptoms continued to migrate up my leg to my inner thigh. On 12/13/21 I was seen by my primary care Doctor and was sent for a d-dimer blood test which was 1.77. I was seen in vascular dept and ultrasound indicated multiple DVT from my groin to my ankle.”

These reports are not anecdotes from “anti-vaxxers” on the dark web. They come from the federal government’s open-source log, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. It allows anyone to go online and report a bad reaction that could be linked to any vaccine, including those for COVID-19.  (RealClearInvestigations has linked above to VAERS reports posted at Openvaers.com, an independently run and easier to navigate database that copies reports verbatim from the CDC’s less user-friendly “WONDER” system.)

While the reports are unfiltered and unexamined, the idea is that such public input will allow researchers to identify potential problems. But the sheer number of reports, and their specificity, have the attention of concerned scientists and even some politicians like Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who has invited people harmed by vaccines to testify before Congress and advocates compensation for them.

Johnson’s office said he has been admonishing the health authorities over the VAERS reports for a year. “The senator believes the CDC and FDA need to take their own adverse event early warning system seriously and be transparent with the American people,” it said in a statement. “To date, they have not been.”

VAERS was created in the late 1980s as an outgrowth of a congressional mandate to create a system for compensating vaccine victims and their families. In 2015, the CDC said the average number of annual reports was roughly 30,000. In 2021, there were nearly 1 million. Given the large increase during a politically charged pandemic, the usefulness of VAERS is the subject of great debate even among scientists

Some health experts believe that the number of reports is primarily a function of increased publicity around the COVID vaccines, a high number indicating only that many more people are aware of the system and concerned about potential side effects from the shots. Others say the number and strong indications in certain symptom categories – such as the cardiovascular examples cited above – paint a bleaker picture of the vaccines’ safety.

Dr. Peter McCullough, a renowned cardiologist and academic physician with over 600 papers published in medical literature, was one of the first professionals to publicly question the safety of the COVID-19 injections. On April 21, 2021, on his podcast The McCullough Report, he read out some of the early, alarming statistics from VAERS including reports of 502 heart attacks, 84 miscarriages, 321 cases of low blood platelet counts (thrombocytopenia) and 2,342 deaths. For Dr. McCullough, these numbers were a huge red flag. For comparison, he cites the last “mass vaccination program” undertaken in the United States, the 1976 swine flu vaccine. Dr. McCullough noted that there were approximately 55 million people vaccinated, with an accompanying 500 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, and around 25 deaths. “And the government officials at that time said, ‘we’re going to pull it.’”

Dr. McCullough said that by April 2021, VAERS reports were already so numerous  that he felt the COVID vaccines should be pulled off the market. That same month, Fox News host Tucker Carlson voiced doubts about the vaccines’ effectiveness, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Biden’s top medical adviser, blasted him for pushing “a typical crazy conspiracy theory.”  

VAERS reports, however, are not hard evidence. Its website explains: “A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.” Some of the FDA and CDC’s most senior veterans advise caution in interpreting the data.

Susan Ellenberg, PhD, the former Director of the Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology at the FDA’s Center for Biologics, told RCI that “anything that gets reported goes directly into the [VAERS] system … so mostly what you get is noise.” She said that it’s nearly impossible to prove causation with this dataset alone. Dr. Walter Orenstein, formerly the CDC’s director of immunization, concurs. He said, “That’s why it’s called adverse ‘events’ as opposed to reaction because reaction implies causation. Event is basically something that follows.” Elderly people, for example, die regularly; if they are dying days or weeks after being vaccinated, that does not necessarily mean the vaccine is killing them.

There are many reasons why the VAERS data is usually insufficient to prove causality between vaccination and adverse events, including:

  • There is no reliable denominator to establish event rates – and no “control” group against which to measure adverse events.
  • Reports are often messy or incomplete.
  • Underreporting has been a consistent and documented issue. (One CDC study shows that the system may capture as few as 12% of adverse events, meaning the total for COVID-19 vaccines could be as high as 10.8 million.)
  • On the other hand, overreporting is also an issue, as noted in this 2003 CDC review: “Other potential reporting biases include increased reporting in the first few years after licensure, increased reporting of events occurring soon after vaccination, and increased reporting after publicity about a particular known or alleged type of adverse event.”
  • In the case of childhood vaccinations, vaccine sets are co-administered, making it nearly impossible to know which specific vaccine caused the adverse event.

So why continue using an unreliable system – apart from the fact it was required by Congress? Experts agree that VAERS can be extremely useful in picking up signals of causation, which can be confirmed with further study, usually employing the government’s other major monitoring system: the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink. The VSD uses the combined databases of nine major healthcare systems nationwide, providing detailed patient data, and the ability to look at control groups of unvaccinated patients. The downside to the VSD is that unless an issue comes through the healthcare system, it’s not going to be reported. So if someone dies at home after being vaccinated, it won’t make it into VSD, though it might make it into VAERS.

One prime example of VAERS picking up a signal leading to an important safety discovery occurred in the late 1990s with the RotaShield vaccine for rotavirus – an ailment that causes diarrhea and vomiting in the very young. While clinical trials revealed a small number of cases of intussusception – the sometimes-deadly folding of the intestine in small children – the  finding was not seen as prohibitive. Nonetheless, public health researchers flagged it as something to look for in VAERS as the vaccine was distributed widely. When reports started piling up in VAERS, it led to a review process, which ultimately led to the manufacturer pulling the vaccine off the market and the FDA pulling its license. A clear success for the system.

In the case of the COVID-19 vaccine products, Dr. Orenstein said VAERS has been a success, and that the large number of reports has been helpful in identifying certain issues. “The increased volume may be a good thing. Because of the increased reporting we’ve been able to detect causally related problems, with mRNA problems with myocarditis and pericarditis, and with J&J coagulation problems and Guillain-Barré, so in essence, VAERS is important.”

Jessica Rose, an independent researcher in Israel, agrees, and has devoted the past year and a half to putting VAERS under a microscope. Dr. Rose has a PhD in computational biology from Bar-Ilan University, a post-doc in molecular biology from Hebrew University, and another in biochemistry from the Technion, widely considered Israel’s MIT. She has become a fierce critic of the COVID-19 vaccines and spent countless hours poring over VAERS reports to craft her articles on the emergent issues.

As of today, the system has more than 29,000 reports of deaths.

For Rose, who has been collaborating with Dr. McCullough, the information available in the VAERS system on its own is sufficient to prove causality when it comes to vaccine-induced myocarditis from all three vaccines, especially the mRNA-based shots from Pfizer and Moderna. They specifically raise concerns around the high rate of myocarditis reported among boys ages 12-15. Their paper stating this was received, peer-reviewed, and accepted by Elsevier, the publisher of Current Problems in Cardiology, where the piece was to be released. It was then withdrawn from the site at the discretion of the editor. No basis was given for the removal. Dr. McCullough described the situation in detail to Bret Weinstein on his Dark Horse podcast in December. When asked for comment, Dr. McCullough told RealClearInvestigations:

Elsevier, the world’s largest medical publisher, has for the first time in its history started violating publication contracts with unilateral retractions in the pandemic era. These papers were fully peer-reviewed, contracted, and published without any threats to scientific validity. The one thing in common for these retractions – they provided data on COVID-19 vaccine injuries, disabilities, and deaths. Thus Elsevier has broken the trust of the consuming public, doctors, and patients. In addition to legal exposure, Elsevier is losing ground to MDPI and other publishers that do not engage in corrupt censorship.

Asked to respond to the cardiologist’s comment, Elsevier issued this statement to RCI: “We do not agree with these assertions; this article in press was withdrawn following our standard policies which are all publicly available on our website.”

The Lyme Disease Precedent

Dr. Orenstein and the federal health apparatus now acknowledge that adverse outcomes like myocarditiscoagulopathies/thrombosis, and Guillain-Barré have been established as causally related to the COVID-19 shots in certain cohorts – and that VAERS played a role in making those connections – but see them as rare.

Former FDA epidemiologist Ellenberg says the sheer number of events in VAERS may reflect the revival of an old phenomenon: high adverse publicity around vaccines, similar to what happened with the Lyme disease vaccine and arthritis.

Lyme disease can cause arthritis. So can aging. When many reports of arthritis started appearing in VAERS after that vaccine was rolled out in 1998, bad publicity followed. Ellenberg started receiving phone calls from lawyers asking her when FDA was going to pull the vaccine. Ultimately, FDA convened a panel to look into the correlation, and no causal connection was found. “But because of the publicity, use of the vaccine waned and eventually the producer took it off the market.”

Regarding the COVID-19 vaccines, Jessica Rose said VAERS shows a grim picture that has nothing to do with publicity. The reporting system “is functioning as a pharmacovigilance tool right now,” she said. “There are an enormous number and range of safety signals being thrown out.”

In March 2022, after the COVID-19 vaccine had been available for 15 months (462 days), she compared the number of VAERS reports related to these shots versus those for flu vaccines. Given the greater number of COVID shots administered during that period, she predicted that “the rate of reporting in VAERS…should be about twice for COVID than for flu.” What she found instead was “117.6 times as many reports of adverse events in the context of the COVID shots.”

Rose is adamant. “This is not about the number of doses, this is about these products doing more damage [than the flu vaccines],” she said, “systemic, comprehensive damage that we’ve never seen before. There’s no doubting that these products are different.” When RCI queried Rose as to which three adverse events might be most readily proven as being caused by the vaccine with data posted in VAERS, she replied, “Myocarditis, Bell’s palsy, and anything related to clotting.

Quietly, large numbers of peer-reviewed studies have been accumulating in legitimate journals, lending credence to those who believe many adverse events are occurring, and that they are causally related to vaccination. Just recently, a study of vaccines in three Nordic countries revealed a strong correlation between getting the Astra-Zeneca shot and a higher incidence of cardiovascular injury, and a lesser but still significant correlation for recipients of the Pfizer and Moderna products.

Finally, a “preprint” study (not yet peer reviewed) uploaded June 23 and co-authored by Peter Doshi, a senior editor at the British Medical Journal, as well as physicians from UCLA and Stanford, concludes that a careful analysis of all available data now suggests that the benefits of vaccination do not outweigh the potential harms. To make their calculations, the researchers used data from VAERS as well as its European equivalent, EudraVigilance, and the WHO’s VigiBase.

But the story remains complicated. For instance, Rose agreed drawing conclusions is complicated by the lack of data in VAERS about whether reporting patients have also recovered from COVID. Studies have now shown that having had COVID also increases the risk of cardiovascular events in the year after recovery. On the other hand, an Israeli analysis shows a correlation to vaccine rollout, but not to COVID-19 infection rates.

With such variables, the task of monitoring vaccine safety can seem almost futile. But Dr. Robert Chen, the creator of VAERS, disagrees. He believes the system, in concert with the Vaccine Safety Datalink and other resources, has worked well in alerting the public health community to issues due to vaccination. He told RCI that “in terms of its main function of telling you that something is going on, it’s amazingly effective.”

Dr. Orenstein said the VSD should be expanded if possible as a complement to VAERS but said that without a single national database, the current system of monitoring vaccine safety is “as good as it gets.” For Ellenberg, a statistician by training, “these are horrible, messy databases. You’re looking for a needle in a haystack.” When talking to other epidemiologists and encouraging them to create better systems for analyzing VAERS, Ellenberg said she uses this analogy: “If you can reduce the whole haystack to a handful of hay, then that makes your job just a little bit easier.”

Rose acknowledges the messiness of VAERS, but believes it provides enough information to tell a story of danger. She said that in her analysis, 60% of VAERS reports describe events within 48 hours of vaccine administration – one more criteria for causality. Rose said: “It isn’t on me to prove that these products aren’t safe, this is on them [CDC, FDA], legally, to prove that these products are safe. And they’re not doing their jobs.” On that point, a recent public records request by Josh Guetzkow, Ph.D., and the legal team at Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense found that CDC has not been analyzing the VAERS data on COVID-19 shots using its own stated methods.

n an email to RCI, the CDC stated, “COVID-19 vaccines are undergoing the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history.”

Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination in Randomized Trials

Authors: Joseph Fraiman Louisiana State University – Lallie Kemp Regional Medical Center, Juan Erviti Navarre Health Service, Mark Jones Bond University – Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Sander Greenland University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) – Jonathan and Karin Fielding School of Public Health, Patrick Whelan University of California at Los Angeles, Robert M. Kaplan Stanford University, Peter Doshi University of Maryland – School of Pharmacy

Abstract

Introduction: In 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. We leveraged the Brighton Collaboration list to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in phase III randomized trials of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Methods: Secondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (NCT04368728 and NCT04470427), focusing analysis on potential adverse events of special interest identified by the Brighton Collaboration.

Results: Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest, with an absolute risk increase of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95% CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an absolute risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9). The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).

Discussion: The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes such as hospitalization or death.

Latest survey shows the COVID vaccines are a disaster: ~750,000 dead in US

In US, ~5M people who got the vaccine are now unable to work and ~750,000 are dead. The rate of heart issues is 6.6%, far more than they claimed. No wonder our government isn’t doing these surveys!

Authors: Steve Kirsch Jun 25, 2022

“With over 40 years of experience in genomics, bioinformatics and development of monoclonal, protein therapeutic & small molecule drugs and clinical research on them, there is no question that the complexity of the human body insures that some people will be harmed by them. All drugs are poison at high enough concentration and in many instances drugs that are safe for some are deadly to others. It is evident from the data presented by the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Registry that the mRNA Jabs have caused millions of injuries. This Study, is a pilot extrapolation that needs further investigation, but, if accurate paints a very troubling picture of harms and future harms caused by these jabs that were not required to demonstrate long-term safety or effectiveness! ”

John Murphy, CEO The COV19 Long-haul Foundation

Executive summary

Our latest poll is devastating for the official narrative:

  1. a 6.6% rate of heart injury (>10M Americans)
  2. 2.7% are unable to work after being vaccinated (>5M Americans),
  3. 6.3% had to be hospitalized (>10M Americans)
  4. you were more likely to die from COVID if you’ve taken the vaccine.
  5. Almost as many (77.4%) households lost someone from the vaccines as from COVID. If you believe that 1M people in the US have died from COVID, then this survey indicates that ~750,000 people died from the vaccine (10.18/13.15*1M) with a 95% confidence of at least 600,000 deaths.

The error bar computation on each question is here.

We will be re-running this with a 5,000 sample size soon which will have smaller error bars. But the key point is that even if we choose the most conservative data points, the survey results are inconsistent with the “safe and effective” narrative.

For example, the CDC hasn’t found anyone who has died from the mRNA vaccines and our survey shows at least 600,000 people have died. That’s a big gap. Someone isn’t telling you the truth. Why do we get such a high number every time we run our poll to a different audience?

Anyone can run our poll for $500 if you don’t believe us. I predict nobody in mainstream media will touch this because they don’t want to know the truth.

This is a poll that nobody who is pro-vaccine wants you to see.

The poll will be ignored by the mainstream media, even when we rerun it with 8,000 people and get the same results. You can bank on that.

Introduction

We used a professional to draft most of the survey questions and skip logic for our Jun 25 survey.

Here are the key takeaways from the Jun 25 survey. We use “stratified counts” throughout since these are “normalized” based on the US demographics:

  1. 380 of the 500 people who took the poll were vaccinated after normalization [Q1]
  2. Only 34% of Americans are drinking the Kool-Aid and getting >2 doses [Q1]
  3. 2.63% of the households (13.15/500) had someone who died from the COVID virus [Q19]
  4. 2.03% [1.7%-2.4%] of the households (10.18[8.6-11.8]/500) reported a death from the vaccine in their household [Q15]. This is stunning because it shows that the vaccine has killed almost as many people as the COVID virus has. The authorities say that COVID has killed over 1M people in the US so this suggests that 774,000 people were killed by the vaccine (10.18[8.6-11.8]/13.15[12.3-14.0]=77.4% [64.2%-90.5%]). How can that be a “safe” vaccine? The 95% confidence intervals say over 600,000 Americans have been killed by the vaccine. Even if this is overestimated by a factor of 10X, this is devastating for the vaccine narrative. There is simply no way to spin this. This is why the “fact checkers” and mainstream media will avoid this survey.
  5. 2.7% of the people who took the vaccine (10.43/380) are so injured they are unable to work [Q7A2]. This is a disaster. So this is 2.7% of the 200M vaccinated people ages 18 and older: >5M severely injured people who can’t work. I don’t know how they will spin this as a positive.
  6. 16.7% (63.7/380) of the people who took the vaccine consider themselves vaccine injured [Q2]. So that’s >30M vaccine injured. I don’t know how they will spin this as a positive.
  7. The survey shows a 6.6% rate of heart injury post-vaccine according to the poll (24.97/380 [Q3]). This is stunning because these are of the people taking the survey reporting their own injury. Nobody could know this better than the survey taker. This is 1,000X higher than the CDC told us. Per Gavi, “The CDC researchers estimated there might be a maximum of 70 cases of myocarditis out of a million second doses given to boys ages 12 to 17.” How could the CDC underestimate this severe adverse event by 3 orders of magnitude?!!? There is something seriously wrong here. Our survey is well within 1 order of magnitude with other rates we’ve been told. This represents 13.3M million people who are seriously injured, probably for life.
  8. 9.2% (35/380) of the people who took the vaccine had to seek medical help for their injury. [Q4]. That’s 18M doctor visits.
  9. 6.3% (23.83/380) of the people who took the vaccine had to be hospitalized for their vaccine injury [Q5] That’s over 12M hospitalizations.
  10. 3.7% (18.83/500) of the households had a person with a heart condition due to the vaccine [Q14]. Since there are 123M households, this is 4.5M new heart conditions. This is a lower estimate than the direct injury above suggesting that people answering this question were answering it for people other than themselves (since otherwise the rate would be higher than the 6.6% direct rate above). So this is another estimate on the number of new heart conditions.
  11. If you got a COVID infection, it’s 17% (36.4/30.98) [Q17] more likely that you were vaccinated, suggesting the vaccine could be making things worse.
  12. If you died from COVID, it was 72% more likely you died after getting the vaccine (6.81/3.95) [Q22]. We were told the opposite by the government.
  13. 46% are planning on getting more vaccines [Q23]. A total of 24.6% of all people are sheep, i.e., even if they are told the vaccine has a good chance of disabling them for life, they will do what the government recommends. These percentages are approximately what is predicted by mass formation theory.
  14. Most people (65%) believed that the hospital treatments for COVID may be responsible for killing people that they lost to COVID, not COVID [Q20]

The survey and underlying data

Jun 25 survey

  1. Jun 25 Pollfish survey summary
  2. Jun 24 Pollfish survey response detail

Here is the skip logic for the Jun 25 survey

Skip logic for June 25 poll

Earlier survey

  1. Jun 24 Pollfish survey summary
  2. Jun 24 Pollfish survey response detail

Latest survey where we broke out the myocarditis rates

  1. Jun 27 Pollfish survey summary
  2. Jun 27 Pollfish survey response detail

Error bars on the numbers

See this error bar computation.

I put the numbers in for the number of people who died. It’s a disaster even if you are on the low end of the error bars: at least 600,000 deaths from the vaccines.

Even if we are off by 10X, the vaccines are a disaster.

Methodology

See my earlier article for a description. No change. It was done by a professional polling organization. If you start the first question, you’re counted. You can’t tell anything about the survey from the first question.

The 500 people are chosen at random and designed to represent a cross-section of America.

The poll size is only 500 since these are test runs.

Therefore, the numbers for the final results could be off. I’ve computed the error bars for each question.

But even if all numbers are a factor of 10 lower, this vaccine is still a complete disaster and should be immediately halted.

Fact checkers welcome

We’ll happily do an interactive session where we show you all the data and the poll results so you can verify they weren’t tampered with. You can even reach out to Pollfish to verify the survey results are legit. We have nothing to hide.

We’ll give you the data files so you can run the poll yourself.

But nobody’s going to fact check this because it would just draw attention to it. So they will have to ignore this and pretend it didn’t happen. That’s what fact checkers do when the facts don’t support the narrative they are paid to support.

Next step

We’ll adjust some of the questions again and re-run the survey with another 500.

Then we’ll increase the size to 5,000 people to reduce the error bars from around 4% to 1%.

We’ll have the final results soon, but we already know the results are devastating.

Summary

The bottom line is this: the mainstream media, the medical community, public health officials, members of Congress, CDC, the “fact checkers,” or anyone else who is pro-vaccine will never run a poll like this to find out the truth.

They don’t want to know the truth and, more importantly, they don’t want you to know the truth either.

Vaccination increases Covid risk according to study published in New England Journal of Medicine

Authors: Wire servicesJune 21, 2022

Individuals who received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine have been linked with negative protection against the disease, scientists say in a study analyzing the Omicron wave in Qatar. The research also finds a previous infection without vaccination offers near 50 percent immunity,

Published in the New England Journal of Medicine on June 15, the research examined the Omicron wave in Qatar that occurred from December 2021 to February 2022, comparing vaccination rates and immunity among more than 100,000 Omicron infected and non-infected individuals.

The authors of the study found that those who had a prior infection but no vaccination had a 46.1 and 50 percent immunity against the two subvariants of the Omicron variant, even at an interval of more than 300 days since the previous infection.

However, individuals who received two doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine but had no previous infection, were found with negative immunity against both BA.1 and BA.2 Omicron subvariants, indicating an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 than an average person.

Over six months after getting two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, immunity against any Omicron infection dropped to -3.4 percent.

But for two doses of the Moderna vaccine, immunity against any Omicron infection dropped to -10.3 percent after more than six months since the last injection.

Though the authors reported that three doses of the Pfizer vaccine increased immunity to over 50 percent, this was measured just over 40 days after the third vaccination, which is a very short interval. In comparison, natural immunity persisted at around 50 percent when measured over 300 days after the previous infection, while immunity levels fell to negative figures 270 days after the second dose of vaccine.

These figures indicate a risk of waning immunity for the third vaccine dose as time progresses.

The findings are supported by another recent study from Israel that also found natural immunity waned significantly more slowly compared to artificial, or vaccinated, immunity.

The vaccination study found that both natural and artificial immunity waned over time.

Individuals that were previously infected but not vaccinated had half the risks of reinfection as compared to those that were vaccinated with two doses but not infected.

“Natural immunity wins again,” Dr. Martin Adel Makary, a public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, wrote on Twitter, referring to the Israeli study.

“Among persons who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, protection against reinfection decreased as the time increased,” the authors concluded, “however, this protection was higher” than protection conferred in the same time interval through two doses of the vaccine.

Austrian Minister of Health: Doctors are Liable for Jab Injuries

Authors Michelle Edwards July 7, 2022

Austrian MP Mag. Gerald Hauser recently posed demanding questions to the country’s Minister of Health Johannes Rauch concerning liability surrounding the COVID-19 jabs. Rauch’s responses indicate that medical professionals—who blindly followed the “evidence-less” assurances from the ministry that the shots were safe—could very likely be held responsible in the event of vaccination damage.  

Specifically, the Minister of Health’s answers shows doctors would be required to provide adequate information about possible dangers and harmful consequences of the injections in advance so individuals can make an “informed and free decision.” If they fail to do so, medical professionals could face penalties of up to 14,000 euros. According to settled case law with the Austrian Supreme Court, Rauch further explained the implications for doctors, stating:

“The doctor is obligated to inform patients about the possible dangers and harmful consequences of the treatment. There is also an obligation to inform about vaccinations. Before the vaccination is carried out, there is an obligation to inform the person to be vaccinated and—if this [person] is not yet capable of making decisions— one with legal representation in the area of the person entrusted with care and upbringing (legal guardian, usually a parent) about the disease to be prevented and the vaccination so that they can give consent to the vaccination.”

Rauch, who mandated the injections for all Austrian citizens (and quietly ended the mandate in late June), documented that doctors must provide the information to protect the freedom of the decision of the person concerned. Rauch wrote that for individuals to be objectively enlightened, they should be given the information required to understand the nature, importance, and scope of a medical measure, including COVID-19 “vaccines.” When asked what are the consequences for doctors if they fail to provide patients with sufficient information, Rauch responded:

“This question can only be answered to the effect that a lack of clarification [is] a violation of medical standards represent[ing] professional duties. This can be administrative and/or disciplinary, be punished, and result in legal liability consequences.” 

The dispute between conservative Freedom Party member Hauser and progressive Green Alternative member Rauch over the experimental COVID-19 “vaccines” is not new. Wochenblick (WB) reported that as early as June 2021, vaccine damage liability could fall on doctors if the patient has not been sufficiently informed in advance about the potentially harmful consequences of the injection, such as the many well-known and severe side effects. According to WB, Hauser has repeatedly stressed, “Vaccination is the problem, not the disease.” 

Hauser—who has promoted the use of Ivermectin and stated the W.H.O. is abolishing democracy—also asked Rauch what information or training has been furnished to the doctors dolling out the COVID injections so they can provide objective and sufficient information to their patients. As pointed out by WB, Rauch’s answers highlight the tremendous influence the massive pharmaceutical industry has over medical professionals and the entire global healthcare system. In 2020, Pfizer pushed over 31 million euros into Austria’s healthcare system. Given Pfizer’s consistent history of concealing the highly damaging effects of the mRNA shots, it seems safe to assume sufficient information from big pharma about adverse events is lacking. 

Along with Pfizer’s pumping of funds into Austria, Rauch explained that there had been 143 training courses for doctors on COVID-19 vaccinations. According to Rauch, from 2020 to 2022, the diploma further training program (DFP) of the Austrian Medical Association has held a total of 273 DFP training courses on the subject of “vaccination,” with 143 DFP of them specifically on the subject of the COVID-19 shots. Still, according to DFP’s website, the program is sponsored by Sanofi, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, and others. Thus, similar to Pfizer, the question persists regarding the depth of information offered on adverse vaccine events. 

Share of people vaccinated against COVID-19, Jul 6, 2022

  • Add country

0%20%40%60%80%100%Share of people with a complete initial protocolShare of people only partly vaccinatedUnited Arab Emirates100%Portugal96%Cuba94%Chile94%Singapore92%China90%Vietnam88%Brazil86%Canada86%Italy84%Japan82%Thailand81%France81%United Kingdom79%United States78%Bangladesh78%Germany77%Austria76%India73%Indonesia73%Philippines68%Turkey68%Mexico68%World67%Pakistan61%Russia56%Egypt48%Ethiopia38%Nigeria13%

Note: Alternative definitions of a full vaccination, e.g. having been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and having 1 dose of a 2-dose
protocol, are ignored to maximize comparability between countries.

CHART

Meanwhile, as vaccine status is mostly not recorded in Austria, the penalty for violating the obligation to report side effects of vaccinations (as dictated by the Medicines Act) is 7,500 euros and can go as high as 14,000 euros if repeated. Still, WB reported that not a single notification on COVID jabs had been submitted, leaving many affected individuals to report events themselves. Hauser points out that a side effect is any reaction to the vaccine that is harmful and unintended—in the case of vaccines, this also includes the lack of an effect. Subsequently, the question prevails: 

“Is it already a reportable side effect if a gene-treated person subsequently becomes infected with corona and actually becomes ill—i.e., has a so-called vaccination breakthrough?” 

In further questions on Hauser’s ten-page questionnaire, Rauch reiterated that medical professionals bear full responsibility and liability for the COVID jab and any side effects. Clearly, despite statements from the Austrian Ministry of Health that the jabs are safe, the ministry is essentially abandoning doctors and leaving them hanging with any potential lawsuits that may come to pass. And now that the Austrian Health Minister has pivoted accountability to medical doctors, how much longer can other nations, including the heavily propagandized United States, ignore the growing list of “vaccine” injuries and hold no one accountable?