Lingering Spike Proteins

Alex Berensen, commenting on a new Yale study finding the COVID spike protein in the blood of people who received mRNA shots up to two years after they received the jabs.:

It now appears that a significant number of mRNA-vaccinated people have Covid spike protein in their bodies, or extremely high anti-spike protein antibodies, or both, years after vaccination. We need to know what’s happening, and why.

This cannot be seen as a political issue, or a risk for vaccine advocates. It’s a medical problem. And we need to answer it.

Berensen further notes:

Some vaccine-skeptical researchers have previously suggested the potential for the genetic material in the shots to integrate with human genes. But the new findings are crucial, not just because they make the possibility more likely but because the head of the Yale team is a renowned scientist who had strongly advocated for the Covid jabs.

Continue ReadingLingering Spike Proteins

Aaron Siri Discuss Vaccine Safety Testing with Russell Brand

I couldn't believe what I was hearing when I listened to Russell Brand interviewing trial lawyer Aaron Siri. Oh, and by the way . . . good luck finding the interview (on Rumble) using Google, but that's another story for another day.

Here's and excerpt with some of the referenced documents:

Aaron Siri 17:20 So here we go. So actually, I had the opportunity to testify before Congress, actually, on this exact topic. It was specifically about COVID vaccines. But in doing that, we submitted a report. Can you see my screen? And here we go. Pharmaceutical companies, I think, do not like that this is on formal US Congress website, but there it is. And to this day, it remains uncontested. Never gotten anybody to challenge or say anything in this document is false. With that said, it's all cited to the government sources. Well, let's take a let's just zoom in on this one chart right here. Okay, if you look at this chart, yes, zoom right in.

These are the top five selling drugs that Pfizer has sold as of 2020 as of 2019 I believe, according to Money Inc. I'm assuming it's correct. And when you look at this list of the top five selling drugs, four of them are drugs. One of them is a vaccine. And which we're looking at is a summary of the clinical trial relied upon to license each of these products before they went to market. So when you look at Enbrel, it had a safety follow up in its clinical trial before it went to market of 6.6 years against a placebo control group. Elliquis, Lipitor, Lyrica had multi year placebo control trials. Essentially what that means is you're comparing a group that got this product when it was experimental before it was licensed, with a group that gets a placebo over a multi year period. And then you're comparing.Are there any neurological differences, immunological differences, cardiovascular issues? What is the difference in the in the safety profile between the placebo group and the vaccinated group? That how they determine safety and Pfizer wants to know that safety file before these products go to market, because they don't want to end up upside down.

But then look at the one vaccine on this list, Prevnar, six months of safety review. Far, far less. A product given a two, four and six months of age, by the way, and then at 12 months. Now, what was the control? It was a different vaccine, Prevnar 7. Now, you might say, hey, hey, maybe Prevnar 7 was properly licensed in a long term placebo controlled trial, but that's not the case. It wasn't and we'll go through that in a minute.

I'll zoom out now, and we'll take a look now at the childhood vaccines. And these are the vaccines given in the first six months the United States, three times each. And what you're looking at now is the safety follow. Period that safety was reviewed after inject to these products in the clinical trial and the control that was used. Now I the first time I saw this, or if I saw this, I'd say, No way. It cannot be one. How could the companies do this before you're giving a product, you're injecting into a baby? Again, each product is injected three times each in the US schedule by six months of age. Okay, so you would imagine these would be the most robustly studied products on safety. You could imagine healthy babies, millions of them. You want to make sure you're not going to break society, right? But yet, this is what you see. And you might say, Well, what? What is driving this difference? Why would Pfizer or these other companies do long-term versus short-term? I think I've beaten the answer that question to death. It's economic interest. Pfizer is going to do the absolute minimum and Merck and snow feed to get their products to market so they can make money from them. Now why the FDA will let them get away with this? That's a different story. We could talk about that later, if you'd like. But, but really. Does it really matter? That's the reality of it. And, you know, but seeing is believing... imagine it like this, Russell, I came to and I said, Hey, Russell, I got business idea for you. And you're like, Oh, really? Well, look, I got this great idea. We're going to sell this injection. What's the injection? Well, it doesn't matter. Don't worry. Well, don't have to worry about safety. No, the government said we can't be sued for it. Okay? He said, well, well, who's going to take that product? You say, Don't worry, the government's going to mandate that millions of children take it every year. Well, but who's going to promote it? Don't worry, the government's going to take our money and promote it for you to get a guaranteed market, guaranteed immunity, government promotion. I think you just summed it up as well, which is absolutely your vaccine, portfolio [inaudible] and it's and it's only growing because They they understand they can sell this product risk free, with a guaranteed market, and they push for mandates. It's the best possible. It's the best of all worlds for them.

So a sensible piece of legislation might be to end that immunity.

Yes, that would be extraordinarily sensible. Which is just let these products operate in the same exact environment as every other product out there. Okay?

Continue ReadingAaron Siri Discuss Vaccine Safety Testing with Russell Brand

What Public Health Did that was not Forgivable

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, who was fired by Harvard for telling the truth (and who has still not been rehired):

More on Kulldorff's firing by Harvard. Excerpt:

On March 10, 2020, before any government prompting, Harvard declared that it would “suspend in-person classes and shift to online learning.” Across the country, universities, schools, and state governments followed Harvard’s lead.

Yet it was clear, from early 2020, that the virus would eventually spread across the globe, and that it would be futile to try to suppress it with lockdowns. It was also clear that lockdowns would inflict enormous collateral damage, not only on education but also on public health, including treatment for cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mental health. We will be dealing with the harm done for decades. Our children, the elderly, the middle class, the working class, and the poor around the world—all will suffer.

Schools closed in many other countries, too, but under heavy international criticism, Sweden kept its schools and daycares open for its 1.8 million children, ages one to 15. Why? While anyone can get infected, we have known since early 2020 that more than a thousandfold difference in Covid mortality risk holds between the young and the old. Children faced minuscule risk from Covid, and interrupting their education would disadvantage them for life, especially those whose families could not afford private schools, pod schools, or tutors, or to homeschool . . .

Every honest person knows that new drugs and vaccines come with potential risks that are unknown when approved. This was a risk worth taking for older people at high risk of Covid mortality—but not for children, who have a minuscule risk for Covid mortality, nor for those who already had infection-acquired immunity. To a question about this on Twitter in 2021, I responded:

Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their care-takers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.

If Harvard and its hospitals want to be credible scientific institutions, they should rehire those of us they fired ...

Most Harvard faculty diligently pursue truth in a wide variety of fields, but Veritas has not been the guiding principle of Harvard leaders. Nor have academic freedom, intellectual curiosity, independence from external forces, or concern for ordinary people guided their decisions.

Harvard and the wider scientific community have much work to do to deserve and regain public trust.

Continue ReadingWhat Public Health Did that was not Forgivable

Vaccine Schedule and Vaccine Testing Summary

Facts are facts. Only when we have the facts can we have a discussion or utter meaningful opinions. I have repeatedly been told that RFK, Jr. is wrong to claim that that numerous vaccines recommended by the CDC have not been properly tested. What's the truth? What follows are two images summarizing undeniable facts: the vaccine schedule and the vaccines that have been tested compared to control groups. First of all, Attorney Aaron Siri's chart of the 1986 vs. 2025 vaccine schedules:

Aaron Siri:

CDC just published its 2025 vaccine schedules. We have now gone from 7 routine vaccine injections in 1986 to over 200 routine vaccine injections in 2025.

In 1986, before vaccine makers had broad immunity to liability for injuries, CDC's schedule had 7 routine childhood injections and none for adults or pregnant women.

CDC's 2025 schedule has 5 routine injections during pregnancy, over 70 routine childhood injections (birth to age 18), and over 130 routine adult injections (up to age 79). Counting non-routine injections, there are even more.

Here is an image comparing injections up to only 1 year of age between 1986 and 2024 (updated chart for 2025 and tweets about each of these vaccines to follow...):

Next, here is a chart posted by Mary Talley Bowden, MD., indicating the vaccines that have been tested against control groups:

Bowden states: "97% of childhood vaccines on the CDC schedule were not licensed by the FDA based on a placebo controlled clinical trial."

And consider that in the Gardasil study (the only vaccine indicated above as having a post vaccine placebo-controlled study), only 300 out of  18,000 in the placebo group were on a saline-based placebo. According to Brandy Vaughan, most of the control group was given a toxic adjuvant aluminum shot (see min 9 here).  She explains that following the 1986 Vaccine Act, vaccines became quite profitable (in large part due the immunity granted to manufacturers). Vaughan is from an organization called Learn the Risk. 

Continue ReadingVaccine Schedule and Vaccine Testing Summary

Jay Bhattacharya to Head NIH

Anybody who is not beholden to corporate media knows that Jay Bhattacharya is an excellent pick for NIH. He rigorously followed the evidence throughout COVID, yet was unfairly disparaged as a "fringe epidemiologist" by Fauci's team, who were Big Pharma toadies who were wrong about almost everything they proclaimed, causing great damage to millions of Americans in the process. We need a fresh start like never before. No better place to root out industry corruption than Jay Bhattacharya as head of NIH.

From a May 2023 interview:

JB: I don't know the specific number, but the magnitude of the protective effect of the lockdowns, if it's not zero, it's very, very close to zero. And for a very simple reason, you can see why it's right. The lockdowns, if they were to benefit anybody, it benefited members of the laptop class who actually had the wherewithal to stay home, stay safe while the rest of the population served them. Our societies are deeply unequal. It's a very small fraction of the world population that actually could stay home and stay safe. And so, when the lockdowns happened, a very large number of people essentially were left on the outside. They had to work to feed their families, to take care of their elderly parents or whatnot, and that meant that the lockdowns had no chance of actually working. The people that conceived the lockdowns have an extent of naivety about how societies work that it just boggles the mind. And then, you asked me, again, about the harms from the lockdowns." ...

They're tremendous, and we're still just beginning to count them, right? So domestically, for instance, I think there's now a broad consensus that the lockdowns harmed our children. In many places, including California, children did not see the inside of a physical classroom for nearly a full year and a half. The consequences of that play themselves out with deep learning losses. By the way, it's concentrated on minorities and poor populations who didn't have the wherewithal to replace the lost in-classroom learning, but it plays itself out over a long period of time. The social science literature from before the pandemic documented in detail about how valuable investments in education are for the health of children. If you deprive children of education for even short periods of time, it turns out it leads to a lifetime of lower income, worse health, even shorter lifespans. One estimate from early in the pandemic, published by the editor of "JAMA Pediatrics," found that just the spring lockdowns in the United States alone cost our children 5 1/2 million life years in expectation. That's yet to come, but it's coming. The toll on skipped cancer screenings, again, starting to see it, but the full extent of it is yet to come. In the poorer parts of the world, the consequences have been absolutely devastating, something like 100 million people thrown into dire poverty, $2 or less of income. ...

The estimates from the World Food Program is that 100 million people were put into dire food insecurity, near starvation. We haven't yet begun to count the deaths from that yet, but it's gonna be in the millions. And the children in poor countries... I'll just take Uganda as a good example of this. They don't have Zoom schools. They just had no school for two years, unless, again, if they were in the laptop class, a relatively small number. 4 1/2 million Ugandan kids never came back to school after two years out of school, and it turns out many of them, especially the little girls, were sold into sexual slavery or are married off as child brides. Many little boys were put into child labor. Their families were so poor that they faced this terrible choice between starving their kids or prostituting them. We're in a situation where the harms of the lockdowns have become and are becoming clearer and clearer every day, and the benefits, in terms of protecting people from COVID, it's becoming clearer that they did none of that.

Continue ReadingJay Bhattacharya to Head NIH