Exactly HOW does the poison mRNA covid vaxx kill u?--destroys hemoglobin molecules in red blood cells so that far less oxygen is carried, transferred

Apollonian

Guest Columnist

What the COVID Shots Do to Your Blood…and More​

by Truth For Health Team | Jan 4, 2023

Link: https://www.americaoutloud.com/what-the-covid-shots-do-to-your-bloodand-more/?utm_source=twitter

blood-clots.png


Nuclear cardiologist and physicist, Richard Fleming, MD, Ph.D., JD, reveals his shocking independent analysis of the actual damage to blood and healthy red blood cells from Pfizer’s COVID shots. The mRNA genetic material gets into the red blood cells and alters the structure of the hemoglobin molecule so that it cannot carry oxygen, which is critical to our survival.
The healthy red blood turns gray, and the damage is so severe that it can decrease the oxygen enough to cause heart and brain damage, and lead to death. This loss of oxygen with damage to the red blood cells, along with blood clots that block blood flow to critical organs, are two of several known causes of the “adult sudden death” syndrome affecting unprecedented numbers of adults and children worldwide.
Despite extensive data to show these and other causes of sudden death, the corrupt media and public health officials, along with many doctors, still deny the actual connections with the deadly damage from the experimental COVID shots.
Dr. Fleming’s current studies on the COIVD shots and the types of damage have documented rapid blood clotting after the COVID shots, amyloid infiltration of the heart leading to congestive heart failure, particulate contaminants in the vials of COVID shots that should not be there, as well as sodium chloride crystals, and high concentrations of lipid nanoparticles in the blood that cause inflammatory damage to organs throughout the body. What his studies have NOT found in the COVID shots is graphene oxide, “hydras,” “parasites,” or “micro-circuitry.”
Dr. Fleming also discusses that prion damage from the COVID shots has led to skyrocketing acceleration of brain damage and memory loss, often just called “Alzheimer’s.” The CDC has already confirmed 84,000 excess cases of Alzheimer’s deaths in the year and a half since the COVID shots were rolled out. However, doctors still fail to report this connection and continue to push more COVID “boosters” on unsuspecting elderly.
Dr. Fleming has been presenting evidence of the inflamed-thrombotic response and cardiovascular damage since 1994 and is one of the leading medical authorities on how COVID illness, and the COVID shots, intensify the damage from the inflamm0-thrombotic response that can lead to death.
For more information on these topics, listen to these presentations by Richard M Fleming, Ph.D., MD, JD Physicist, Nuclear, Cardiologist, Attorney:

> To The State Attorney Generals & Governors. Honor Your Oaths!
> What Are the Effects of the Pfizer Shots on Human Blood?

Richard M Fleming, Ph.D., MD, JD; Physicist-NuclearCardiologist-Attorney. Websites: www.FlemingMethod.com and www.10Letters.org.
 
Last edited:

BREAKING: DOD CONTROLLED COVID ‘VACCINES’ FROM THE START UNDER NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM – LIED THE ENTIRE TIME – Were NEVER ‘Safe and Effective’​

By Staff Writer
January 5, 2023

Link: https://armedforces.press/2023/01/0...he-entire-time-were-never-safe-and-effective/

c.jpeg

CDM has interviewed Sasha Latyapova multiple times regarding the vaccines. She is breaking big news now on the Covid ‘vaccines’ and the Department of Defense.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 5, 2022
New Docs Reveal Department of Defense Controlled COVID-19 Program from the Start


FDA Vaccine Approval Process was Theater
A combinationofthePREP Act, Emergency Use Authorization, and Other Transactions Authority (OTA) Shielded Big Pharma, Agencies,and Medical Participants that Delivered Unregulated Vaccines from Any Liability
WASHINGTON, DC -According to congressionally passed statutes, research of active laws
,and extra details obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the Department of Defense owns, implements, and oversees the COVID-19 vaccine program as aCountermeasure” to foreign attack.While the public was bombarded with an orchestrated fear campaign,the U.S.Government managed the Covid response as a national security threat.
The research and documentswere obtained bya former executive of a pharmaceutical Contract Research Organization (CRO), Sasha Latypova,and intensive legal researcherKatherine Watt.
The Three-Legged Stool

The undercover operation was orchestrated utilizing three critical legal maneuvers:
1. Emergency Use Authorization EUA.
2. Prep Act,
3. Other Transactions Authority

President Trump declared a Public Health Emergency (PHE) on March 13, 2020, under the Stafford Act, putting the National Security Council in charge of the Covid policy.Covid-19 vaccines are “medical countermeasures” – a grey area of products that are not regulated as vaccines or medicines.
“They put the National Security Council in charge and treated it as an act of war,” said Latypova.
According to Operation Warp Speed/ASPR reports, the DoD ordered, oversaw, and tightly managed the development, manufacture, and distribution of Covid countermeasures,mainly utilizing the DoD’s previously established network of military contractors and consortia.
Department of Defense, BARDA, and HHS ordered all Covid countermeasures, including “vaccines” as prototype demonstrations of large-scale manufacturing, avoiding regulations and transparency under Other Transaction Authority. As prototypes used under EUA during PHE, Covid countermeasures, including “vaccines,” need not comply with the U.S. laws for manufacturing quality, safety, and labeling.
The implication is that theU.S.Government authorized and funded the deployment of noncompliant biological materials on Americans without clarifying their “prototype” legal status, making the materials not subject to normal regulatory oversight, all while maintaining a fraudulent pseudo- “regulatory” presentation to the public,” said Latypova.
Most incredible is the fact that current Laws enacted by the United States Congress appear to make the coverup actions LEGAL!”
Under the PHE, medical countermeasures are not regulated or safeguarded as pharmaceutical products (21 USC 360bbb-3(k).
The American people were led to believe thatthe FDA, CDC, and figureheads like Anthony Fauci oversaw the COVID-19 vaccine program.Their involvement was an orchestrated information operation. All decisions concerning the COVID-19 vaccine research, materials acquisition, distribution, and information sharing were tightly controlled by the DoD.
Hundreds of Covid countermeasurescontractshave been uncovered. Many disclosures are in redacted form. However, Latypova and Watt have found sources to fill in the details. A review of these contracts indicates a high degree of control by the U.S. Government (DoD/BARDA). It specifies the scope of deliverables as “demonstrations” and “prototypes” only while excluding clinical trials and manufacturing quality control from the scope of work paid for by the contracts. To ensure that the Pharma is free to conduct the fake clinical trials without financial risk, the contracts include the removal of all liability for the manufacturers and any contractors along the supply and distribution chain under the 2005 PREP Act and related federal legislation.
Why is no action by regulators or courts? According to Latypova and Watt, a combination of recently passed legislation and executive orders make it LEGAL to LIE! The HHS Secretary is accountable to no one if the Health National Emergency continues to be extended by Congress every three months.
A significant information operation was set in motion the minute COVID-19 hit. The U.S. government, the intelligence community, the media, and Big Tech colluded to orchestrate and implement an intense pressure campaign designed to get the vaccine legally designated under the Emergency Use Authorization Act while vilifying dissenting doctors, critics, and viable alternative treatments. This designation allowed for speedy manufacturing devoid of the standard safety and public health protocols.
For a vaccine to receive designation under the EUA, there can be no other known treatments or cures. Therefore, many proven treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were blacklisted in the media and dismissed as “horse dewormers” when these cheap, readily available drugs were in the past heralded for their effectiveness.
Eminent COVID-treating doctors such as Peter M. McCullough and Pierre Kory have faced unprecedented attacks on their medical credentials.
Here is a typical contract scope for “vaccines”.
 

CDC Finally Releases VAERS Safety Monitoring Analyses For COVID Vaccines​

Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/c...ers-safety-monitoring-analyses-covid-vaccines

BY TYLER DURDEN
MONDAY, JAN 09, 2023 - 06:25 AM
Authored by Professor Josh Guetzkow via Jackanapes Junction (some emphasis ours),

SUMMARY

  • CDC’s VAERS safety signal analysis based on reports from Dec. 14, 2020 – July 29, 2022 for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines shows clear safety signals for death and a range of highly concerning thrombo-embolic, cardiac, neurological, hemorrhagic, hematological, immune-system and menstrual adverse events (AEs) among U.S. adults.
  • There were 770 different types of adverse events that showed safety signals in ages 18+, of which over 500 (or 2/3) had a larger safety signal than myocarditis/pericarditis.
  • The CDC analysis shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000).
  • Twice as many mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reports were classified as serious compared to all other vaccines given to adults (11% vs. 5.5%). This meets the CDC definition of a safety signal.
  • There are 96 safety signals for 12-17 year-olds, which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell’s Palsy, genital ulcerations, high blood pressure and heartrate, menstrual irregularities, cardiac valve incompetencies, pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrhythmias, thromboses, pericardial and pleural effusion, appendicitis and perforated appendix, immune thrombocytopenia, chest pain, increased troponin levels, being in intensive care, and having anticoagulant therapy.
  • There are 66 safety signals for 5-11 year-olds, which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, ventricular dysfunction and cardiac valve incompetencies, pericardial and pleural effusion, chest pain, appendicitis & appendectomies, Kawasaki’s disease, menstrual irregularities, vitiligo, and vaccine breakthrough infection.
  • The safety signals cannot be dismissed as due to “stimulated,” exaggerated, fraudulent or otherwise artificially inflated reporting, nor can they be dismissed due to the huge number of COVID vaccines administered. There are several reasons why, but the simplest one is this: the safety signal analysis does not depend on the number of reports, but whether or not some AEs are reported at a higher rate for these vaccines than for other non-COVID vaccines. Other reasons are discussed in the full post below.
  • In August, 2022, the CDC told the Epoch Times that the results of their safety signal analysis “were generally consistent with EB [Empirical Bayesian] data mining [conducted by the FDA], revealing no additional unexpected safety signals.” So either the FDA’s data mining was consistent with the CDC’s method—meaning they "generally" found the same large number of highly alarming safety signals—or the signals they did find were expected. Or they were lying. We may never know because the FDA has refused to release their data mining results.

INTRODUCTION

Finally! Zachary Stieber at the Epoch Times managed to get the CDC to release the results of its VAERS safety signal monitoring for COVID-19 vaccines, and they paint a very alarming picture (see his reporting and the data files here, or if that is behind a paywall then here). The analyses cover VAERS reports for mRNA COVID vaccines from the period from the vaccine rollout on December 14, 2020 through to the end of July, 2022. The CDC admitted to only having started its safety signal analysis on March 25, 2022 (coincidentally 3 days after a lawyer at Children’s Health Defense wrote to them reminding them about our FOIA request for it).
[UPDATE: T Coddington left a link in comments to a website where he made the data in the Excel files more accessible.]
Like me, you might be wondering why the CDC waited over 15 months before doing its first safety signal analysis of VAERS, despite having said in a document posted to its website that it would begin in early 2021—especially since VAERS is touted as our early warning vaccine safety system. You might also wonder how they could insist all the while that the COVID-19 vaccines are being subjected to the most rigorous safety monitoring the world has ever known. I’ll come back to that later. First I’m going to give a little background information on the analysis they did (which you can skip if you’re up to speed) and then describe what they found.

BACKGROUND ON SAFETY SIGNAL ANALYSIS

Back in June 2022, the CDC replied to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the safety signal monitoring of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)—the one it had said it was going to do weekly beginning in early 2021. Their response was: we never did it. Then a little later they said they had been doing it from early on. But by August, 2022, they had finally gotten their story straight, saying that they actually did do it, but only from March 25, 2022 through end of July. You can get up to speed on that here.
The analysis they were supposed to do uses what’s called proportional reporting ratios (PRRs). This is a type of disproportionality analysis commonly used in pharmacovigilance (meaning the monitoring of adverse events after drugs/vaccines go to market). The basic idea of disproportionality analysis is to take a new drug and compare it to one or more existing drugs generally considered safe. We look for disproportionality in the number of adverse events (AEs) reported for a specific AE out of the total number of AEs reported (since we generally don't know how many people take a given drug). We then compare to existing drugs considered safe to see if there is a higher proportion of particular adverse events reported for the new drug compared to existing ones. (In this case they are looking at vaccines, but they still use PRR even though they generally have a much better sense of how many vaccines were administered.)
There are many ways to do disproportionality analysis. The PRR is one of the oldest. Empirical Bayesian data mining, which was supposed to be done on VAERS by the FDA, is another. The PRR is calculated by taking the number of reports for a given adverse event divided by the total number of events reported for the new vaccine or the total number of reports. It then divides that by the same ratio for one or more existing drugs/vaccines considered safe. Here is a simple formula:

So for example, if half of all adverse events reported for COVID-19 vaccines and the comparator vaccine(s) are for myocarditis, then the PRR is 0.5/0.5 = 1. If one quarter of all AEs for the comparator vaccine are for myocarditis, then the PRR is 0.5/0.25 = 2.
Traditionally, for a PRR to count as a safety signal, the PRR has to be 2 or greater, have a Chi-square value of 4 or greater (meaning it is statistically significant) and there has to be at least 3 events reported for a given AE. (This also means that if there are tons of different AEs reported for COVID vaccines that have never been reported for any other vaccine, it will not count as a safety signal. I found over 6,000 of those in my safety signal analysis from 2021.
Of course a safety signal does not necessarily mean there is a problem or that the vaccine caused the adverse event. But it is supposed to set off alarm bells to prompt closer inspection, as in this CDC pamphlet:

Ah yes, shared with the public — after first refusing to share the results and months of foot-dragging following repeated FOIA requests! We will see that the CDC has not done a more focused study on almost any of adverse events with “new patterns” (AKA safety signals).

SO WHAT DID THE CDC ACTUALLY DO?

The Epoch Times obtained 3 weeks of safety signal analyses from the CDC for VAERS data updated on July 15, 22 and 29, 2022. Here I will focus on the last one, since there is very little difference between them and it is more complete. The safety signal analysis compares adverse events1 reported to VAERS for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Dec. 14, 2020 through July 29, 2022 to reports for all non-COVID vaccines from Jan 1, 2009 through July 29, 2022.
PRRs are calculated separately for 5-11 year-olds, 12-15 year-olds and 18+ separately. For each age group, there are separate tables for AEs from all reports, AEs from reports marked serious and AEs from reports not marked as serious.2 Recall that a serious report is one that involves death, a life-threatening event, new or prolonged hospitalization, disability or permanent damage, or a congenital anomaly. I will focus on the reports for all AE’s.
They also have a table that calculates PRRs by comparing reports for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to reports for the Moderna vaccine and vice versa, again for all reports, serious reports only and non-serious reports. There were no remarkable findings in those tables, so I will not discuss them. [Edit: I forgot what Norman Fenton noted in his analysis: the overall proportion of reports with serious adverse events is 9.6% for Modern compared to 12.6% for Pfizer.] This isn’t that surprising since both vaccines are very similar and so should present relatively similar adverse events when compared to each other, and any differences are likely not large enough to be picked up by a PRR analysis. [Though the difference in the overall rate of serious adverse events, which are not specific to a particular type of event only how serious it is, was significant.]
The CDC seems to have calculated PRRs for every different type of adverse event reported for all the COVID vaccines examined - though it’s possible they only analyzed a subset. What seems clear is that, among the AEs they examined, the only ones included in the tables satisfy at least one of two conditions: a PRR value of at least 2 and a Chi-square value of at least 4 (Chi is the Greek letter χ and is pronounced like ‘kai’). When both conditions were met, they highlighted the adverse event in yellow, which appears to indicate a safety signal. There were no COVID vaccine AEs listed with fewer than 3 reported events, though for non-COVID vaccines there were many AEs listed that had only 1 or 2 reported since 2009. The CDC tables still include these and highlight them in yellow when the PRR is greater than 2 and the Chi-square value is great than 4, indicating these events are counted as safety signals.

WHAT SAFETY SIGNALS DID THE CDC FIND?

I’m going to divide this up by age groups and the Pfizer v. Moderna comparison. Let’s start with the 18+ group.
There are 772 AEs that appear on the list. Of these, 770 are marked in yellow and have PRR and Chi-square values that qualify them as safety signals. Some of these are new COVID-19 related codes, and we would expect those to trigger a signal since they didn’t exist in prior years to be reported by other vaccines. So if we take those off, we are left with 758 different types of non-COVID adverse events that showed safety signals.
I grouped these 758 safety signals into different categories. The figure below shows the total number of AEs reported for each of the major categories of safety signals:
Let’s dig into some of these categories to look at what types of AEs generated the most number of reports:3
Let’s dig into some of these categories to look at what types of AEs generated the most number of reports:3






You can peruse the adverse events using the Excel tables provided by the CDC, which were posted by The Epoch Times and Children’s Health Defense at the links at the top of this post.

What about The Children?

If there is anything that looks remotely like a bright spot in all of this is that the list of safety signals for 12-17 and 5-11 year-olds is much shorter than for 18+. There are 96 AEs that qualify as a safety signal for the 12-17 group and 67 for the 5-11. When we take out the new COVID-era AEs, there are 92 safety signals for 12-17 year-olds and 65 for 5-11 year-olds. Here are the most alarming ones:


I don’t know why the list of AE’s is so much shorter for these age groups. It could be that the list of AE’s for other vaccines for these age groups is much shorter, so in a case where AEs have been reported for the mRNA COVID vaccines but not for other vaccines, it will not be counted as a safety signal by definition.

COMPARISONS TO MYOCARDITIS & PERICARDITIS

We are told that the existence of a safety signal doesn’t necessarily mean the AE is caused by the vaccine, and I accept that premise. But the current practice seems to be to ignore safety signals, dismiss them as noise without any evidence, and stall any investigation into them as long as possible. The precautionary principle, however, dictates we should presume that a safety signal indicates causality, until proven otherwise. Since, it has been acknowledged that the mRNA COVID vaccines can cause myocarditis and pericarditis (often referred to as myo-pericarditis), we can take those AEs as a kind of benchmark, and propose that, at minimum, any AE with a signal of equal or greater size should be considered potentially causal and investigated more thoroughly.4
After dropping the new COVID-era AEs, there are 503 AEs with PRRs larger than myocarditis (PRR=3.09) and 552 with PRRs larger than pericarditis (PRR=2.82).5 This means that 66.4% of the AEs had a bigger safety signal than myocarditis and 77.3% were larger than pericarditis. You can see what those were by use this Excel file provided by the CDC and sorting the 18+ tab by the 12/14-07/29 PRR column (Column E). Then just look at which AEs have PRRs larger than the ones for pericarditis and myocarditis.
For 12-17 year-olds, there is 1 safety signal larger than myocarditis (it’s ‘troponin increased’) and 14 safety signals larger than pericarditis (excluding myocarditis), which include: mitral valve incompetence, bell’s palsy, heavy menstrual bleeding, genital ulceration, vaccine breakthrough infection, and a range of indicators of cardiac abnormalities.
For 5-11 year-olds, the comparison to myo/pericarditis is less germane, as they seem to suffer less from this side effect. But we can still make the comparison: there are 7 safety signals larger than pericarditis, including bell’s palsy, left ventricular dysfunction, mitral valve incompetence, and ‘drug ineffective’ (presumably meaning they still got COVID). There are 16 safety signals larger than myocarditis (excluding pericarditis), which in addition to those listed above also include: pericardial effusion, diastolic blood pressure increase, tricuspid valve incompetence, and vitiligo. Sinus tachycardia (high heart rate), appendicitis, and menstrual disorder come in just below myocarditis.
Now if we think of a safety signal as having both strength and clarity, then the PRR can be thought of as an indicator of how strong the signal is, while the Chi-square is a measure of how clear or unambiguous the signal is, because it gives us a sense of how likely the signal is due to chance alone: the larger the Chi-square value, the less likely the signal is due to chance. A Chi-square of 4 means there is only a 5% chance the observed signal is due to chance. A Chi-square of 8 means there is only a 0.5% chance of it being due to chance.6
For the 18+ group, there are 57 AEs with a Chi-square larger than myocarditis (Chi-square=303.8) and 68 with a Chi-square larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=229.5). Again, you can see what these are by going the Excel file linked above and sorting on Column D.
For the 12-17 group, there are 4 AEs with a larger Chi-square than myocarditis (Chi-square=681.5) and 6 larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=175.4).
For the 5-11 group, there are 22 AEs with a Chi-square larger than myocarditis (Chi-square=30.42) and 34 AEs with a Chi-square larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=18.86).

RESPONDING TO OBJECTIONS

Let’s dispense with some of the criticisms used to dismiss VAERS data, which will undoubtedly be raised if you try to bring the CDC’s analysis to people’s attention.
  1. Objection: Anybody can report to VAERS. The reports are unreliable. Anti-vaxxers made lots of fraudulent reports. Nobody was aware of VAERS in the past, but now they are. So many people were afraid of the vaccine so they blamed all their health problems on it. Health workers were required by law to report certain adverse events, like deaths and anaphylaxis. Etc. Etc.
    All of these objections ultimately rely on the notion that VAERS reports for COVID-19 vaccines have been artificially inflated over previous years for one reason or another. The thing of it is, though, that the CDC has a method for distinguishing between artificial inflation and real signal. The idea is simple: if adverse events are artificially inflated, they should be artificially inflated to the same degree. Meaning, the PRRs for all of these safety signals should be about the same. But even a casual glance at the PRRs in the Excel file show they vary widely, from as low at 2 to as high as 105 for vaccine breakthrough infection or 74 for cerebral thrombosis. This method does not on the number of reports, but the rate of reporting for certain events out of all events reported. If anything, this method would tend to hide safety signals in a situation where a new vaccine generates a very large number of reports.
    The CDC has even done us the favor of calculating upper and lower confidence intervals, meaning that we can be at least 95% confident that two PRRs are truly different if their confidence intervals don’t overlap. So for example the lower confidence interval for pulmonary thrombosis is 19.7, which is higher than the upper confidence interval for 543 other signals. Artificially inflated reporting cannot explain why so many different adverse events have large PRRs that are statistically distinct from one another.
  2. Objection: The safety signals are due to the huge number of COVID vaccines given out. Never before have we given out so many vaccine doses. By the end of July, the US had administered something like 600 million vaccine doses to people aged 18+. But the CDC analysis compares VAERS reports for these doses to all doses for all other vaccines for this age group since Jan. 1, 2009. But from 2015-2020 there were over 100 million flu doses administered annually to this age group alone. In previous work, I estimated 538 million doses of flu given to people 18+ from July 2015-June 2020. The number of flu and other non-COVID vaccines for this age group administered from Jan 1., 2009 through July 29, 2022 must be well over double this number, meaning VAERS reports for COVID vaccines are being compared to reports for at least double the number of doses for other vaccines. In addition to this, as already noted, the PRR methodology does not depend, strictly speaking, on the number of doses, but rather the rate of reporting of a specific AE out of all AEs for that vaccine.
  3. Objection: the vaccines are mainly being given to older people who tend to have health problems, whereas other vaccines are given to younger people. This objection is dealt with, since the analyses are stratified by age groups. It might be still be somewhat valid for the 18+ group, except that in the safety signal analysis I did in the fall of 2021, I stratified by smaller age bands and still found safety signals. In any case, this objection is not enough to dismiss the safety signal analysis out of hand, but rather calls for better and more refined research.
  4. Objection: The VAERS data is not verified and cannot be trusted. I’ll be the first person to agree that VAERS is not high quality data, but if it is completely untrustworthy, then how is it that the CDC uses these data to publish in the best medical journals such as JAMA and The Lancet? If the data were worthless, then these journals shouldn’t accept these papers. In that JAMA paper, they reported that 80% of the myocarditis reports met their definition of myocarditis and were included in the analysis. Many other reports simply needed more details for validation. Furthermore, the CDC has the ability and budget to follow-up on every report VAERS receives to get more details and even medical records to verify the report.
    So if myocarditis shows a clear signal in the CDC’s analysis, and 80% of those reports were apparently high quality enough to be included in a paper published in one of the world’s top medical journals, how is it possible that all the rest of the reports are junk? That all of the other safety signals are meaningless? Answer: it isn’t.
    And since we’re on the topic of safety signals that turned out to be real, it’s instructive to find appendicitis turn up as a safety signal in all 3 age groups, since a study published in NEJM based on medical records of over a million adult Israelis found an increased risk of appendicitis in the 42 days following Pfizer vaccination (but not following a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test). That study also found an increase in lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes) after vaccination, but not after positive COVID test. Lymphadenopathy was another safety signal.
  5. And that brings us to our last objection to be dispensed with: all of these AEs were due to COVID. There was an epidemic and so people were falling ill due to COVID and having all of these problems that were then blamed on the vaccine. Well to begin with, as we just saw, at least two of them (appendicitis and lymphadenopathy) do not appear to have increased risk ratios following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and we know that the mRNA vaccines increase risk of myo/pericarditis independent of infections. So how can we assume the rest of these are and dismiss them with the wave of a hand? We can’t. At minimum, they need further investigation. Furthermore, in the safety signal analysis I did in 2021, I dropped all VAERS reports where any sign of a SARS-CoV-2 exposure or infection was indicated on the report, and I still found large, significant safety signals.

PUTTING IT ALL INTO PERSPECTIVE

The Epoch Times article quotes my esteemed colleague and friend, Norman Fenton, Professor of Risk Management and an world renowned expert in Bayesian statistical analysis: “from a Bayesian perspective, the probability that the true rate of the AE of the COVID-19 vaccines is not higher than that of the non-COVID-19 vaccines is essentially zero…. The onus is on the regulators to come up with some other causal explanation for this difference if they wish to claim that the probability a COVID vaccine AE results in death is not significantly higher than that of other vaccines.” (See his post on the CDC analysis here.) The same is true for all the safety signals they found.
The CDC’s VAERS SOP analysis document lists 18 Adverse Events of Special Interest says they are going to pay close attention to. In their 2021 JAMA paper (and similar presentations to ACIP), the researchers responsible for analyzing the millions of medical records in the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) using the ‘Rapid Cycle Analysis’ only studied 23 outcomes. A Similar analysis in NEJM from Israeli researchers focused on only 25 outcomes. Compare this to over 700 safety signals found by the CDC when they finally decided to look—and that’s not even counting all the adverse events that have never been reported for other vaccines so cannot ever show a safety signal by definition. How can the CDC say that these safety signals are meaningless if almost none of them have been studied any further? And yet we are assured that these vaccines have undergone the most intensive safety monitoring effort in history. It’s complete and utter hogwash!
* * *
Josh Guetzkow is a senior lecturer at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Subscribe to his Substack here.
1) To be precise, the 'adverse events' are for 'preferred terms' (PTs) which is a type/level of classification used in the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), which is the classification system used by VAERS and in other pharmacovigilance systems and clinical research for coding reported adverse events. Not all preferred terms are a symptom or adverse event per se. Some refer to a specific diagnostic test that was done or a treatment that was given.
2) It's not entirely clear how they divided these up, since there are clearly AEs that should be considered serious that don't show up in the serious Excel table — though maybe they don’t come up simply because they are looking within serious reports. I believe that they just filtered the reports to include only serious reports or non-serious reports, then did the safety signal analysis on all the AE's coded in those reports. The reason I think this is that I used the MedAlerts Wayback Machine, selected just the serious COVID-19 vaccine reports, and the numbers of total reports was very close to the one in the table provided by the CDC (MedAlerts actually had a bit less). The files obtained by the Epoch Times do not include much in the way of a description as to how the analyses were done, so I had to infer some details, which might be incorrect. I will try to note when I am drawing an inference about how the analysis was done.
3) Generally speaking, these figures show the top ten AEs in each category. In some cases I combined AEs that indicated the same thing, such as combining ‘heart rate irregular’ with ‘arrythmia.’ [UPDATE: Note that the charts of all categories, cardiac and thrombo-embolic events were updated on Jan 7, 2023. The reason is that I had previously categorized acute myocardial infarction as a cardiac issue and myocardial infarction as thrombo-embolic. To be consistent, I have now combined myocardial infarction and acute myocardial infarction into one AE category in the thrombo-embolic events (which made the total AEs reported for that category larger than for pulmonary ones) and then added a different cardiac AE to the cardiovascular AE category, ventricular extrasystoles, AKA premature ventricular contraction (PVC), which dependent on frequency and the presence of other cardiomyopathies is associated with sudden cardiac arrest.]
4) Note that using the myo-pericarditis signal as a yardstick doesn’t mean that these are the only signals that matter. To give one example, anaphylactic reactions don’t even show up in the list of safety signals, even though that was one of the very first risk of the vaccine that became apparent from day one of the vaccine rollout.
One potential objection to this benchmark is that it is too low of a bar, since myo-pericarditis appears to disproportionately affect younger men and so a proper safety signal should be stratified by age and gender then compared with myocarditis similarly stratified. I agree, and it is the CDC’s job to do that. But the fact is that any adverse reaction might disproportionately affect some subgroup of people, in which case the safety signal for that group would be similarly faint or diluted when we look at everyone together. So objection overruled.
5) In their Standard Operation Procedures document, the CDC said they would combine these and related codes together to assess a safety signal, but never mind – at least they finally got around to doing something.
6) In this context, the Chi-square is largely driven by the sheer number of adverse events: the more adverse events reported, including for the comparator vaccine, the larger the Chi-square. For example, the PRR for pericarditis and subdural haematoma is the same (2.82), but there were 1,701 incidents of pericarditis reported for mRNA COVID vaccines versus 221for the comparator vaccines, with Chi-square of 229.5. For subdural haematoma, these numbers are 162 verus 21, for a Chi-square of 21.2.
 

Top Swedish Doctors Warn: Covid Shots Are ‘Obviously Dangerous’​

8cba3174a095e11a787c2b1268dc9916
Frank BergmanJanuary 13, 2023 - 12:57 pm2 Comments

Link: https://slaynews.com/news/top-swedi...hots-obviously-dangerous/?utm_source=mailpoet

swedish-doctors-covid-shots-dangerous.jpg


A group of Sweden’s leading doctors has issued a warning to the public that Covid shots are “obviously dangerous” and called on governments worldwide to order an “immediate halt” on vaccinations.
Five of Sweden’s most senior doctors published a public statement in collaboration with Dr. Johan Eddebo, a researcher in digitalization and human rights.
The top medical experts are raising the alarm about the vaccines and urge that “thorough investigations” must be carried out to identify the true incidence and severity of adverse effects.
The doctors are members of the renowned bio-medico-legal network of Läkaruppropet.
They have called a conference in conjunction with the Swedish Doctors’ Appeal network that will be held on January 21-22 in Stockholm.

Its main focus will be on the consequences of the global politics surrounding COVID-19 and the effects of the vaccines.
The following is the full statement issued by the group:
The true character and scope of the harm caused by the unprecedented mass vaccinations for COVID-19 is just now beginning to become clear. Leading scientific journals have finally begun publishing data corroborating what the underground research community has observed over the last two years, especially in relation to complex problems of immune suppression.
Truly concerning numbers pertaining to both births and mortality are also emerging.
At this moment in time, a new, allegedly super-infectious Omicron variant is all over the headlines. A sub-variant of XXB, this strain is said to possess immune escape capabilities of precisely the type that some independent researchers predicted would follow on the heels of the mass vaccinations’ narrow antigenic fixation.


The WHO maintains that worldwide, 10,000 people still die due to Covid every single day, an implausible death toll more than ten times that of an average flu. It reiterates the urgent need for vaccinations, especially in light of China’s reopening and allegedly falsified data on mortality and infections.
The EU has even called an emergency summit in light of the purported Chinese “Covid chaos” that “calls to mind how everything began in Wuhan, three years ago”.
In Sweden, the Minister for Health and Social Affairs has said he cannot rule out new restrictions, and states that everyone must take “their three doses”, since “only” 85% of the population is ‘fully inoculated’.
That such an extensive vaccine coverage has not yielded better results after nearly two years is a remarkable fact. Even more so in light of some individuals receiving four or more repeated exposures to the same vaccine antigen, yet still contracting the disease they are supposedly immunised against.
At the same time, even more ominous warning signs abound.
One such warning sign is the fact that average mortality in many Western states is still at a remarkably high level, in spite of the direct effects of the coronavirus being marginal for more than a year. Data from EuroMOMO indicate a marked excess mortality in the EU for all of 2022, and the German Bureau of Statistics reports that the country’s mortality in October was more than 19% over the median value of the preceding years.
Is this due to Covid, as the WHO’s ’10 000 per day’ figure would seem to indicate?
Blame is placed at the feet of ‘Long Covid‘ as well as the regular acute infections, but according to the EuroMOMO and Our World in Data stats, the bulk of the excess deaths in Europe during 2022 are actually not due to clinically manifest coronavirus infections.
Moreover, we shouldn’t see continued excess deaths from a respiratory virus of this kind after three years of global exposure due to the inevitable consolidation of natural immunity.
If such a situation persists, the hypothetical connection to a vaccine-related immunity suppression that just now has come into focus becomes pertinent to investigate in detail.
If, as has been argued, the vaccinations, and especially the boosters, alter the immune profile of recipients such that Covid infections get ‘tolerated’ by the immune system, it’s possible that vaccinated individuals will tend towards a situation of long-term, repeat infections that do not get cleared, and do not present with obvious symptoms, while still promoting systemic damage.
The literature now indicates an extensive substitution in the vaccinated of virus-neutralising antibodies for non-inflammatory ones, a ‘class switch’ from antibodies that work towards clearing the virus from our system, to a category of antibodies whose purpose is to desensitise us to irritants and allergens.
The net effect is that the inflammatory response to Covid infection gets down-regulated (reduced). This means that full-blown infections will present with milder symptoms, and that they won’t get cleared as effectively (partly since fever and inflammation are essential to your body getting rid of a pathogen).
That these developments alone aren’t cause for an immediate halt to the mass vaccinations, as well as thorough investigations, is astonishing.
There is of course another, and more well-known, potential partial explanation of the surprising excess mortality. We have indications of clotting disorders connected to the Covid vaccines, evident in a new major Nordic study, while repeated studies evidence a clear correlation between heart disease and Covid vaccination (see Le Vu et al., Karlstad et al. and Patone et al.).
A newly published Thai study moreover indicated that almost a third of the vaccinated youth enrolled exhibited cardiovascular manifestations, and a yet unpublished Swiss study suggests that as many as 3% of everyone vaccinated manifest heart muscle damage.
And as stated above, we also see signals pertaining to fertility disturbances connected to the Covid vaccines.
An Israeli study shows impaired motility and sperm concentrations after both Pfizer and Moderna vaccination. The safety committee of the European Medicines Agency has also affirmed that the vaccines may cause menstrual disturbances, and Pfizer’s own studies indicate that the lipid nanoparticles of the mRNA-vaccines cluster in the reproductive organs.

The hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccinations influence fertility is supported by a significant and unprecedented decline in the Swedish birth rate during the first months of 2022. According to Swedish demographers, the decline is ”surprising”.
There are similar data from many other Western countries, and to continue the mass vaccinations for low-risk groups such as children or pregnant women is utterly irresponsible – especially since the vaccinations do little or nothing to stop the spread as was initially promised, and is often still falsely maintained.
One hopes that the hypothesis of a decline in birth rates due to the vaccinations can be falsified through a thorough and independent investigation as soon as possible. The numbers are truly worrying.
Yet the fact that Pfizer’s data pertaining to fertility disturbances had been hidden away and needed to be discovered through a FOIA request is typical for the entire situation.
There’s almost no independent public debate on these issues, and critical perspectives are actively suppressed by the major digital platforms.
Public watchdogs such as the European Medicines Agency are funded by the pharmaceutical industry and often base their recommendations on Big Pharma’s in-house studies. The independence of our scientific and academic institutions is threatened, and we see a confluence between scientific research, private corporate interests and political and ideological objectives on every level.
To place a digital filter of censorship on top of all of this, where proprietary algorithms micromanage the flow of information and the public debate in accordance with the intentions of their owners, in practice means to abolish the open democratic society and independent scientific research.
Recent disclosures also show that the digital platforms have actively worked towards suppressing critical perspectives on the Covid policies and the mass vaccinations. Twitter has for this purpose developed clandestine censorship strategies and employed so-called ‘shadowbanning’ with the effect of an almost undetectable suppression of the visibility of posts and accounts connected to undesirable perspectives and analyses. Facebook took down more than seven million posts to influence the debate on Covid only during the second quarter of 2020. YouTube has banned publishing of video material that contains critical perspectives on the Covid vaccinations. Such content is designated ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ whether or not it is supported by relevant data.
These kinds of measures have very serious consequences. Digitalisation’s centralised control of the flow of information doesn’t just affect policy on the local and regional level, but also influences the way in which scientific and journalistic work can be designed and carried out. It creates structures that immediately repress heterodox views and silences critical voices through fear and indirect persecution.
Public trust in our common institutions will inevitably be eroded by this development.
The open society now desperately needs a renaissance. The democratic and scientific discourses must be rebuilt from the ground up, and in a way which respects the new and unique risks of our contemporary situation, and which protects and emphasises the responsibility of the individual citizen.
Key to this in our current predicament is to press on with critical questions pertaining to the obviously dangerous mass vaccinations and to investigate the corruption of our political and scientific institutions that the Covid situation has shed light on.
It is critical that we immediately begin to remedy the significant damage that has been rendered to global public health, and to the open society as such.
Johan Eddebo, Ph.D, researcher in digitalisation and human rights
Sture Blomberg, MD, Ph.D, Associate Professor in Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and former senior physician
Ragnar Hultborn, Professor Emeritus, specialist in oncology
Sven Román, MD, Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, since 2015 Consultant Psychiatrist working in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry throughout Sweden
Lilian Weiss, Associate Professor, specialist in surgery
Nils Littorin, resident in psychiatry, MD in clinical microbiology
 

BREAKING: Study finds COVID Vaccines have killed 1 in every 874 Americans​

BY RHODA WILSON ON JANUARY 26, 2023

Link: https://expose-news.com/2023/01/26/1-in-874-americans-killed-covid-vaccine/

A peer-reviewed study published on 24 January 2023 estimates 278,000 Americans died in 2021, alone, due to covid injections. 243 million Americans had received Covid injections by the end of Dec 2021. So, the study’s estimate suggests that 1 out of 874 vaccinees is killed by the injections.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
TYPE YOUR EMAIL…
SUBSCRIBE

The study commissioned an online survey from a reputable polling company, Dynata. According to the Centres for Disease Control, about 31% of the United States population had not completed the primary vaccination series as of November 2022. So, the primary aim of the study was to identify the factors associated by American citizens with the decision to be vaccinated against covid.
A total of 2,840 participants completed the survey between 18 and 23 December 2021. 22% of respondents indicated that they knew at least one person who had experienced a severe health problem following covid vaccination.
“Estimates from the survey indicate that through the first year of the covid-19 vaccination program there may be as many as 278,000 vaccine-induced fatalities and up to a million severe adverse events,” the study noted.
As Igor Chudov highlighted, the estimates of the total number of vaccine fatalities cannot be very precise, and the study author points that out very honestly.
At the time of the study, the reported number of vaccine deaths in VAERS was 8,023.
Igor Chudov compared the results of this study with other sources:
  • A January 2023 Rasmussen survey showed that 28% of all adults know someone who died due to covid injections. 35% of adults under 40 believe someone they know personally might have died from vaccine side effects, compared to 28% of those 40-64 and just 14% of Americans 65 and older.
  • In mid-December 2021 Steve Kirsch estimated 388,000 Americans had been killed by covid injections
  • An analysis done by Fabian Spieker estimated 1 death for every 1,642 doses given in Germany. Assuming that by the end of 2021, 1.8 doses per vaccinated person were given, as some had only one dose. This would yield, in the USA, 266,400 dead from covid injections.
That these three outcomes are not wildly different means that the true number of deaths – which nobody knows and nobody will ever know exactly – is somewhere within this ballpark.

Read the full article by Igor Chudov HERE. [see https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/covid-vaccines-killed-278000-americans/]
 

German Health Minister: Covid Shots Cause ‘Permanent Severe Disabilities’​

8cba3174a095e11a787c2b1268dc9916
Frank BergmanMarch 22, 2023 - 12:57 pm

Link: https://slaynews.com/news/german-he...nent-severe-disabilities/?utm_source=mailpoet

karl-lauterbach-german-health-minister-covid-shots.jpg


German Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach has issued an apology to the public and admitted that the Covid shots he once promoted are causing “severe disabilities” that will likely be “permanent.”
Lauterbach previously encouraged the people of Germany to get vaccinated by claiming that mRNA shots are safe and free of side effects.
However, he has just gone on record to admit that he was wrong.
On August 14, 2021, Lauterbach said on Twitter that the Covid shots had “no side effects.”
He made the statement while further questioning why some Germans were refusing to get vaccinated against COVID-19.

But after being confronted with soaring sudden death rates and record numbers of injury reports in Germany, Lauterbach has now changed his tune.
During an interview with German channel ZDF’s “Heute Journal,” Lauterbach was asked by anchor Christian Sievers about the claim he made in the summer of 2021.
Sievers confronted the top health official over his previous tweet that stated the shots are virtually free of side effects.
Lauterbach responded that the tweet was “misguided” and an “exaggeration” he made at the time.
Alarmingly, Lauterbach admitted that his statements promoting the vaccines “did not represent my true position.”

“I’ve always been aware of the numbers and they’ve remained relatively stable … one in 10,000 [are injured],” Lauterbach said.
“Some say that it’s a lot, and some say it’s not so many.”
Lauterbach’s remark on vaccine adverse events came after the German network played a segment of several Germans who’ve been seriously injured after getting the shot.
The clip included a 17-year-old gymnast who previously competed in the German Artistic Gymnastics Championships before she was hospitalized for more than one year shortly after receiving the second dose of the BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
“What do you say to those who have been affected [by vaccine injuries]?” Sievers asked Lauterbach.
“What’s happened to these people is absolutely dismaying, and every single case is one too many,” Lauterbach responded.
“I honestly feel very sorry for these people.
“There are severe disabilities, and some of them will be permanent.”
Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (VSRF), did not agree with Lauterbach.
However, Kirsch did commend the health official for making “progress” by admitting his mistakes.
“The true rate of serious adverse events is approximately 100 times greater than the figures Lauterbach cited— ‘closer to 1 in 100 doses’ and ‘For death, it is ~1 in 1,000 doses,’” Kirsch said on Twitter.
By October 31, 2022, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut received a total of 333,492 individual case reports on suspected COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions or vaccine side effects in Germany.
The figures were revealed in official data (pdf) released in December 2022 by the medical regulatory body that researches vaccines and biomedicines.
“The number of individual case reports per month peaked in December 2021 and declined continuously during the summer months of 2022,” the federal health agency, which is subordinate to the German health ministry, stated in the report.
Despite these findings, the country’s health ministry website states that “modern vaccines are safe and adverse effects only occur in sporadic cases.”
As the subject of post-vaccine deaths and injuries has started to be more widely covered by some German media outlets, lawsuits have begun to roll out against Big Pharma companies.
However, vaccine manufacturers such as Pfizer and Moderna have immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines, putting them in a very strong legal position.
“It’s true that within the framework of these EU contracts, the companies were largely exempted from liability and that the liability, therefore, lies with the German state, so to speak … with the federal states,” Lauterbach said.
Yet, in spite of this, Lauterbach noted that it would “definitely” be a good idea if pharmaceutical companies took some responsibility for the issue.
The health official said Big Pharma firms should “show a willingness to help” those affected by vaccine adverse events, especially due to their profits being “exorbitant.”
“So, that wouldn’t just be a good gesture, we should expect it,” he said.
Lauterbach said the priority now is to facilitate the care of those suffering from post-vaccination syndrome.
He added that he’s been “negotiating with the budget committee” to launch a program to help those injured.
“It’s a program I’d like to launch as soon as possible, and I’m in budget negotiations for this money,” Lauterbach said.
“So it’s something that we also have to bring to fruition, it’s an obligation, and it would network the experts in this field in such a way that the probability of good therapy in Germany would grow.”
“Our understanding of adverse events is now getting clearer and clearer,” he added.
“It should be possible in the future to identify those who are affected more quickly, so we can get them quicker help.”
 

BREAKING: FDA confirms Graphene Oxide is in the mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines after being forced to publish Confidential Pfizer Documents by order of the US Federal Court​

BY THE EXPOSÉ ON APRIL 2, 2023

Link: https://expose-news.com/2023/04/02/fda-confirms-graphene-is-in-the-covid-vaccines/

The Covid-19 vaccines have been at the centre of a heated debate since their introduction, with many questions and concerns raised about their safety and effectiveness.

Speculation has also been rife that the Covid-19 injections may contain traces of Graphene Oxide, a highly toxic and conductive substance.

Medicine regulators, with the support of the Mainstream Media, have repeatedly denied these claims.

But they were lying to you.

Because recent evidence has emerged that confirms the presence of Graphene Oxide, a highly toxic and conductive substance, in the Pfizer vaccine. And it has come from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which has been forced to publish the confidential Pfizer documents by order of the Federal Court in the USA.


image-4.png


Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
TYPE YOUR EMAIL…
SUBSCRIBE

The FDA had initially attempted to delay the release of Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine safety data for 75 years, despite approving the injection after only 108 days of a safety review on December 11th, 2020.

However, a group of scientists and medical researchers sued the FDA under FOIA to force the release of hundreds of thousands of documents related to the licensing of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine.

In early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered the FDA to release 55,000 pages per month, and since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents on its website as they have been published.

One of the most recent documents published by the FDA, saved as 125742_S1_M4_4.2.1 vr vtr 10741.pdf, confirms the use of Graphene Oxide in the manufacturing process of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine.

The document is a description of a study carried out by Pfizer between April 7th 2020 and 19th August 2020, with the objective being “to express and characterize the vaccine antigen encoded by BNT162b2.”

The study conclusin is as follows-

image-131.png
Source – Page 12
In layman’s terms, the study was conducted to determine how the vaccine works. The study found that the vaccine used mRNA to instruct your cells to produce a protein (called P2 S), which is the Spike protein of the alleged Covd-19 virus.

The millions of spike proteins then bind to a receptor called ACE2 on the surface of your cells, inducing an immune system response.

But what is most interesting about the study is that it confirms on page 7 that reduced Graphene Oxide is required to manufacture the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine because it is needed as a base for the lipid nanoparticles.

Pfizer states on page 7 of the study in section 3.4 the following –

Source – Page 7
This is most peculiar because medicine regulators with the help of the Mainstream Media, have denied for months on end that Graphene Oxide is an ingredient of the Covid-19 vaccine. They’ve been able to say this because those who’ve proven and speculated Graphene Oxide is in the Pfizer Covid19 injection have been asking the wrong question.

What everyone should have been asking is, ‘is Graphene Oxide used in the manufacturing process of the Pfizer Covid vaccine?’

Because as this document, which the FDA attempted to keep confidential and sealed the 75 years, shows, Graphene Oxide is indeed used in the manufacturing process of the vaccine because it is vital in helping to make the vaccine’s lipid nanoparticles stable.

Therefore, trace amounts or large amounts, depending on the batch, of reduced Graphene Oxide inevitably make their way into the Pfizer Covid-19 injections.

What are Lipid Nanoparticles?

The Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine uses tiny particles called lipid nanoparticles to deliver the vaccine’s genetic material (called messenger RNA, or mRNA) into cells in the body. These lipid nanoparticles are like tiny “bubbles” made up of fats and other molecules that can surround and protect the mRNA until it reaches its destination inside the cells.

The mRNA in the vaccine provides instructions to the cells to produce a protein (called spike protein) that is found on the surface of the Covid-19 virus. When the immune system detects this spike protein, it can recognize it as foreign and mount an immune response against it,

image-133.png

Furthermore, it has been discovered that two of the lipids in Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines are ALC-0159 and ALC-315, as confirmed by the assessment report of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine published by the European Medicines Agency.

image-135.png
Source – Page 14
But both of these lipids carry manufacturer’s warnings that state they are never to be used in humans or animals.

As you can see for yourself, it tiny writing at the bottom of the product inserts here and here.

image-136.png
Source

What is Graphene Oxide?

Graphene Oxide is a tiny particle that is made up of carbon and oxygen atoms. It’s really small – so small that you can’t see it with your eyes. But even though it’s small, it can be dangerous.

It is known to be toxic to some cells, and research has shown that it can cause inflammation and damage to the lungs when inhaled.

In addition, Graphene Oxide is able to cross the blood-brain barrier, which is a protective barrier that prevents harmful substances from entering the brain. This could potentially lead to neurological problems.

Graphene Oxide is detected in the immune system as if it were a pathogen. Once injected it has an affinity for the central nervous system, potentially causing paralysis, strokes and alteration of the nervous system.

Furthermore, the long-term effects of Graphene Oxide exposure are not yet known. There is very little research on the long-term effects of Graphene Oxide exposure in humans, which means we don’t know what the potential risks are.

But thanks to the administration of the Pfizer COVID vaccine to millions of people, numerous times, we are finding out as the days pass. And sadly, both the short-term and long-term effects do not look good.

Further Evidence, Other Undeclared Substances & Deadly Consequences

Graphene Oxide is not the only toxic substance that the public should be concerned about. Because scientists have found Nanotech alongside Graphene Oxide when they have previously examined samples of Covid-19 injections.

Nanoscience and nanotechnology involve the ability to see and control individual atoms and molecules. Everything on Earth is made up of atoms—the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the buildings and houses we live in, and our own bodies.

But something as small as an atom is impossible to see with the naked eye. In fact, it’s impossible to see with the microscopes typically used in high school science classes. The microscopes needed to see things at the nanoscale were invented in the early 1980s.

Once scientists had the right tools, such as the scanning tunnelling microscope (STM) and the atomic force microscope (AFM), the age of nanotechnology was born.

And scientists from Spain, have declared that nanotechnology, which has the ability to control atoms in your body, has been found in all of the Covid-19 injections alongside Graphene Oxide.

According to the Spanish scientists who examined the Covid-19 injections, Graphene Oxide has the potential to cause strange blood clots. This may explain why it has been proven that Covid-19 injections increase the risk of suffering thrombosis with thrombocytopenia.

But it is not just scientists from Spain making these claims. Numerous scientists around the world have published findings where they allege they have discovered both nanotechnology and Graphene Oxide in the Covid-19 injections.

Scientists discover ‘Carbon Nanotech’ & ‘Radioactive Thulium’ in Pfizer & Moderna COVID Vaccines

After reviewing electron microscope images of elements contained in the Covid Pfizer and Moderna injections, Dr Daniel Nagase, a Canadian emergency room doctor, revealed that, strangely, the contents of the Pfizer and Moderna “vaccines” show no signs of biological material, including mRNA or DNA. (Read more here).

Dr Nagase’s research group looked at Moderna and Pfizer samples under a regular microscope. Although there were a lot of very interesting images, they were unable to be conclusive about what exactly they were seeing. So, they used an electron microscope to determine what elements the “vaccines” contained.

Here are some of the images of what they found –

image.png
Found in a Moderna Covid “vaccine” sample
Dr. Nagase examined a “ball with the legs growing out of it” found inside a Moderna sample and had this to say –

“This shape, this ball with the legs growing out of it, for some reason has aluminium in it. And I can say with certainty that this isn’t a mould spore or some other type of biological contamination, because the only thing in it is carbon, oxygen, and no signs of nitrogen, no signs of phosphorus, which would indicate something biological of origin. So, this thing that’s growing is non-biological.”
Dr Nagase and the researchers also discovered an unusual element from the lanthanide series – thulium – in a fibre-like structure found in a Pfizer sample –

image-1.png
Found in a Pfizer Covid “vaccine” sample
Dr. Nagase and the researchers found a variety of shapes and structures inside the “vaccine” samples they tested – crystals, chips, strands, bulbs, spheres, fibres and balls with legs growing out of them – “we have polymorphic, which is many different forms,” he said.

“They all seem to be made predominantly out of carbon and oxygen and they were in both the Moderna and Pfizer samples, and they seem to be in fibre forms. In the Moderna sample, the carbon-oxygen structures seem to be taking nanosphere forms and crystalline forms. And in the Pfizer sample … seem to only be forming fibres and crystals.

Argentina: Researchers Discover Nanotech & Graphene Oxide in COVID Vaccines

In a presentation to the Chilean radio station El Mirador del Gallo, Argentine doctor Martín Monteverde presented the analyses carried out by Corona2Inspect researchers on the microtechnology found in the Pfizer Covid-19 mRNA vaccine.

Argentina’s Dr Monteverde and other researchers carried out microscopic analyses of a vial of the Pfizer vaccine alongside four other Covid-19 “vaccine” types. He then sent these images to Corona2Inspect for further analysis. Corona2Inspect returned the images with their comments identifying what objects the images were showing.

You can watch a video of Dr Monteverde’s teams findings below –

Argentina’s Dr Patricia Aprea, Director of Evaluation and Control of the ANMAT, also accidentally admitted AstraZeneca’s Viral Vector Covid-19 injection also contains Graphene during a legal case regarding a death post-Covid injection.

You can read the document where ANMAT recognised that Covid-19 vaccines contain Graphene Oxide HERE in (Spanish) or below, translated into English using Google –

Click to enlarge

Doctors find Graphene is shedding from the COVID Vaccinated to the Unvaccinated, forming Strange Blood Clots & decimating Red Blood Cells

Dr Philippe van Welbergen, Medical Director of Biomedical Clinics, was one of the first to warn the public of the damage being caused to people’s blood by Covid injections by releasing images of blood samples under the microscope.

In a set of slides of blood samples taken from both “vaccinated” and unvaccinated people, Dr Philippe van Welbergen demonstrated that the Graphene Oxide, contained in the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines being injected into people by amateurs and volunteers with no adequate training, is organising and growing into larger fibres and structures, gaining magnetic properties or an electrical charge and the fibres are showing indications of more complex structures with striations.

At the beginning of July 2021, Dr. Philippe, was interviewed and he explained that when his patients started complaining about chronic fatigue, dizziness, memory loss, and even sometimes paralysis and late onset of heavy menstruation (women in their 60s upwards), he took blood samples.

Their blood had unusual tube-like structures, some particles which lit up and many damaged cells.

Few healthy cells were visible. Until three months earlier, he had never seen these formations in blood.

We now know these tube-like structures are Graphene Oxide.

He also demonstrated that “shards” of Graphene Oxide are being transmitted from the Covid-19 vaccinated to vaccine-free or unvaccinated people, sadly destroying their red blood cells and causing blood clots. (Read more here).

Below is an image of typical healthy red blood cells as seen with a microscope, what blood should look like. There is no coagulation or foreign objects in it.

image-6.png



Sadly fibres of this size are capable of blocking capillaries.

You can also see that the Graphene fibres are hollow and have swallowed up some red blood cells.



In December 2021, a British medical practitioner offered to assist in an investigation to ascertain whether the results discovered by Dr. Andreas Noack, a German chemist, and Dr. Pablo Campra, of the University of Almeria in Spain, could be replicated in the UK and also to examine the Covid-19 injection vials for toxins or unexpected contents.


The medical practitioner seized an injection vial from the fridge housed in the surgery where she works and handed it to an independent investigator.


A UK laboratory analysed the sample using Raman Spectroscopy and found Graphene, SP3 carbon, iron oxide, carbon derivatives and glass shards.



The first sample that was evaluated was the Moderna 01 which was examined by Raman spectroscopy. The investigation clearly showed that all the inclusions within the vaccine have a strong carbon signal with confirmed graphene compositions of some representative forms.

image-2.png

Two clear signals were obtained from two objects. The flat ribbon-like inclusions exhibited clear Graphene spectra integrated with the spectrum of glycol and other minor compounds. The other clear signal was obtained from a calcite microcrystalline form and Carbon composite forms also had a clear Graphene signal.



You can read a copy of the document encompassing a case briefing, the UNIT report and a summary of the toxicity of Graphene nanoparticles on UK Citizen 2021’s website HERE.


The 48-page UNIT report, ‘Qualitative Evaluation of Inclusions in Moderna, AstraZeneca and Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines’, begins on page 12 of the document.

An Open Access review highlighting the toxicity of the graphene family nanoparticles can be viewed here.


image-3.png

Covid Injection Secret Ingredients | New Zealand Scientists confirm Nanotechnology alongside Graphene Oxide

Nanotechnology and Graphene have also been found in Pfizer’s Comirnaty “vaccines” by scientists in New Zealand. (Read more here).

At the end of January 2022, Sue Grey, co-leader of the Outdoors and Freedom Party, and Dr Matt Shelton from New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science (“NZDSOS”) put the Health Select Committee on notice that serious contamination of the Pfizer vaccine has been uncovered and they needed to act immediately to stop the injection campaign.

Dr Shelton came forward to disclose the discovery of formations of nano-particles found by New Zealand scientists using specialised microscopic techniques.

None of the experts consulted had ever seen anything like this before, and none of these contaminants are listed as approved ingredients.

You can read the full account, with additional images and videos, HERE. But below is a snapshot of what one New Zealand scientist found.

The image below was taken from one drop of New Zealand’s Pfizer Comirnaty “vaccine” under a cover slip, after it was inadvertently heated lightly, and viewed the same day through dark field microscopy at low magnification, projected onto a TV monitor.

image-4.png

The following images were taken after a new computer with improved graphics was purchased alongside new software for the camera –

image-5.png

They lied to you

Despite repeated assurances from authorities and mainstream media that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, evidence has emerged time and time again that proves they have not been telling the whole truth.

The use of Graphene Oxide in the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine has been a source of controversy and concern from the outset, with many individuals claiming that regulators and media outlets were deliberately misleading the public about its inclusion.

Despite initial denials, the documents released by the FDA, which they were forced to publish by order of the Federal Court in the USA. have confirmed the use of Graphene Oxide in the manufacturing process of the Pfizer vaccine, raising questions about who we can trust.

This revelation should cause widespread alarm and will likely fuel suspicion about the true intentions of those in charge of public health.
 
Back
Top