COVID Concerns for Children aged 5 – 18

Imagine a world where we are getting numbers like the following, where politicians, corporate media and public health officials consciously ignored them. And imagine a world where these numbers represent the lives of human beings.

From Steve Kirsch's article of October 13, 2024: "US data shows COVID vaccinated kids 5 - 18 die at a 5.7X higher rate than their unvaccinated peers: Comorbidity differences perhaps? Nah, I'm not buying it and I'll show you why. Also, new New Zealand FOIA results show a 5X increase in < age 40 in cardiac ER calls post vax rollout!"

Post vaccine rollout we have credible reports of

Death rates:

5.6X higher deaths in vaccinated kids vs. unvaccinated kids (Yang paper)

20X increase in death rates (Pastrana)

20X increase in death rates (Detroit Police officer)

Cardiac arrest calls:

5X increase in cardiac ER calls in those aged <40 years old in New Zealand (NZ FOIA)

10X increase in cardiac arrest called (Harry Fisher)

Myocarditis cases:

100X increase in myocarditis cases (Pastrana)

A well over 10X increase in myocarditis cases in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids (Oxford study)

Aortic aneurysm:

700X increase in aortic aneurysm cases (Harry Fisher)

I’m told by experts that these are all coincidences and to get my shot.

Continue ReadingCOVID Concerns for Children aged 5 – 18

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Where are the Studies?

Aaron Siri's Testimony before the New Hampshire House Committee.

The University of Jackson department of epidemiology did a study small based on surveys, retrospective...it showed that vaccinated kids at 30 times the rate of rhinitis is unvaccinated, 3.9 times the rate of allergy, ADHD four times, autism, asthma, learning disability, neurodevelopmental disorder.

So this is actually one of the only few Vax versus un-Vax studies I'm aware of, and the findings on it are startling. And if the health department can certainly take shots, I mean, you can take shots at any epidemiological, so you can say, well, you know, it's based on parental recall, it's based on surveys, is your health, you know, how random is your sampling? Sure, you could do that, but you could take shots at it, but a lot of credit goes to these scientists who stick their neck out to do this study without NIH funding and knowing they're going to get creamed for doing it. That's incredible they actually did it, frankly. More incredible it exists in any public literature. Long story short, there's no studies that rebut this. In terms of the scope of the harm.

So we've looked at what harms might be caused by vaccines, schools of pharma companies. We've looked at the fact that they failed to study them. And we've looked at what some of the evidence that might show what the health outcomes, what the impact might be of this increasing vaccine schedule. How many people are harmed potentially? What's, you know, to get an indication of that, a signal, we could look at theirs and I'm going to 2019 pre-pandemic.

And this is the number of reports of to VAERS of serious issues, death, permanent disability, hospitalizations, emergency office visits. And I will point out that back then, there was a federal government study conducted by Harvard, it found that fewer than 1% of adverse events were reported to VAERS. I think it's probably increased since COVID because people are more aware of VAERS now. But if you, you know, this is terrible science, by the way, what I just did. Terrible science. I just say that right now. But if it's 1%, okay, so let's multiply that by 100. I'm not saying these numbers are right. I'm making clear. This is terrible science. But this is kind of the best approximation I have. Somebody's got a better study, I'll take it. I'm happy to look at that data.

Continue ReadingVaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Where are the Studies?

The COVID Lab Leak Chronology – Step by Step

a href="https://x.com/WashburneAlex/status/1843850212713890045">Alex Washburne lays it all out, step by step, in a tweet. Here is his summary:

Anthony Fauci overturned the moratorium on GOFROC, funded the group that wrote the blueprint for SARS-CoV-2, and then used his position as NIAID director to cast doubt on the lab origin theory by

(i) pressuring authors to ghostwrite manuscripts claiming a lab origin is implausible

(ii) giving funding to those authors

(iii) advertising their work during official NIAID duties like briefing the American people

(iv) sending the paper in (i) to DoS COVID origins investigators who requested all info on NIAID funded work in Wuhan in 2019

(v) pushing the US to censor a lab origin as “disinformation”

(vi) lying under other about NIAID funding labs in Wuhan, and demonstrating a knowledge of this lie’s consequences by also lying about his connection with Ralph Baric.

Currently, we see a clear pattern of NIAID officials violating federal records laws, misleading to DoS investigators, lying to congress, and hiding their knowledge of risky research behind a thin veil of expertise that an expert like me can confidently see through. Why the lies, ghostwriting, FOIA abuses, perjury, and more?

On a more societal note, why is the media letting Fauci get away with this?

Keep reading his tweet if you'd like to see it, step by step:

Continue ReadingThe COVID Lab Leak Chronology – Step by Step

You Absolutely Need to Take the Flu Vaccine is another Modern Fable

Every day, it seems, I discover that something that was indubitably true is not true at all. Many of these discoveries are in thd area of public health arena, where I depended completely on "experts" to do their jobs. Today's topic is the flu shot, the vaccination that (I've been told for years) is a life-saving necessity for everyone, especially senior citizens.

Sharyl Atkisson is a 5-time Emmy Award winner and recipient of the Edward R. Murrow award for investigative reporting. She's a NYT bestselling author, managing editor of the TV program “Full Measure. Her article is "Govt. Researchers: Flu Shots Not Effective in Elderly, After All." Excerpt:

"Over 20 years, the percentage of seniors getting flu shots increased sharply from 15% to 65%. It stands to reason that flu deaths among the elderly should have taken a dramatic dip making an “X” graph like this (refers to graphic). Instead, flu deaths among the elderly continued to climb.

It was hard to believe, so researchers at the National Institutes of Health set out to do a study adjusting for all kinds of factors that could be masking the true benefits of the shots. But no matter how they crunched the numbers, they got the same disappointing result: flu shots had not reduced deaths among the elderly.

In fact, the researchers said they could not correlate flu shots with reduced deaths in any age group.

It’s not what health officials hoped to find. NIH wouldn’t let us interview the study’s lead author. So we went to Boston and found the only co-author of the study not employed by NIH: Dr. Tom Reichert.

Dr. Reichert: “We realized we had incendiary material.”

Dr. Reichert said they thought their study would prove vaccinations helped.

Dr. Reichert: “We were trying to do something mainstream. That’s for sure.”

Sharyl: “Were you surprised?”

Dr. Reichert: “Astonished.”

Sharyl: “Did you check the data a couple of times to make sure?”

Dr. Reichert: “Well, even more than that. We’ve looked at other countries now and the same is true.”

That international study, soon to be published, finds the same poor results in Australia, France, Canada and the UK. And other new research stokes the idea that decades of promoting flu shots in seniors, and the billions spent, haven’t had the desired result. The current head of national immunizations confirms CDC is now looking at new strategies, but stops short of calling the present strategy a failure."

Continue ReadingYou Absolutely Need to Take the Flu Vaccine is another Modern Fable