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

Sharyl Attkisson Discusses the Widespread Corruption of American “Science”

Fascinating and horrifying discussion here. The woman being interviewed by Jan Jekielek is Sharyl Attkisson, author of a brand new book that I have ordered but not yet read: Follow the Science: How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures, and Prevails (2024).

If we are not collectively (as a country) able to care about our children becoming sick or dying from preventable causes, we have fallen more deeply into nihilism that I could have ever imagined. We seem to be subject to the whims of medical rent seekers, people and companies who are completely willing to accept short term profits in return for hurting and killing millions of Americans. And they know no bounds. They (especially Big Pharma and the federal agencies it has captured) are willing to propagandize and censor researchers and all of the rest of us to keep the money flowing.

I created a transcript of this interview, but I would urge everyone to watch it (it's only 9 minutes) and to consider buying her new book.  Here is the transcript:

Sharyl Attkisson 0:15 I call him the frog professor in that chapter. And it's a fascinating story, because over 25 years ago, this man was hired by a chemical company to study a chemical that, sadly is in most of our drinking water. It's run-off from crops used on a lot of corn. The company was hoping to prove it was safe and not causing problems, because the EPA was going to be analyzing it and taking a look at regulations. And unfortunately for him, he found it was feminizing. In his words, frogs, taking frogs that were male and turning them, in essence, into female, or having frogs not develop testes or develop both testes and ovaries at the same time. And a host of other research has built upon this. It turns out, it impacts all vertebrates, basically, in some form, in negative ways, many different ways, besides this feminization.

But what happened to him when he tried to simply report what he had learned, I think, is a lesson for all of us to how studies and sciences skewed today are skewed today because the company had a button-down contract, he wasn't allowed to report the negative findings. And people don't realize, pharmaceutical industry hires academics, but the contracts now will say, in essence, if you find something negative, you can't publish. It used to be everything got published. So to his credit, he went independent. He quit that job, repeated the research independently so that he could publish it, and again, it's been built on over the years with a lot of powerful research, but what the company did to try to destroy him. The tactics that they deployed to try to get him fired, to controversialize his research, investigate him, investigate his wife, psychoanalyze him. And this was all confirmed with documents that were released as part of a lawsuit. When the company was sued over allegedly adulterating water in various cities, they paid a huge settlement without admitting fault. But I think it's an instructive lesson in what happens to you as a researcher, if you unfortunately happen to be off-the-narrative of what powerful interests may want you to find, how you can suffer and pay the price for that.

Jan Jekielek 2:25

I think we have a bit of that sort of idealized view of of or at least have had a overly idealized view of research as being kind of something pure. And of course, one would want to keep it that way at some at some level, but tell me a little bit about the sort of the general picture then,

Sharyl Attkisson 2:46 Sadly, the scientific industry has been so corrupted by money sources that even the people that you'd like to think would defend, for example, the scientific journals, have thrown up their hands and said much, or most of The science printed in the journals that your doctor rely relies on today is not to be believed because it's been so corrupted. And I was stunned, because I'm one of those people that used to think, "Hey, you read something and it's in a peer reviewed, published journal." Everybody always says, that's the gold standard. That's it.

Come to find out, Dr Marcia Angel, former head of the New England Journal of Medicine, said that she learned, as editor in chief, she could not stop the bad studies with the bad information in them, that were hopelessly tainted by the pharmaceutical industry. She said she lost that battle. The current editor of the British journal Lancet has said much the same. Dr Richard Horton: he in a stunning editorial some years ago, he said that much of the science is not to be believed, and then many studies have been built upon that sense that give high percentages of information in medical journals that are not to be believed because they've been corrupted by the scientific, you know, money interests, basically, let's say, pharmaceutical and chemical industries.

And there are a lot of tactics that I learned they use that are invisible to us, such as ghost writing. A study that looks like it's it's signed by an independent doctor who's paid for the use of a signature. But the article was actually written by the drug company, or a middleman hired by the drug company, not disclosed in the article in the scientific journal, and it's being used to pump up the need, or supposed need, for a drug that's going to be introduced, or a medicine that they currently make, or to make it look like the medicine works very well with no side effects. And people have no idea this material, not only the studies, may be tainted, but they're literally being written by a drug company when not disclosed necessarily in the final product. Those are just some of the conflicts that happen today.

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingSharyl Attkisson Discusses the Widespread Corruption of American “Science”