Archive
Plastics Used in Face Masks Have Been Found in Patients’ Lungs.
BY RHODA WILSON ON APRIL 25, 2022. Find Article Here:-
Microplastic fibres were found deep in the lower lungs of living human beings in almost every person sampled in a recent study by scientists at Hull York Medical School, UK.
The study, ‘Detection of microplastics in human lung tissue using μFTIR spectroscopy’, published on 29 March 2022 discovered microplastic particles – present in many Covid masks – in the lung tissue of 11 out of 13 patients undergoing surgery.
Polypropylene (“PP”) and polyethylene terephthalate (“PET”) were the most prevalent substances present in the lungs.
Some of the microscopic plastic fragments and fibres discovered – in patients undergoing surgery whose lung tissue they sampled – were two millimetres long.
The research used samples of healthy lung tissue from next to the lung region targeted for surgery. It analysed particles as small as 0.003mm in size and used spectroscopy to identify plastic types. It also used control samples to account for the level of background contamination.
The plastic dust and microscopic debris comprise the same plastics used to manufacture the ubiquitous surgical masks worn by hundreds of millions of people around the world as mandated by governments to halt the Covid “pandemic.”
The material most commonly used to make these masks is PP. PP fabric is made from a “thermoplastic” polymer, meaning that it’s easy to work with and shape at high temperatures.
Blue surgical masks can also be made of polystyrene, polycarbonate, polyethylene, or polyester, all of which are types of fabrics derived from thermoplastic polymers.
Disposable blue masks are to be found littering almost every city street in the developed world after, in some places, two years of Covid mandates ruled that masks should be worn in most indoor environments much of the time. Healthy adults, children, the immunocompromised, and the elderly have all been subject to mask mandates.
Microplastics were detected in human blood in March 2022, showing the particles can travel around the human body and may become embedded in organs. The impact on health is still to be determined.
“Our study is the first indication that we have polymer particles in our blood – it’s a breakthrough result,” said Prof Dick Vethaak, an ecotoxicologist at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands. “We also know in general that babies and young children are more vulnerable to chemical and particle exposure,” he said. “That worries me a lot.”
A further study published on 5 April found specific types of harm – cell death, allergic response, and damage to cell walls – were caused by the levels of microplastics that people ingest. The researchers are concerned because microplastics cause damage to human cells in the laboratory at the levels known to be eaten by people via their food.
The study, ‘Detection of microplastics in human lung tissue using μFTIR spectroscopy’, which found microplastics in patients’ lungs stated:
“Airborne microplastics (“MPs”) have been sampled globally, and their concentration is known to increase in areas of high human population and activity, especially indoors. Respiratory symptoms and disease following exposure to occupational levels of MPs within industry settings have also been reported.
“In total, 39 MPs were identified within 11 of the 13 lung tissue samples… These results support inhalation as a route of exposure for environmental MPs, and this characterisation of types and levels can now inform realistic conditions for laboratory exposure experiments, with the aim of determining health impacts.”
“We did not expect to find the highest number of particles in the lower regions of the lungs, or particles of the sizes we found,” said Laura Sadofsky, a senior author of the study. “It is surprising as the airways are smaller in the lower parts of the lungs and we would have expected particles of these sizes to be filtered out or trapped before getting this deep.”
“This data provides an important advance in the field of air pollution, microplastics, and human health,” she said.
An older study published in 2020 looked into the risks associated with mask-wearing and the inhalation of microplastics. The study concluded:
- Wearing masks poses microplastic inhalation risk, reusing masks increases the risk
- Wearing N95 masks poses lowest microplastic inhalation risks in the long term
- Wearing masks, except for N95, poses higher stripe type microplastic inhalation risk
- Wearing masks poses considerably lower spherical-type microplastic inhalation risk
- Wearing masks leads to lower gross microplastic inhalation risk in the long term
“Surgical, cotton, fashion, and activated carbon masks wearing pose higher fibre-like microplastic inhalation risk, while all masks generally reduced exposure when used under their supposed time (<4 h),” the study said.
Read more: ‘Study finds plastics found in masks present in patients’ lungs’, Western Standard Online, 17 April 2022
Further reading:
MP Chris Chope’s awkward vaccine questions – and how the UK Health Secretary avoided them.
By Sally Beck April 21st, 2022. Find Article Here:-
THE Conservative MP for Christchurch, Sir Christopher Chope, has valiantly backed an unpopular cause – injury payments for those disabled or killed by Covid vaccines.
He wants the unfair and insulting Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) to be updated and brought into line with other countries, and last September he made an impassioned plea about this to the House of Commons. He told the few MPs there to listen that 10,000 people ‘have suffered real, serious damage as a result of doing the right thing’, namely, receiving a Covid jab. There was a follow-up debate on March 2 when even fewer MPs turned up.
Official figures, collated by our drugs watchdog the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), show that one in 117 people have suffered an adverse event after vaccination serious enough to report to the Yellow Card Scheme. This number includes 2,087 fatalities. The breakdown of different types of adverse event stretches across 352 pages, each person reporting an average of three separate reactions. The breakdown looks like this:
Vaccine injury reports
Pfizer-BioNTech – 168,927
Oxford/AstraZeneca – 244,667
Moderna – 36,941
Unknown brand – 1,620
Total number of people impacted – 452,155
Total doses (including boosters) administered:
Pfizer-BioNTech – 80million
Oxford/AstraZeneca – 49.16million
Moderna – 12.2million
Total 141.36 million
Sheer numbers dictate that there will be many casualties, particularly as all three vaccines have been rushed through and two use mRNA, a novel and barely tested technology. Nearly 1,000 British citizens who feel they have been 60 per cent damaged, or more, have made a claim and if compensated properly, this could cost taxpayers around £110million.
You would imagine that our Health Secretary, Sajid Javid, would be keen to pay victims in a timely fashion as many have had their lives and families destroyed – some will never work again – but the opposite is the case.
Sir Christopher met Javid on March 16 to plead for prompt and fair settlement. Javid wrote to him on March 30 failing again to make any commitment to the dead or injured. (Incidentally, MSM journalists are also struggling to get answers from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), the Department for Work and Pensions, the NHS and the Department for Health and Social Care. It’s almost impossible to get a straight answer and you are likely to be passed from pillar to post. My last UKHSA inquiry elicited seven ‘out of office’ responses!)
Below is Javid’s letter of March 30 in full. Sir Christopher’s original points are in bold, followed by Javid’s response.
Dear Chris
1. On 11th August 2021, the prime minister wrote to Kate Scott, whose husband Jamie, a fit 44-year-old software engineer, spent 124 days in hospital following severe brain injury caused by the vaccine. He said, “you’re not a statistic and must not be ignored” and went on to suggest changes to the VDPS and promised that the Government would consider the case for reform. Why is there no tangible evidence of the Government having done anything in the six months since the Prime Minister said those words?
I am very sorry to hear about Mr Scott’s situation and can also confirm that a letter was sent to Mrs Scott on 2nd March to inform her that NHSBSA [the NHS Business Services Authority] were gathering Mr Scott’s records from the clinicians listed on the claim form.
Following the move from DWP in November 2021, NHSBSA are expanding their dedicated team of caseworkers to progress claims and provide improved and more personalised engagement with claimants, including Jamie Scott, to keep them updated on the progress of their claims.
2. Why have they not uprated the £120,000 payment under the scheme to take account of inflation since 2007, when it was last reviewed? On this basis, the maximum should now be over £177,000.
The value of the Vaccine Damage Payment has increased several times since the scheme’s origin in 1979 when payments were £10,000. The most recent increase lifted the award to eligible claimants to its current rate of £120,000 on 12th July 2007.
The VDPS aims to underpin vaccine confidence by offering a one-off additional payment to those who have been severely disabled by a government vaccination programme. The payment is designed to provide some extra support rather than meet the lifetime costs of the disability. Application to the VDPS leaves the option for claimants of taking legal routes to claim these wider damages.
In addition, there is a wider financial safety net to support those with a disability or long- term health condition, including Statutory Sick Pay, Universal Credit, Employment and Support Allowance, Attendance Allowance, and Personal Independence Payments. In the case of bereavement from vaccination, a relative may also qualify for Bereavement Support Payment for immediate assistance.
3. The 44-year-old BBC Radio Newcastle presenter [Lisa Shaw] died from a brain haemorrhage confirmed by a coroner in August as having been caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine. Another case about which somebody has written to me arose from a decision by the Westminster coroner who recorded the AstraZeneca vaccine as the cause of death on her mother’s death certificate. Neither of those families is yet to receive any acknowledgement that they qualify under the VDPS, let alone that they will be compensated. Are the Government disputing these coroners’ verdicts?
The Government is not disputing coroners’ verdicts but, in line with the VDPS legislation, is required to assess the evolving evidence to understand the potential relationship between the vaccines and certain adverse events. NHSBSA is now beginning to progress existing Covid-19 vaccine claims and medical records are being requested from claimant’s GPs or medical providers. NHSBSA has been in touch with all claimants to provide an update on the progress of their cases.
4. Will the Minister please tell us now when the first payments will be made under the VDPS, and why, despite having told me that 26 staff are now processing claims – 11 more than in December – no payments have yet been made?
The widespread use of Covid-19 vaccines began only relatively recently, and therefore an understanding of the potential relationship between the vaccines and certain adverse events is still evolving. However, there is a growing international body of evidence supporting an association or link between the vaccines and certain adverse events. Whilst scientists and clinicians around the world continue explore whether a causal mechanism between the vaccines and these events can be established, and the relationship definitively proven, this body of evidence means NHSBSA is now in a position to begin the evidence gathering process on the VDPS Covid-19 claims. VDPS assessors will consider whether, in light of all the available evidence, it is more probable than not that the vaccination has caused disablement.
The average, non-Covid-19 related claim, can take around six months to process from the date a claimant’s medical records is requested to clinical and disablement assessment. This is because NHSBSA need to wait for claimants’ GP, medical providers, local authorities, or other relevant healthcare providers to gather records and send them. The exact time take [sic] varies from case to case. Therefore, we are currently unable to provide a more accurate timeframe for making payments related to Covid-19 claims.
5. Will she [Maria Caulfield, Under Secretary for Health and Social Care] also say how many medical assessors are currently reviewing outstanding cases, and when the backlog will be cleared?
The NHSBSA has awarded a contract for a supplier to cover VDPS medical assessments, including assessments of claims related to the Covid-19 vaccines. Non Covid-19 related claims have continued to be assessed as part of an interim agreement in place with DWP, the previous administrator. The number of medical assessors appointed will be managed by the supplier and flexed to meet the scheme’s demands.
6. Two weeks after his vaccine, Mr Goody experienced acute pain throughout his body. He developed Bell’s palsy, required treatment for his left eye, which would not close, and suffered bowel incontinence and severe fatigue. Peripheral numbness and pain in his upper legs, feet, neck and hands then developed. He was in and out of the accident and emergency department at the John Radcliffe Hospital for two weeks, being prescribed steroids, pain killers and undertaking multiple MRI and CT scans, electromyographs and nerve conduction studies. He then collapsed at home in pain and was admitted as an in-patient for five days of intravenous immunoglobulin in an effort to halt the continuing nerve damage caused by the autoimmune response to the vaccine. He was then diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is an autoimmune disease in which the body attacks its own myelin sheath. Does my Hon. Friend the Minister, having listened to the circumstances of Mr Goody, believe that his case meets the 60% disablement threshold?
I am very sorry for Mr Goody’s situation; however, I cannot comment on the 60% disablement threshold. Decisions around the disablement threshold are made by qualified medical assessors, as is required by law in the Vaccine Damage Payments Act and in line with the definition of ‘severe disablement’ set out in DWP’s Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit.
7. In recent months, I have received hundreds of emails reporting deaths and serious illnesses involving immune thrombocytopenic purpura, which causes the number of blood platelets to be reduced. On 10 January, in question 100420, I asked the Minister what was being done to investigate the 427 suspected cases of that and if the Government will make it their policy to inform those affected of the availability of the vaccine damage payment scheme. Following my point of order yesterday, complaining about the Government’s failure to respond to my questions, I received a response from the Minister yesterday evening, which stated: “Following a scientific assessment of all the available data and a review by the Commission on Human Medicines’ Covid-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group, it was determined that an association between the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine and TTS” – thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome – “was likely”. I hope that she will unravel the jargon in that answer and confirm in simple terms what that means in the cases to which I have referred, causation has now been established and there should be no bar to the compensation scheme coming into effect.
The VDPS is open to all who have adverse reactions that meet criteria and will be assessed on case by case basis. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has reviewed each Yellow Card report of suspected events of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). All reports are followed up with the reporter for further details of the event to allow a more robust assessment. Following a thorough scientific assessment of all the available data relating to Covid-19 vaccine and TTS, and review by the independent experts of the Commission on Human Medicines’ COVID-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group, it was announced on 7th April 2021 that an association between the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine and TTS was likely. As a result, the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine product information was updated to make the public and healthcare professionals aware of this adverse event and to provide advice on the signs, symptoms and actions to be taken in a TTS event. Since these updates, all suspected reports of TTS continue to be monitored and the MHRA will take further regulatory actions and inform patients and prescribers, if new evidence emerges.
8. Will the Minister also answer the part of my question relating to whether the Government will notify those 427 families affected by that particular aspect of the availability of the VDPS?
The information to apply to VDPS is already available on the government website. There is no link between the VDPS and the MHRA’s Yellow Card Reporting Scheme. All VDPS claims are clinically assessed on a case-by-case basis, seeking further medical expertise as required.
9. Many correspondents from constituencies across the United Kingdom remain sceptical about whether they will qualify under the VDPS. The issue has all the hallmarks of becoming a bureaucratic nightmare for victims and their families. Why should the Government force those people to go through the ordeal and delay of having to seek expensive legal help instead of enabling their representatives in Parliament to be given the information necessary to establish their claims? That is why those parliamentary questions and this debate are relevant, because it would enable our constituents to establish their claims without having to go to the law.
No legal advice is required in order to submit a claim for the additional VDPS payment. To qualify for a Vaccine Damage Payment, an applicant needs to establish that they meet three main criteria:
1) to claim against a vaccine specifically listed in the VDPS
2) to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the vaccine caused the disability in question
3) to be assessed as being at least 60% disabled (according the DWP Industrial Injuries scale).
10. As not all those who died shortly after vaccination will have died because of the vaccine, I thought it was fair to ask a further question as to the number of such cases where the Yellow Card analysis showed that the death would have happened regardless of the vaccine or medicine being administered. I asked this question to help promote vaccine confidence and to prevent inaccurate conclusions from being reached. Much to my disappointment and dismay, that question has not been answered in a timely fashion or at all. Why not, one asks? Surely the Government must have this information, and their failure to produce it can only help further raise suspicions of a lack of transparency. The Government almost seem to be in denial about all this.
The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Yellow Card Reporting Scheme is distinct from the VDPS. In the case of reports with a fatal outcome, the MHRA is not in a position to determine whether an individual’s patient’s death was as a result of vaccination or not. Therefore, we cannot provide the number of cases where death is, or is not, attributed to the vaccine being administered.
11. The reluctance of the Government to provide timely information is further exemplified by the delay in updating the information provided as at 15 December. Almost three months have now elapsed since then, and the Government have ducked my further question about sharing the results of the MHRA analysis of yellow cards for patients in respect of whom they were received.
Vaccine safety is of paramount importance and MHRA continually monitors the safety of vaccines to ensure that the benefits outweigh any potential risks. The MHRA’s Yellow Card Reporting Scheme enables healthcare professionals and the public, including patients, carers and parents, to report any suspected side effect following the administration of a medicine, including a vaccine. This enables the regulator and the public to monitor any side effects a vaccine may have and enables the regulator to take action in response to concerns identified, if appropriate.
A Yellow Card report does not necessarily mean the vaccine caused that reaction or event, but all reports are continually reviewed to detect possible new side effects that may require regulatory action, and to differentiate these things from what would have happened regardless of the vaccine or medicine being administered, for instance due to underlying or undiagnosed illness.
The MHRA does not provide individual feedback to reporters in respect of its assessment of their report as it may not have received full medical information. In the case of reports with a fatal outcome, the MHRA is not in a position to determine whether an individual’s patient’s death was as a result of vaccination or not. The MHRA’s assessment of the safety of a medicinal product takes into account the totality of information available from Yellow Cards as well as other relevant data sources to ensure robust regulatory actions, which are communicated to the public and healthcare professionals as appropriate.
12. In her answer to question 92800 of 14 February 2022, the Minister [Maria Caulfield] said that her Department is “providing indemnities in the unexpected event of any adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures put in place.” She said, however, that she was unable to provide information about the terms of those contracts between the Government and vaccine manufacturers as they are commercially sensitive. In those circumstances, should those who have suffered adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures put in place be making claims against the Government or the manufacturers, or both. Minister is listening to this question, because it is in the public interest that she gives a definitive answer. People are champing at the bit in wondering whether they need to make claims against the manufacturers or the Government, or whether they can rely on the VDPS.
Any vaccine must first go through the usual rigorous testing and development process and is only authorised once it has met the strict standards of safety, quality and effectiveness.
We have some of the highest vaccine safety standards in the world and the MHRA is globally recognised for its high standards in quality, safety and medicines regulation.
The safety of the public will always come first and there are extensive checks and balances required by law at every stage of the development of a vaccine.
Vaccine safety is of paramount importance and the MHRA continually monitors the safety of vaccines to ensure that their benefits outweigh any potential risks. The MHRA runs a Yellow Card reporting scheme which enables healthcare professionals and the public, including patients, carers and parents, to report any suspected side effect following the administration of a medicine.
The MHRA is continually guided by the scientific and clinical evidence emerging from the vaccine programme as it progresses.
The Vaccine Damages Payment Scheme remains open to those who may have suffered adverse reactions from Covid-19 vaccines that meet the VDPS eligibility criteria. Further if a person makes a claim through the VDPS, they can still bring a civil claim.
13. [Question from] Alicia Kearns [Conservative MP for Rutland and Melton] – I have a wonderful 38-year-old female constituent, a mother of three, who after her first shot of AstraZeneca has had horrendous, life-limiting conditions. The NHS seems to have closed its doors to her: for 10 months she has been asking for help, but no one will give it. She has had to go to Germany to get the specialist blood analysis she needs. So can the Minister kindly say what medical ongoing support and pathways the NHS has created within its support specifically to ensure that people like my constituent get the help they so desperately need to live healthier, happier lives?
I am very sorry to hear about this situation, the constituent should speak to her GP/medical professional and she should be able to access NHS services who can support her conditions.
14. [Question from] Jim Shannon [Democratic Unionist Party MP for Strangford] – Will the compensation scheme to which the Minister referred apply across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – will people in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales qualify if they have ailments such as those to which the Hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) referred?
The Minister referred to the VDPS which is not a compensation scheme. The VDPS is available in all of the devolved administrations.
15. Does government require more evidence than a coroner’s verdict to enable the relatives of somebody who died following the vaccine to get compensation?
The Government is not disputing coroners’ verdicts. However, even where a coroner’s verdict exists, medical assessors are required to assess evidence to establishing a link between any vaccines and potential adverse effects.
The VDPS can be applied for on behalf of someone who has died. In such cases the person who applies should be managing the estate of the deceased in order to be eligible to apply, and each case will be assessed against the legal requirements of the scheme and considered on its own merits.
Yours ever,
Sajid Javid
High number of Strokes caused by the Covid-19 Vaccines may explain why so many of the Vaccinated are also going Blind.
BY THE EXPOSÉ ON APRIL 26, 2022. Find Article Here:-
Since the first Covid-19 vaccine was authorised for use in the United Kingdom, and administered on the 8th December 2020, there have been hundreds of thousands of adverse reactions reported to the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. But there is one particular adverse reaction which is both concerning and strange, and the number of people suffering from it is increasing by the week – Blindness.
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme analysis print for the Pfizer / BioNTech mRNA jab shows that since the first jab was administered on the 9th December 2020, and up to 6th April 2022, 163 people have reported suffering total blindness due to the injection. Another 6 people have also reported central vision loss, whilst a further 4 people have reported sudden visual loss.
Twenty-one people have also reported an adverse reaction known as ‘blindness transient’ due to the Pfizer vaccine. This is where a person suffers visual disturbance or loss of sight in one eye for seconds or minutes at a time. And a further twenty people have reported an adverse reaction known as ‘unilateral blindness’. This is where a person is blind or has extremely poor vision in one eye.
In total there have been 8,016 eye disorders reported as adverse reactions to the Pfizer jab as of 6th April 2022.
The AstraZeneca viral vector injection has also caused hundreds of people to go blind. As of 6th April 22 the MHRA has received 324 reports of blindness, 3 reports of central vision loss, 5 reports of sudden visual loss, and 29 reports of blindness transient among 14,895 eye disorders reported as adverse reactions to the jab.
The Moderna mRNA injection, which was first administered in June and has the lowest number of injections administered in the UK, has also caused several people to suffer blindness.
As of 6th April 22, the MHRA have received 34 reports of blindness, 56 reports of visual impairment, and 6 reports of as adverse reactions to the Moderna injection. blindness transient among 1,519 eye disorders reported as adverse reactions to the Moderna jab.
In all, when including adverse reactions reported where the brand of vaccine was not specified, there have been 24,516 eye disorders reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 injections, with 525 of these reactions being complete blindness.
“Fact-checkers” alongside authorities have been on the case to sweep this data under the carpet and have labelled it as unreliable. Their reasoning is that “just because someone reports the event after having the vaccine, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is due to the vaccine”.
But what they’re not telling you is that it also doesn’t necessarily mean it is not due to the vaccine, and we imagine every single person who has reported an adverse reaction would disagree with the fact checkers and authorities attempts to play down these reports.
For instance one person, who goes by the name of Louis, documented the story of his wife on Twitter in the days, weeks and months following her getting the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine.
Unfortunately, his wife went completely blind in her left eye and 30-60% blind in her right eye after having the AstraZeneca jab and the neurologist treating her, categorically told her not have the second dose.
As you can see the misery which the fact checkers are disregarding as “not necessarily the fault of the vaccine” is very real for the people who are reporting them.
But why are the Covid vaccines causing people to go blind?
Well there is another extremely concerning adverse reaction that has been reported to the MHRA Yellow Card scheme, one which has occurred an astronimical amount of times, and that adverse event is a stroke.
As of 6th Feb 22, the MHRA has received 786 reports of stroke due to the Pfizer mRNA injection, which is now the primary booster jab being administered to Brits, and the only jab being administered to children.
These reports include 19 reports of subarachnoid haemorrhage, which is an extremely rare type of stroke, 64 reports of cerebral haemorrhage, 61 reports of ischaemic stroke, and 487 reports of cerebrovascular accidents.
Sadly these 786 reported strokes have resulted in 65 deaths.
Unfortunately the AstraZeneca vaccine has also caused hundred of strokes. Up to 6th April 22, the MHRA has received 2,355 reports of stroke as adverse reactions to the jab resulting in 170 deaths.
The 2,355 strokes include 202 cerebral haemorrhages, 119 subarachnoid haemorrhages (supposed to be rare), 166 ischaemic strokes, and a shocking 1,369 cerebrovascular accidents.
But what does this have to do with people going blind? Well this helpful fact sheet provided by the Stroke Foundation in Australia provides the answer as to why.
According to the fact sheet around one-third of stroke survivors suffer visual loss, and most sadly never fully recover their vision.
The reason strokes cause blindness is that vision depends on a healthy eye to receive information and a healthy brain to process that information. The nerves in the eye travel from the eye through the brain to the occipital cortex at the back of the brain, allowing you to see.
Most strokes affect one side of the brain. Nerves from each eye travel together in the brain, so both eyes are affected. If the right side of your brain is damaged, the left side vision in each eye may be affected. It is rare for both sides of the brain to be affected by stroke. When it does happen, it can result in blindness.
So if you’ve been wondering how on earth the experimental Covid-19 injections could cause a person to go blind, you now know why.
It’s the vast amount of strokes the Covid injections are causing that is contributing to this devastating and life-changing adverse event. Strokes will not be the only contributing factor of course, but the numbers suggest they are most likely the main adverse reaction at fault.
Sources/References
Mark Steyn on the shocking truth about the booster jab.
By Kathy Gyngell April 23rd, 2022. Find Article Here:-
Mark Steyn’s blistering monologue at the start of his Thursday evening GB News show is a must-watch if you missed it.
In it he calls for a Royal Commission into the UK’s Covid policy that ‘screwed over’ a generation of children, left people unseen and untreated by the NHS or to die in ‘care’ homes, mired people in depression, and ruined livelihoods. More than that – a Commission must inquire into the groupthink of the politico-media class that blindly followed the official narrative, and cast questioning or alternative data as disinformation. This is what drove the other iniquities.
The shocking truth about vaccine efficacy, specifically the fact that the ‘so-zealously promoted’ Covid vaccine third booster shot has failed also catalysed his fury. The triple-vaccinated, published UK data shows, run more chance of infection, hospitalisation and death than the combined total of double, single and unvaccinated.
It is powerful, much-needed stuff from Mark, and it should leave news and current affairs presenters, producers and editors over the MSM elsewhere hanging their heads in shame.
You can watch the segment here. The full transcript of his monologue follows it. It is an article in itself.
MARK STEYN: We had an Australian senator on the show, Malcolm Roberts, just a week or two back, who’s calling for a Royal Commission into various aspects of Covid policy down under. I would like to second that and call for a Royal Commission into aspects of Covid policy in the United Kingdom these last two years. Because there are untold numbers of victims.
We’ve tried to talk about them here, for example on our April 4 show we discussed Ofsted’s report on the immense damage done to UK children by the Covid policies of the last two years. There isn’t a lot to be said for a society that screws over an entire generation of children for no good reason. One very basic cause of the immense damage of the last two years, not just to children but to non-Covid NHS patients who went unseen and untreated and to those in care homes who died alone, and to those who lost livelihoods and to those mired in depression and mental illness, has been the groupthink of the politico-media class – I can’t underline this enough.
We have needed, since March 2020, a far wider range of public discourse on the best way through this thing, especially as a lot of people want to make it permanent. Ursula von der Leyen, at the European Union with her digital identity Covid passes and all the rest of it. Instead, we have had the opposite: a crude and banal division of Covid discussion into the official version on the one hand and on the other, disinformation. It’s either official so you can say it, or it’s disinformation so you’ll lose your Facebook account.
However, if we are to have this idiotic and reductive division into officialdom and disinformation, completely unbecoming to a supposedly free society, then let me say that everything that follows are official numbers from the UK Health Security Agency. And there is only one conclusion from those numbers, which is that the third booster shot so zealously promoted by the British state and its groupthink media has failed and in fact exposed you to significantly greater risk of infection, hospitalisation and death. There has to be an accounting for this and other disastrous groupthink policies, which is why I want that Royal Commission and you should too.
To emphasise, these are all government statistics and you ought to be able to cite them even on British television. So let us start with the basics. There are approximately equal numbers of triple vaccinated as of the combined total of single, double and unvaccinated. This is from the UK Health Security Agency’s report last week of April 14. Let’s take a look at this. As you can see, from a pool of 63million down at the bottom there, there are 32million who are triple-vaccinated. That leaves just under 31million who are either double, single or unvaccinated. So, we have two groups of similar size, 31/32million. So it’s relatively easy to weigh the merits of the third shot upon Group A versus Group B.
Here are the Covid case numbers from the government report I cited on air earlier this month. All the numbers here basically come from March. They basically come from up to a couple of weeks ago. And if you look at this, this shows Covid-19 cases by vaccination status. So, the triple-vaccinated in March were responsible for just over a million Covid cases and everybody else 475,000 Covid cases. So, the triple-vaccinated are contracting Covid at approximately twice the rate of the double, single and unvaccinated. Got that? If you get the booster shot, you’ve got twice as high a chance of getting the Covid. In the United Kingdom, there’s twice as many people with the third booster shot who got the Covid as the people who never had the booster shot.
It’s a widespread phenomenon. This, by the way, I just looked this up before the show, this is New York City. If you can see there, the top line, you probably can’t see it, but the top line shows the people who got the booster shot. And there’s far more Covid cases in New York City by people with the third shot than with anything else.
So the court eunuchs of the appalling groupthink media have retreated to reduced claims for the vaccine. ‘Oh sure, it won’t prevent you getting the Covid, but it will lessen your likelihood of being hospitalised.’ From the same report by Her Majesty’s Government that I cited just a moment ago, let’s check that one out, too. So let’s put this one up here. And, again, you see there, in the far right-hand column, that’s the people with the third Covid shot. And then you see sort of in the middle, the people who aren’t vaccinated at all, that number 147 at the bottom. So triple-vaccinated people who wound up spending a night in hospital: 6,750. Everybody else: 3,576. So, the triple-vaccinated are being hospitalised overnight for Covid at approximately twice the rate of the double, single and unvaccinated.
And one notes in particular, the significant differences in hospitalisation numbers in those over 60. So that leaves a sole claim for the efficacy of the heavily-promoted booster shot. ‘Oh sure, it won’t prevent you getting the Covid or being hospitalised, but it will lessen your likelihood of being dead.’ And again, from the same report by HMG, and let’s just look at this. Deaths within 28 days of positive Covid tests in all age groups. And the triple vaccinated, again, in the far-right hand column there and everybody else the other columns. And let’s just add it up, because it’s such a huge difference. Triple-vaccinated who are dead within 28 days: 1,557; everybody else dead within 28 days: 577. So the triple-vaccinated are dying within 28 days at a rate approximately three times higher than the rest of the population.
Why aren’t we talking about this? It seems, if the booster shot is making it thrice as likely that you’re going to be deadsville, that they’re going to carrying you out by the handles, why aren’t we talking about that?
Okay, let’s have deaths within 60 days of a positive Covid test. Again, in all age groups and, again, on the far right, that’s the triple-vaccinated. So there’s 2,100 and whatever 80-year-olds and over. And then in their 70s, 611 there. So again, to add up all the numbers, the triple-vaccinated who are dead within 60 days last month: 3,054; everybody else: 1,003. So, yet again, the triple-vaccinated are dying at three times the rate of the double, single and unvaccinated. And indeed, for the 60+ cohort, the most vulnerable in our society, at a rate getting close to four times.
Could we stop killing old people? What’s with you, is this some kind of dystopian fiction that the deep state comes up with a plan to off all the geezers? Didn’t you kill enough people in the care homes in the first year and a half of this thing, now we’ve devised a booster shot that kills almost four times as many old people if you get this shot as if you don’t.
The third shot not only has no efficacy, it increases your chances of hospitalisation and death, but because the court eunuchs of the UK groupthink media deny us any honest discussion or even basic dissemination of the government numbers, most people aren’t aware of that.
The third shot was clearly a shot too far that has damaged the immune systems of many people and made them less able to resist infection and death. What do all these over-knighted nitwits flanking the PM at the press conference have to say about this?
The benefits of one and two shots are more debatable. Although one notes that on all the tables I’ve just put up on the screen, the lowest numbers are for those who had one shot and done. So we shouldn’t even be contemplating shots every six month – fourth shots, fifth shot, sixth shots – because it’s not just that they are useless, it’s that you’re more likely to be infected, you’re more likely to be hospitalised overnight and you’re more likely to be dead. So at least if you’re dead after the fourth shot, you won’t have to get the fifth, sixth or seventh.
But let’s look at the outright ‘Covid deniers’ the legions of the unvaccinated who are routinely accused of clogging up the hospitals and accelerating the malfunctioning of the dismal NHS, whose protection the government chose to prioritise.
So the gap, the disastrous performance of the booster shot is getting worse as the weeks go by. Now, to make it easier to get the upshot, I’ve put the rest into my own table, but if you’re some self-appointed fact-checker, you can get off your bum and check the facts for yourself in the HSA, Vaccine Surveillance Reports for week 3, week 6, week 9, week 12 and week 13 and then get back to me.
So let’s see what about death? Here we are in week 3, the first week. There were more deaths amongst the triple-vaccinated than unvaccinated for persons 70 and over. Week 6, more deaths among the triple-vaccinated than unvaccinated for persons 60 and over. Week 9, more deaths for persons 50 and over. Week 12, more deaths for persons 40 and over. And Week 13, more deaths among the triple vaccinated than unvaccinated for persons 18 and over. Again, the trend line is not difficult to grasp here.
Let us begin with the Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report, week three. This would be the end of January, which is the first report to separate out persons who received a third booster shot. And then let’s check in every three weeks. The trend lines are pretty clear. So these are overnight hospitalisation. For week three, there’s more triple-vaccinated than unvaccinated for persons 60 and over. So in other words, if you’re 60 and over in January and you never bothered getting into the system at all, you had no shots – you didn’t have a third shot, second shot, first shot, you’re in the clear, you had a better chance of not catching the Covid than the people who were triple-jabbed and over 60. Three weeks later, there’s more triple-vaccinated than unvaccinated infected persons 40 and over. Week nine, another three weeks later, more triple-vaccinated persons than unvaccinated persons getting the Covid, 18 and over.
What about death within 60 days? Again, more deaths among the triple-vaccinated than for persons 70 and over. Three weeks later, 60 and over. Another three weeks later, 40 and over. And then, another three weeks later, more deaths among the triple vaccinated for persons 30 and over.
Why are we not supposed to talk about this? This is an interesting trend line, even in as sick and constricted a culture of free speech as the United Kingdom’s, it should be possible to cite official government numbers without being cancelled or investigated or shadow banned on Twitter or being labelled as misinformation. It’s not possible.
Just back in the day, do remember the days before March 2020 when we still had medical ethics? Remember those things, medical ethics? It’s not possible for a citizen to give informed consent to a vaccine unless he’s informed, so the groupthink media’s quashing of these numbers is highly disturbing. For another, the inference is that those zombies who mindlessly ‘follow the science, must keep following the science,’ – which means following government spokespersons, have injected themselves with something that increases their likelihood of infection, hospitalisation and death.
Dividing everything into ‘official’ and ‘disinformation’ has prevented honest discussion and had an undoubted chilling effect on public discourse with respect to the Covid, the lockdown, the NHS, the schools and more.
You can see it in any media production office. ‘Oh, I was thinking of doing something tonight on the failure of the so-called booster shot, the third shot.’, ‘We don’t need another Ofcom complaint. Let’s just stick with Harry and Meghan.’
The hasty rollout of an at-best useless and at-worst decidedly dangerous third shot is a valid subject for the public square, and I assert the right to quote official government statistics. And because these numbers suggest an unnecessary tragedy amplified by this soul crushing groupthink in the UK media, I want a Royal Commission. Let me know your thoughts.
“Pandemic Treaty” will hand WHO keys to global government.
By Kit Knightly 19th April 2022. Find Article Here:-
Suggested clauses would incentivise reporting “pandemics”, and see nations punished for “non-compliance”.
The first public hearings on the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” are closed, with the next round due to start in mid-June.
We’ve been trying to keep this issue on our front page, entirely because the mainstream is so keen to ignore it and keep churning out partisan war porn and propaganda.
When we – and others – linked to the public submissions page, there was such a response that the WHO’s website actually briefly crashed, or they pretended it crashed so people would stop sending them letters.
Either way, it’s a win. Hopefully one we can replicate in the summer.
Until then, the signs are that what scant press coverage there is, mostly across the metaphorical back-pages of the internet, will be focused on making the treaty “strong enough” and ensuring national governments can be “held accountable”.
An article in the UK’s Telegraph from April 12th headlines:
Real risk a pandemic treaty could be ‘too watered down’ to stop new outbreaks
It focuses on a report from the Panel for a Global Public Health Convention (GPHC), and quotes one of the report’s authors Dame Barbara Stocking:
Our biggest fear […] is it’s too easy to think that accountability doesn’t matter. To have a treaty that does not have compliance in it, well frankly then there’s no point in having a treaty,”
The GPHC report goes on to say that the current International Health Regulations are “too weak”, and calls for the creation of a new “independent” international body to “assess government preparedness” and “publicly rebuke or praise countries, depending on their compliance with a set of agreed requirements”.
Another article, published by the London School of Economics and co-written by members of the German Alliance on Climate Change and Health (KLUG), also pushes the idea of “accountability” and “compliance” pretty hard:
For this treaty to have teeth, the organisation that governs it needs to have the power – either political or legal – to enforce compliance.
It also echoes the UN report from May 2021 in calling for more powers for the WHO:
In its current form, the WHO does not possess such powers […]To move on with the treaty, WHO therefore needs to be empowered — financially, and politically.
It recommends the involvement of “non-state actors” such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organisation and International Labour Organisation in the negotiations, and suggests the treaty offer financial incentives for the early reporting of “health emergencies” [emphasis added]:
In case of a declared health emergency, resources need to flow to countries in which the emergency is occurring, triggering response elements such as financing and technical support. These are especially relevant for LMICs, and could be used to encourage and enhance the timely sharing of information by states, reassuring them that they will not be subject to arbitrary trade and travel sanctions for reporting, but instead be provided with the necessary financial and technical resources they require to effectively respond to the outbreak.
It doesn’t stop there, however. They also raise the question of countries being punished for “non-compliance”:
[The treaty should possess] An adaptable incentive regime, [including] sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits.
To translate these suggestions from bureaucrat into English:
- If you report “disease outbreaks” in a “timely manner”, you will get “financial resources” to deal with them.
- If you don’t report disease outbreaks, or don’t follow the WHO’s directions, you will lose out on international aid and face trade embargoes and sanctions.
In combination, these proposed rules would literally incentivize reporting possible “disease outbreaks”. Far from preventing “future pandemics”, they would actively encourage them.
National governments who refuse to play ball being punished, and those who play along getting paid off is not new. We have already seen that with Covid.
Two African countries – Burundi and Tanzania – had Presidents who banned the WHO from their borders, and refused to go along with the Pandemic narrative. Both Presidents died unexpectedly within months of that decision, only to be replaced by new Presidents who instantly reversed their predecessor’s covid policies.
Less than a week after the death of President Pierre Nkurunziza, the IMF agreed to forgive almost 25 million dollars of Burundi’s national debt in order to help combat the Covid19 “crisis”.
Just five months after the death of President John Magufuli, the new government of Tanzania received 600 million dollars from the IMF to “address the covid19 pandemic”.
It’s pretty clear what happened here, isn’t it?
Globalists backed coups and rewarded the perpetrators with “international aid”. The proposals for the Pandemic treaty would simply legitimise this process, moving it from covert back channels to overt official ones.
Now, before we discuss the implications of new powers, let’s remind ourselves of the power the WHO already possesses:
- The World Health Organization is the only institution in the world empowered to declare a “pandemic” or Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).
- The Director-General of the WHO – an unelected position – is the only individual who controls that power.
We have already seen the WHO abuse these powers in order to create a fake pandemic out of thin air…and I’m not talking about covid.
Prior to 2008, the WHO could only declare an influenza pandemic if there were “enormous numbers of deaths and illness” AND there was a new and distinct subtype. In 2008 the WHO loosened the definition of “influenza pandemic” to remove these two conditions.
As a 2010 letter to the British Medical Journal pointed out, these changes meant “many seasonal flu viruses could be classified as pandemic influenza.”
If the WHO had not made those changes, the 2009 “Swine flu” outbreak could never have been called a pandemic, and would likely have passed without notice.
Instead, dozens of countries spent millions upon millions of dollars on swine flu vaccines they did not need and did not work, to fight a “pandemic” that resulted in fewer than 20,000 deaths. Many of those responsible for advising the WHO to declare swine flu a public health emergency were later shown to have financial ties to vaccine manufacturers.
Despite this historical example of blatant corruption, one proposed clause of the Pandemic Treaty would make it even easier to declare a PHEIC. According to the May 2021 report “Covid19: Make it the Last Pandemic” [emphasis added]:
Future declarations of a PHEIC by the WHO Director-General should be based on the precautionary principle where warranted
Yes, the proposed treaty could allow the DG of the WHO to declare a state of global emergency to prevent a potential pandemic, not in response to one. A kind of pandemic pre-crime.
If you combine this with the proposed “financial aid” for developing nations reporting “potential health emergencies”, you can see what they’re building – essentially bribing third world governments to give the WHO a pretext for declaring a state of emergency.
We already know the other key points likely to be included in a pandemic treaty. They will almost certainly try to introduce international vaccine passports, and pour funding into big Pharma’s pockets to produce “vaccines” ever faster and with even less safety testing.
But all of that could pale in comparison to the legal powers potentially being handed to the director-general of the WHO (or whatever new “independent” body they may decide to create) to punish, rebuke or reward national governments.
A “Pandemic Treaty” that overrides or overrules national or local governments would hand supranational powers to an unelected bureaucrat or “expert”, who could exercise them entirely at his own discretion and on completely subjective criteria.
This is the very definition of technocratic globalism.
Pigs can pass deadly superbugs to people, study reveals.
By Robin McKie 24th April 2022. Find Article Here:-
Research into C difficile found antibiotic resistance is growing as a result of overuse on farm stock.
Antibiotics are widely used to keep animals, most often pigs, in poor conditions where disease spreads easily. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty
Scientists have uncovered evidence that dangerous versions of superbugs can spread from pigs to humans. The discovery underlines fears that intensive use of antibiotics on farms is leading to the spread of microbes resistant to them.
The discovery of the link has been made by Semeh Bejaoui and Dorte Frees of Copenhagen University and Soren Persson at Denmark’s Statens Serum Institute and focuses on the superbug Clostridioides difficile, which is considered one of the world’s major antibiotic resistance threats.
“Our finding indicates that C difficile is a reservoir of antimicrobial resistance genes that can be exchanged between animals and humans,” said Bejaoui, who is due to present her study at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in Lisbonon Sunday. “This alarming discovery suggests that resistance to antibiotics can spread more widely than previously thought, and confirms links in the resistance chain leading from farm animals to humans.”
C difficile infects the human gut and is resistant to all but three antibiotics in use today. Some strains contain genes that allow them to produce toxins that can trigger gut inflammation and life-threatening diarrhoea in the elderly and in hospital patients. The bacterium is considered one of the biggest antibiotic resistance threats in developed countries. In the US, it caused an estimated 223,900 infections and 12,800 deaths in 2017 and cost the healthcare system more than $1bn.
Doctors and scientists have warned for years that over-prescribing antibiotics for trivial complaints or infections caused by viruses which do not respond to antibiotics threatens to lead to the spread of resistance to this critically important class of drugs.
In addition, they have stressed that the problem is being intensified by the widespread use of antibiotics on farms where they are given to animals – most often pigs and poultry but sometimes also cattle – in order to keep them in poor, basic conditions where disease spreads easily.
The result has been a rapid increase in antimicrobial resistance across the world. Once-effective antibiotics are now less able to fight common infections, a danger to global health that was summed up by Margaret Chan, former director general of the World Health Organization. “Antimicrobial resistance is on the rise in Europe and elsewhere in the world,” she said. “We are losing our first-line antimicrobials. Replacement treatments are more costly, more toxic, need much longer durations of treatment, and may require treatment in intensive care units.”
It is estimated about 750,000 people die every year from drug-resistant infections and it is feared that, by 2050, this number could reach 10 million and cost more than $100tn to global health services, according to the Union for International Cancer Control.
These fears have led to pressure being put on doctors to reduce prescription of antibiotics and so slow the rise of antimicrobial resistance. However, medical authorities have pointed out that two-thirds of antibiotics are not used on humans at all but are given as agricultural additives. This is done to stave off illnesses and infections in animals that are being kept in conditions that would otherwise cause disease.
In their research, the team led by Bejaoui focused on investigating the prevalence of C difficile in farm animals. In this case, pigs were studied and results were compared with clinical isolates from Danish hospital patients to see if there was a match in humans. Samples were screened for the presence of C difficile and genetic sequencing was used to identify whether they harboured toxin and drug resistance genes.
“We found that the strains isolated in pigs were genetically identical to the ones found in humans over the same period,” Bejaoui said. “We have still to show that the strains were passed from pigs to humans but what our study does make clear is that farms that use antibiotics are creating conditions which allow resistant strains to flourish and these will ultimately infect humans.
“Of particular concern is the large reservoir of genes conferring resistance to aminoglycosides, a class of antibiotics to which C difficile is intrinsically resistant. It thus plays a role in spreading these genes to other susceptible species. This study provides more evidence on the evolutionary pressure connected with the use of antimicrobials in animal husbandry, which selects for dangerously resistant human pathogens.”
The Federal Government Forces Social Media Companies to Censor Americans.
BY JENIN YOUNES APRIL 21st, 2022. Find Article Here:-
In May of 2021, the Biden Administration began a public, coordinated campaign to combat the dissemination of “health misinformation” related to Covid, especially across social media platforms.
Members of the Administration, including Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and the President himself, often through White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, have made clear that they blame Big Tech for American deaths from the virus, and insist that these platforms have an obligation to censor those who articulate views that depart from the Government’s messaging on Covid-related matters.
The Administration has stated that it supports “a robust anti-trust program,” a not-so-subtle warning that if the Twitters and Facebooks of the world do not do the Government’s bidding, they will suffer the consequences.
The campaign has been increasing in intensity for nearly a year. Ms. Psaki and Dr. Murthy have subsequently stated that the government is flagging problematic posts for social media platforms to censor and commanded them to elevate the voices of those who promote the approved messaging through algorithms while banning those whose perspectives conflict with the government.
The President has affirmed his belief that social media platforms “should be held accountable” for misinformation circulated on them. On March 3, Dr. Murthy announced an initiative, wherein he demanded that tech companies provide the government with “sources of misinformation,” including the identity of specific individuals, by May 2.
Like many others around the world, Michael P. Senger of California, Mark Changizi of Ohio, and Daniel Kotzin of Colorado, operated Twitter accounts that centered around criticizing government and public health Covid restrictions. All three accounts rapidly became popular.
Starting last spring, right around the time the Biden Administration’s efforts became public, the three were subject to temporary suspensions. Mere days after Dr. Murthy’s March 3 statement, Mr. Kotzin was suspended for a week, and Mr. Senger permanently. This means he is never permitted to create another Twitter account. He has lost his 112,000 followers, and in his own words, been “silenced and completely cut off from” the network he developed over two years.
According to Twitter, the suspensions were for spreading Covid “misinformation.” Mr. Senger, Mr. Changizi, and Mr. Kotzin had, in the cited tweets, expressed opposition to vaccine mandates and suggested that the vaccines do not slow the spread of Covid. They also argued that government-imposed restrictions do not work to mitigate viral spread, the risks Covid poses to children are sufficiently low to disfavor vaccination for them given the long-term unknowns, and naturally acquired immunity is superior to that attained through vaccination.
None of these claims is outside the realm of legitimate scientific discourse. In fact, figures like CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, Anthony Fauci, and President Biden, who a mere six or eight months ago expressed absolute confidence that, for example, the vaccines stop transmission and confer better protection than naturally acquired immunity, have now been confronted with unequivocal evidence that they were wrong.
A meta-study out of Johns Hopkins University concluded that lockdowns did not reduce Covid deaths, while causing quite a bit of harm, corroborating observational data from around the world. Several Scandinavian countries recommend against vaccinating healthy young children based on an objective risk assessment, and study after study has proven that naturally acquired immunity is superior to vaccine-induced immunity.
Following nearly two years of insistence that community masking is effective, many prominent public health officials have changed course. It is a great irony that those who have been so wrong throughout the pandemic now seek to silence dissenters, particularly those who have proven prescient on many topics.
And even if they were expressing flatly incorrect views, the First Amendment gives them the right to voice those opinions. The concept of free speech was embraced by the Framers of the Constitution, who were clearly wiser than many who govern us today. They recognized that censorship does not work practically: rather, it encourages people to operate covertly, often exacerbating the problem, and that the cure to bad speech is good speech. But most of all, they understood that giving government the authority to determine which ideas should be heard and which should be suppressed is a dangerous game.
Of course, many will argue that Twitter and other tech companies censored Mr. Senger, Mr. Changizi, and Mr. Kotzin of their own volition, and as they are private actors, the First Amendment is inapplicable.
That argument should be rejected. When the government commandeers, coerces, or utilizes private companies to accomplish what it cannot do directly, courts recognize that is state action. In a mid-20th century version of this case, Bantam Books v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that a state government commission consigned with reprimanding sellers of pornography and advising them of their legal rights (a veiled threat) “deliberately set about to achieve the suppression of publications deemed ‘objectionable’ and succeeded in its aim.” The Court looked “through forms to the substance” and concluded that this program violated the First Amendment.
That is similar to what is happening here. The Biden Administration knows that it cannot get away with issuing orders directly prohibiting people from articulating views about Covid-related matters that differ from the government’s, or from obtaining users’ private information, so it is coercing companies into doing this on the government’s behalf.
Fearing reprisal from the government—reprisal that the government has publicly contemplated—the companies are ramping up censorship. These companies are also likely to turn over information about users that Dr. Murthy demanded, a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against warrantless searches.
Not only are individuals like Mr. Senger being silenced outright. Mr. Changizi, Mr. Kotzin, and millions of others are afraid to say what they really think because they do not want to suffer Mr. Senger’s fate. Courts should “look through forms to the substance” and recognize what is going on.
The Government is deciding what speech is acceptable and may be heard, and what speech is not acceptable and must be silenced, on the most hotly debated political topics of our time. This strikes at the heart of what the First Amendment is supposed to protect.
Jenin Younes is Litigation Counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance and represents Michael P. Senger, Mark Changizi, and Daniel Kotzin in their lawsuit against the Government.
Author
- Jenin Younes
- Jenin Younes is litigation counsel at New Civil Liberties Alliance
Official Government data shows a 73% increase in the number of Young Adults & Teens suffering Heart Attack, Myocarditis & Stroke since the Covid-19 Vaccine roll-out.
BY THE EXPOSÉ ON APRIL 21, 2022. Find Article Here:-
An investigation of official figures published by Public Health Scotland show there has been a 67% increase compared to the historical average in the number of people aged 15 to 44 suffering heart attacks, cardiac arrest, myocarditis, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases, since this age group was first offered the Covid-19 injection.
But further analysis shows this issue is actually getting worse, with the numbers for 2022 so far revealing a 73% increase against the historical average.
With myocarditis; an autoimmune condition that causes inflammation of the heart, a known side-effect of the Covid-19 injections, is it time for the authorities to suspend the administration of these experimental injections to the public? And is it time for them to also publicly admit the damage they have done?
It is now well known that a possible severe consequence of getting the Covid-19 injection is that one may develop either myocarditis or pericarditis, or in some cases both. We know this because the authorities have had to admit it occurs, although as expected have downplayed it as extremely rare. Which probably means it is much more common than people realise.
In simple terms, myocarditis is an autoimmune disease that causes inflammation of the heart muscle. This inflammation enlarges and weakens the heart, creates scar tissue and forces it to work harder to circulate blood and oxygen throughout the body. (source)
Whilst Pericarditis is an autoimmune disease causing inflammation of the pericardium, a sac-like structure with two thin layers of tissue that surround the heart to hold it in place and help it work.
Here’s how both autoimmune diseases have affected people in the USA according to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), where just 1-10% of adverse reactions are actually reported –
Here’s how those unprecedented amount of cases of myo/pericarditis reported to VAERS have been distributed by age –
As you can clearly see, the two autoimmune conditions are much more likely to occur in younger age groups, and the UK Medicine Regulator has admitted this is the case –
You may have noticed how the UK Medicine Regulator, the MHRA, stated how “most of these cases [of Myocarditis] were mild”. So nothing to worry about then? Unfortunately not. A mild case of myocarditis or pericarditis does not exist. You only get one heart, and it is incapable of regenerating/ repairing once damage has been done.
Ongoing cardiovascular medication or even a heart transplant may be needed. Overall, myocarditis which can cause dilated cardiomyopathy, are thought to account for up to 45 percent of heart transplants in the U.S. today. (source)
Myocarditis can permanently damage your heart muscle, possibly causing:
- Heart failure. Untreated, myocarditis can damage your heart’s muscle so that it can’t pump blood effectively. In severe cases, myocarditis-related heart failure may require a ventricular assist device or a heart transplant.
- Heart attack or stroke. If your heart’s muscle is injured and can’t pump blood, the blood that collects in your heart can form clots. If a clot blocks one of your heart’s arteries, you can have a heart attack. If a blood clot in your heart travels to an artery leading to your brain, you can have a stroke.
- Rapid or irregular heart rhythms (arrhythmias). Damage to your heart muscle can cause an arrhythmia.
- Sudden cardiac death. Certain serious arrhythmias can cause your heart to stop beating (sudden cardiac arrest). It’s deadly if not treated immediately.
With all that being said the following data that has been published by Public Health Scotland should come as no surprise despite being completely and utterly shocking.
Public Health Scotland (PHS) has a not very well known database presenting figures on the wider impact to the health service due to measures imposed in the name of Covid-19. The database is called ‘COVID-19 wider impacts on the health care system‘.
We have previously researched the data contained within the database to reveal a huge upsurge in cases of ovarian cancer across Scotland since the introduction of the Covid-19 injections. It just so happens that a study conducted by Pfizer reveals the mRNA Covid-19 injection accumulates in the ovaries.
But this time we decided to analyse the data for cardiovascular cases across Scotland. Cardiovascular diseases are conditions that affect the structures or function of your heart, such as:
- Abnormal heart rhythms, or arrhythmias
- Aorta disease and Marfan syndrome
- Congenital heart disease
- Coronary artery disease (narrowing of the arteries)
- Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism
- Heart attack
- Heart failure
- Heart muscle disease (cardiomyopathy)
- Heart valve disease
- Myocarditis
- Pericardial disease
- Peripheral vascular disease
- Rheumatic heart disease
- Stroke
- Vascular disease (blood vessel disease)
For the ‘out of hours’ category, and the ‘ambulance service’ category, PHS provides a breakdown by age. Meaning we can assess the number of cardiovascular cases among adults aged 15 to 44.
Here is how Public Health Scotland present the data on the number of cases requiring out-of-hours care across Scotland –
As you can see from the above the weekly number of cases has been highest among 15-44-year-olds since the beginning of the pandemic, but that gap between all other age groups suddenly got much bigger in 2021.
This is confirmed by the second graph above which shows the percentage change in cardiovascular cases against the 2018-2019 historical average. From around July 2021 there has been a huge spike in cardiovascular cases among 15-44-year-olds that should set alarm bells ringing and deserves further attention. So that’s exactly what we gave it.
We extracted the data and produced a series of charts in order to present the figures provided by Public Health Scotland much more clearly and to attempt to understand the severity of what has been occurring since the introduction of the Covid-19 injections.
The following chart shows the number of people aged 15-44 requiring out-of-hours treatment for cardiovascular cases per week from the week ending 4th July 2021 to the week ending 20th Feb 2022, as well as the 2018-2019 historical average per week among the same age group –
The historical average shows that there have been anywhere from around 60 to just over 100 cardiovascular cases among 15 to 44-year-olds requiring out-of-hours treatment across Scotland. But the data for 2021 and 2022 shows that there have been anywhere from around 110 cases to 185 cardiovascular cases among 15 to 44-year-olds requiring out-of-hours treatment.
So the number of cases have essentially doubled.
The following chart shows the number of people aged 15-44 requiring an ambulance for cardiovascular cases per week from the week ending 4th July 2021 to the week ending 21st November 2021 (the most up to date data), as well as the 2018-2019 historical average per week among the same age group –
The historical average shows that there have been anywhere from around 185 to just over 250 people aged 15-44 requiring an ambulance for cardiovascular cases per week across Scotland. But the data for 2021 and 2022 shows that there have been anywhere from around 290 cases to 390 people aged 15-44 requiring an ambulance for cardiovascular cases per week.
So cases haven’t quite doubled but they’ve still increased quite dramatically.
The following chart shows percentage change in the number of people aged 15-44 requiring out-of-hours treatment for cardiovascular cases per week from the week ending 4th July 2021 to the week ending 20th Feb 2022, compared to the 2018-2019 historical average per week among the same age group –
Here we can see that the number of cases requiring out-of-hours care has been higher throughout this entire period, ranging from a 35% increase in a single week to a staggering 117% increase in a single week compared to the historical average.
The following chart shows the percentage change in the number of people aged 15-44 requiring an ambulance for cardiovascular cases per week from the week ending 4th July 2021 to the week ending 21st November 2021 2018-2019 , compared to the historical average per week among the same age group –
Again we can see that the number of 15 to 44-year-olds requiring an ambulance has been higher than the historical average throughout the entire period, ranging from a 23% increase in a single week to an 82% increase compared to the historical average.
The following chart shows the number of people aged 15-44 requiring out-of-hours treatment for cardiovascular cases per month from July 2021 to February 2022, as well as the 2018-2019 historical average per month among the same age group –
January has seen the most cases both historically and in 2022, but the difference here is that 2022 saw a 78.07% increase on the historical average, this was not however the worst increase seen since July 2021.
The following chart shows the percentage change in the number of people aged 15-44 requiring out-of-hours treatment for cardiovascular cases per month from July 2021 to February 2022, as well as the 2018-2019 historical average per month among the same age group –
The biggest increase was actually recorded in September 2021, with a 82% increase recorded against the historical average. This was closely followed by December 2021 with an 81% increase against the historical average. The smallest increases were recorded in both October and November 2021, but these months still saw a 50% and 49% increase against the historical average.
The following chart shows the number of people aged 15-44 requiring an ambulance for cardiovascular cases per month from July 2021 to February 2022, as well as the 2018-2019 historical average per month among the same age group –
June 2021 saw the most people aged 15-44 requiring an ambulance due to an issue such as suffering a heart attack, cardiac arrest, myocarditis, or stroke with 1,772 cases. But the historical average shows that October is usually the month where the highest number of people requiring an ambulance is recorded.
Unfortunately, Public Health Scotland are yet to publish any further data on the ambulance service past November 2021, but we will most likely find a huge jump in cases again as was seen with people requiring out-of-hours treatment.
The following chart shows the percentage change in the number of people aged 15-44 requiring an ambulance for cardiovascular cases per month from July 2021 to February 2022, compared to the 2018-2019 historical average per month among the same age group –
The largest increase was again recorded in September 2021, with a 82% increase against the historical average. This was followed by July 2021 which saw a 71% increase and then August 2021 which saw a 66% increase. The lowest percentage change was again recorded in October and November 2021, but these months still saw a 50% and 49% increase.
The following chart shows the number of people aged 15 to 44 requiring an ambulance or out-of-hours treatment for cardiovascular cases in different time periods –
What we can clearly see above is the number of out-of-hours cases between 27th June and 21st November 2021, 27th June and 26th December 2021, 27th December and 20th February 2022, and 27th June 2021 and 20th February 2022 compared to the historic average.
As well as the number of people requiring an ambulance between 27th June and 21st November 2021 as well as the historic average. And finally the combined number of out of hours cases and ambulance cases between 27th June and 21st November 2021 compared to the combined historic average.
As you can see 2021 and 2022 has seen substantially more cardiovascular cases among 15 to 44-year-olds in all date-ranges. But what we’re really interested in seeing here is the percentage change compared to the historic average.
The following chart shows the percentage change in the number of people aged 15 to 44 requiring an ambulance or out-of-hours treatment for cardiovascular cases in different time periods –
Because the ambulance data currently only goes as far as 21st November 2021 we’ve calculated the same time period for out-of-hours cases.
What we can see here is that between 27th June and 21st November, the number of people requiring an ambulance due to suffering a heart attack, cardiac arrest, myocarditis, stroke etc., increased by 50%, whilst the number of out-of-hours cases in the same time frame increased by 63%.
With both ambulance figures and out-of-hours figures combined up to 21st November we can see that there was a 53.45% increase against the historic average. But when combining the ambulance figures with the full amount of out-of-hours figures up to 20th February 2022, we can see there was a 57% increase against the historic average.
The number of people aged 15-44 requiring out-of-hours treatment for cardiovascular cases between 27th June 2021 and 20th February 2022, saw a 67.36% increase against the historic average. But what we’re most interested in is how the figures for 2022 so far stack up against the figures for the second half of 2021.
The out-of-hours data shows that there was a 65.45% increase in the number of people requiring out-of-hours treatment for cardiovascular cases in the second half of 2021. But the data for 2022 so far shows that things are actually getting worse rather than improving.
The number of people aged 15-44 requiring out-of-hours treatment for cardiovascular cases between 27th December and 20th February 2022 was 73% higher than the historic average in the same time frame.
The big question of course is, why?
Perhaps the following three charts taken from the UK Government Covid-19 Dashboard showing vaccination uptake of dose 1, 2 and 3 across Scotland by both age group and month may go some way to answering that question –
We know Covid-19 isn’t to blame otherwise we would have seen similar figures in 2020. The only other major thing that changed in the second half of 2021 and 2022 so far from the situation in 2018 and 2019, is that millions of people aged 15-to-44 have taken an experimental injection known to cause damage to the cardiovascular system, and mainly to this age group.
The question authorities and their “scientific”/”medical” advisers should now be asking themselves is, ‘what on earth have we done?’.
The answer of course is that they have coerced a demographic of the population into taking an injection they simply did not need, and that has now caused a 53% to 67% increase in heart attacks, cardiac arrest, myocarditis, stroke, etc., since July 2021. An increase that is showing no signs of slowing with a 73% increase against the historical average recorded so far in 2022.
That’s what they have done.
UK Gov. report admits 19.2 million people in England have not had a single dose of a Covid-19 Vaccine, and another 12 million have refused a 2nd or 3rd Dose.
BY THE EXPOSÉ ON APRIL 18, 2022. Find Article Here:-
For months the British public have been deceived with tales that there are just 5 million people in the United Kingdom who have refused to take up the offer of a Covid-19 vaccine. But this is a complete fabrication that has no doubt been used to make those who have refused the jab feel as if they are part of a minority.
Because an official UK Government report proves that in England alone there are at least 19.2 million people who have not had a single dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, 21.8 million people who have not had two doses of a Covid-19 vaccine, and 31 million who have not had 3 doses of a Covid-19 Vaccine, meaning nearly half of England’s population has become wise to the propaganda and lies spouted by the Government and mainstream media over the past two years.
It was back in September that the British public were told there were 5 million Brits who had so far refused the experimental jabs. Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK’s Chief Scientific Advisor and former president of GlaxoSmithKline, announced in a televised Covid-19 briefing that “There are five million or so people who are eligible for vaccines now who haven’t been vaccinated,”.
Well it turns out the “or so” make up approximately another 14.2 million people in England alone as of 10th April 22 , bringing the grand total of people who have refused the Covid-19 jab to 19.184,986.
The UK Health Security Agency replaced Public Health England in the second half of 2021, and is sponsored by the Department for Health and Social Care and headed by Dr Jenny Harries.
Find PDF 92 page Government report below : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1069290/Weekly_Flu_and_COVID-19_report_w15_v2.pdf
Hidden deep within their monotonous weekly Flu & Covid-19 Surveillance Report, they publish a section on ‘Covid-19 vaccine uptake in England’, and it interestingly states that ’10th April 2022, the overall vaccine uptake in England for dose 1 was only 43,945,696 from a possible 63,130,683 people. Therefore, 19.2 million people in England are not-vaccinated against Covid-19 vaccine whatsoever.
We’ve created the following chart based on the figures provided by UKHSA above, showing the total vaccination uptake vs the total vaccination refusal in England per dose –
As we can see from the above according to the UK Health Security Agency report, 43,945,696 million people have had a single dose, 41,365,808 million people have had a second dose, and 32,281,561 million people have had a third dose as of April 10th 2022.
This means on top of the 19.2 million unvaccinated, a further 2.6 million people who had the first dose refused the second dose, and a further 9.1 million people who had the second dose refused the third dose. Bringing the possible number of people who have now woken up to the lies and propaganda spouted by the Government and mainstream media over the past two years to 30.1 million; almost half the entire population of England.
Approximately 30.1 million people are now refusing to partake in the largest real-world experiment ever conducted, not just 5 million that has been claimed for months and used to write discrimatory articles such as this one from journalist Andrew Neil –
“There are still 5 million unvaccinated British adults, who through fear, ignorance, irresponsibility or sheer stupidity refuse to be jabbed. In doing so they endanger not just themselves but the rest of us.” wrote Andrew Neil for the Daily Mail.
“If they contract Covid, it is they who will put the biggest strain on the NHS, denying the rest of us with serious non-Covid ailments the treatment that is our right. We are all paying a heavy price for this hard core of the unvaccinated”.
Not only is Andrew Neil peddling the lie that there are just 5 million unvaccinated Brits, he’s also peddling the lie that they are putting the biggest strain on the NHS.
Because official data found within the Week 13 – UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance report shows that it is the vaccinated population who accounted for the majority of cases, hospitalisations and deaths throughout the whole of March.
Between 28th Feb and 27th March, the unvaccinated population accounted for 17% of cases, 20% of hospitalisations and just 8% of deaths. Meaning the vaccinated population, accounted for 83% of cases, 80% of hospitalisations and a shocking 92% of deaths.
The triple vaccinated population alone accounted for 8% of cases, 65% of hospitalisations, and 75% of all Covid-19 deaths.
In all, there were 4,057 Covid-19 deaths between 28th Feb and 27th March 22, and the triple vaccinated population accounted for 3,054 of them. Whilst the not-vaccinated population accounted for just 321.
The public are being fed lie, after lie, after lie.
UK Government refuses to publish further COVID-19 Data because it suggests the Triple Vaccinated are developing AIDS & the Double Vaccinated are suffering ADE.
BY THE EXPOSÉ ON APRIL 17, 2022. Find Article Here:-
The UK Health Security Agency is refusing to publish any further data on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status because previous figures show that the triple vaccinated population are on the verge of developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, and the double vaccinated are suffering Antibody-Dependent Enhancement.
Back in October 2021, The Expose exclusively revealed how the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) data was showing that the Covid-19 injections has a real-world effectiveness against infection of minus-109%.
Not long after this, the UKHSA added a note to their reports stating ‘case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection‘
This was clearly done in response to our report, and also because they could no longer use their own data to show that the Covid-19 injections are effective. But it was perfectly okay when Pfizer used this exact method to falsely claim their mRNA Covid-19 injection was 95% effective of course.
Now, as we quitely predicted, the UKHSA have gone one step further, and have announced that they will no longer publish the number of Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths by vaccine status.
The reason?
The UKHSA claims this is because the UK Government has ended free universal Covid-19 testing and this therefore affects their “ability to robustly monitor Covid-19 cases by vaccination status”.
However, this doesn’t explain why they’re no longer able to publish the data on Covid hospitalisations and deaths. If someone is hospitalised with Covid-19 then we’re pretty sure the doctors and nurses are going to know about it, and if someone dies of Covid-19 we’re pretty sure a doctor is going to know about it.
There’s a good reason though as to why their excuse falls short, and it’s because they are lying. The UK Health Security Agency has been looking for an excuse for months to stop publishing the data because it clearly shows that the triple vaccinated population are on the cusp of developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), and the double vaccinated population are suffering Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED) and Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (AED).
The Evidence
The UKHSA claims that vaccine effectiveness wanes substantially over time and this is why it’s important to get a booster dose.
But this is a lie. Vaccine effectiveness doesn’t wane. Immune system performance does.
Vaccine effectiveness isn’t really a measure of a vaccine, it is a measure of a vaccine recipients immune system performance compared to the immune system performance of an unvaccinated person.
Vaccines allegedly help develop immunity by imitating an infection. Once the imitation infection induced by the vaccine goes away, the body is left with a supply of “memory” t-cells and antibodies that will remember how to fight that disease in the future.
So, when the authorities state that the effectiveness of the vaccines weaken over time, what they really mean is that the performance of your immune system weakens over time.
A vaccine effectiveness of -50% would mean that immune system of the vaccinated is now performing at a worse rate than the natural immune system of the unvaccinated. It would mean the Covid-19 vaccines have damaged the immune system.
With that being said it should come as no surprise to anyone as to why the UKHSA no longer wish to publish the Covid-19 data by vaccination status, because it clearly shows in all areas that the Covid-19 injections are proving to have a negative vaccine effectiveness that is declining by the week, and therefore a negative immune system performance, which implies the fully vaccinated are developing Covid-19 vaccine induced Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
The following table showing the number of cases by vaccination status between week 9 and week 12 of 2022, is taken from the UKHSA Week 13 – 2022 – Vaccine Surveillance Report, the very last report to contain figures on Covid-19 by vaccination status –
As you can see from the above, the triple vaccinated population accounted for the majority of Covid-19 cases in each age group by an extremely concerning amount, except for the under 18’s.
The highest number of cases in those four weeks was recorded among triple jabbed 50-59-year olds, with 210,265 confirmed cases. This compares to just 7,669 cases among unvaccinated 50-59-year-olds.
The UKHSA also used to conveniently provide the case-rates per 100,000 individuals by vaccination status in their vaccine surveillance reports, and the following table has been stitched together from the case-rate tables found in the Week 3, Week 7 and Week 13 Vaccine Surveillance Reports –
As you can see from the above the case-rates per 100k have been highest among the triple vaccinated population over these 3 months, except for the 18-29-year-olds in the week 3 report only, and the under 18’s in all 3 months.
However, it is worth noting the rapid decline in rates among unvaccinated children compared to the small decline in rates among vaccinated children. This suggests that in just a few weeks the case rate will be highest among triple jabbed kids. But now we’ll never know because the UKHSA is hiding it.
Now that we know the case-rates we can use Pfizer’s simple vaccine effectiveness formula to calculate the real-world Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness among the triple vaccinated.
Unvaccinated Case Rate – Vaccinated Case Rate / Unvaccinated Case Rate x 100
The following chart shows the Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness among the triple vaccinated population in England in the Week 3, Week 7 and Week 13 reports of 2022 –
This is nowhere near the claimed 95% effectiveness by Pfizer is it?
As you can clearly see the vaccine effectiveness has been falling month on month, with the lowest effectiveness recorded among 60-69-year-olds at a shocking minus-391%. This age group has experienced the sharpest decline, falling from minus-104.69% in week 3.
But one of the more concerning declines in vaccine effectiveness has been recorded among 18-29-year-olds, falling to minus-231% by Week 12 of 2022 from +10.19% in Week 3.
However, vaccine effectiveness isn’t really a measure of a vaccine, it is a measure of a vaccine recipients immune system performance compared to the immune system performance of an unvaccinated person.
Using the case rates provided by UKHSA, we can also calculate the immune system performance. All we need to do is alter the vaccine effectiveness formula slightly for a negative immune system performance, and use the same formula for a positive immune system performance –
Positive Immune System Performance = Unvaccinated Case Rate – Vaccinated Case Rate / Unvaccinated Case Rate x 100
Negative Immune System Performance = Unvaccinated Case Rate – Vaccinated Case Rate / Vaccinated Case Rate x 100
The following chart shows the immune system performance of the triple vaccinated population in England by age group in four week periods, compared to the natural immune system of the unvaccinated population –
The lowest immune system performance is currently among 60-69-year-olds at a shocking minus-80%, but all triple vaccinated people aged 30 to 59 are not far behind, with an immune system performance ranging from minus-75% to minus-76%.
Even the 18 to 29-year-olds are within this region at minus-70%, falling from an immune system performance of +11.35% between week 51 and week 2, meaning they have suffered the fastest decline in immune system performance.
AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) is the name used to describe a number of potentially life-threatening infections and illnesses that happen when your immune system has been severely damaged.
People with acquired immune deficiency syndrome are at an increased risk for developing certain cancers and for infections that usually occur only in individuals with a weak immune system.
If that immune system performance was to hit around the -95% mark then this would strongly suggest the triple vaccinated population have developed some new form of Covid-19 vaccine induced acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, and unfortunately based on the current trend seen over the past 3 months, the youngest age groups do not have long to wait.
But we won’t be able to officially confirm it because the UK Health Security Agency have decided to sweep it under the carpet and hide the official data.
That isn’t the only terrible outcome that the UKHSA are attempting to conceal though. Because UKHSA data also suggests the double vaccinated are suffering Antibody-Dependent Enhancement.
Antibody-Dependent Enhancement
The UKHSA have been trying to hide this revalation since the turn of the year, when they decided to stop publishing the rates per 100,000 for the double jabbed and instead only publish the rates for the triple jabbed.
The rates are calculated by dividing the total population size of each vaccination status group by 100,000; and then dividing the total number of cases, hospitalisations or deaths among each vaccinated group by the calculated figure.
e.g. – 3 million Double Vaccinated / 100k = 30
500,000 cases among double vaccinated / 30 = 16,666.66 cases per 100,000 population.
Questions were raised at the time as to why the UKHSA decided to stop publishing the rates for the double vaccinated, mainly because in the weeks prior they were beginning to look terrible for the double vaccinated population. But, as is usually the case, the UKHSA never provided a reason.
However, the UKHSA produces a separate report containing the overall population size by age group and vaccination status, meaning we can take these figures and actually calculate the case, hospitalisation and death rates per 100,000 among the double vaccinated ourselves.
Here’s the table taken from the Week 12 Influenza and Covid-19 Surveillance Report –
The following chart shows the actual double vaccinated population size by age group on the 20th March 2022, based on the figures provided by UKHSA above –
Now that we know the population size all we have to do is divide each population by 100,000; and then divide the number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths by the answer to that equation, to calculate the case, hospitalisation and death rates.
The following chart shows the Covid-19 hospitalisation rate per 100,000 individuals by vaccination status between 28th Feb and 27th March 22. The unvaccinated case rate has been taken from page 45 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 13 – 2022, and the double vaccinated case rate has been calculated with the number of hospitalisations provided on page 41 of the same report –
the rates per 100,000 are highest among the double vaccinated in every age group except for the 18-29-year-olds. This data shows that all double vaccinated people aged 30 and over are more likely to be hospitalised with Covid-19 than unvaccinated people.
The following chart shows the Covid-19 death rate per 100,000 individuals by vaccination status between 28th Feb and 27th March 22. The unvaccinated case rate has been taken from page 45 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 13 – 2022, and the double vaccinated case rate has been calculated with the number of deaths provided on page 44 of the same report –
The death-rate per 100,000 is highest among the double vaccinated in all age groups excluding the 30-39 year olds where the death rate is the same as the unvaccinated, and the 18-29-year-olds where the death rate is lower. This data shows that all double vaccinated people aged 40 and over are more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated people.
If the rates per 100,000 are higher among the vaccinated, which they are, then this means the Covid-19 injections are proving to have a negative effectiveness in the real-world. And by using Pfizer’s vaccine effectiveness formula we can accurately decipher what the real world effectiveness among each age group actually is.
Pfizer’s vaccine formula: Unvaccinated Rate per 100k – Vaccinated Rate per 100k / Unvaccinated Rate per 100k x 100 = Vaccine Effectiveness
The following chart shows the real world Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation among the double vaccinated population in England, based on the hospitalisation rates provided above –
This data shows that all double vaccinated people over age 30 are between 0.2 and 2 times more likely to be hospitalised, with a minus-1% vaccine effectiveness among 30 to 39 year olds, and a minus-76% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.
The following chart shows the real world Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness against death among the double vaccinated population in England, based on the death rates provided above –
This data shows that all double vaccinated people over age 40 are between 2 and 3 times more likely to die of Covid-19, with a minus-90% vaccine effectiveness among 30 to 39 year olds, and a minus-156% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.
But why are most double vaccinated people more likely to be hospitalised, and more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated people?
Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease
Intensive research conducted by health experts throughout the years has brought to light increasing concerns about “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement” (ADE), a phenomenon where vaccines make the disease far worse by priming the immune system for a potentially deadly overreaction.
ADE can arise in several different ways but the best-known is dubbed the ‘Trojan Horse Pathway’. This occurs when non-neutralizing antibodies generated by past infection or vaccination fail to shut down the pathogen upon re-exposure.
Instead, they act as a gateway by allowing the virus to gain entry and replicate in cells that are usually off limits (typically immune cells, like macrophages). That, in turn, can lead to wider dissemination of illness, and over-reactive immune responses that cause more severe illness.
Of the information collated by Pfizer so far from the ongoing study they have conducted, it is plain to see that they are fully aware antibody-dependent enhancement is a possible consequence of their Covid-19 injection, and it looks like they may even know the consequence has killed people.
Pfizer, the company hit with the largest healthcare fraud settlement and criminal fine to date in 2009; which also happens to be the same company behind the first every mRNA gene therapy injection administered to the general public under emergency use authorisation in the name of Covid-19, has admitted in confidential documents, that it desperately tried to keep from going public, that its Covid-19 mRNA gene therapy may cause Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 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 safety review on December 11th, 2020.
But in early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered them to release 55,000 pages per month. They released 12,000 pages by the end of January.
Since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents to their website. The latest drop happened on 1st April 22.
One of the documents contained in the latest data dump is ‘reissue_5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf’. Table 5, found on page 11 of the document shows an ‘Important Potential Risk’, and that risk is listed as ‘Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED), including Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Reporatory Disease (VAERD)’.
Vaccine-associated enhanced diseases (VAED) are modified presentations of clinical infections affecting individuals exposed to a wild-type pathogen after having received a prior vaccination for the same pathogen.
Enhanced responses are triggered by failed attempts to control the infecting virus, and VAED typically presents with symptoms related to the target organ of the infection pathogen. According to scientists VAED occurs as two different immunopathologies, antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and vaccine-associated hypersensitivity (VAH).
Pfizer claim in their confidential document that up to 28th Feb 2021, they had received 138 cases reporting 317 potentially relevant events indicative of Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease. Of these 71 were medically signifiant resulting in 8 disabilities, 13 were life-threatening events, and 38 of the 138 people died.
Of the 317 relevant events reported by 138 people, 135 were labelled as ‘drug ineffective’, 53 were labelled as dysponoea (struggling to breathe), 23 were labelled as Covid-19 pneumonia, 8 were labelled as respiratory failure, and 7 were labelled as seizure.
Pfizer also admitted that 75 of the 101 subjects with confirmed Covid-19 following vaccination, had severe disease resulting in hospitalisation, disability, life-threatening consequences of death.
But Pfizer still definitively concluded, for the purposes of their submitted safety data to the Food and Drug Administration, the very data that was needed to gain emergency use authorisation and make them billions and billions of dollars, that ‘None of the 75 cases could be definitively considered as VAED’.
But Pfizer then went on to confirm that based on the current evidence, VAED remains a theoretical risk.
This confidential data proves that the Covid-19 injections should never have been granted emergency use authorisation, and should have been pulled from distribution by the FDA as soon as they sighted the figures.
But the FDA failed to act, and that is precisely why the UK Health Security Agency has been looking for, and found an inadequate excuse not to publish any further data on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status.
The Truth is Where? 
