Denmark’s Pandemic of the Vaccinated. Research Shows that "the Vaccinated" in Denmark Account for more Cases, Hospitalizations and Deaths than the Unvaccinated (2022)

/

From [HERE] Kristoffer Torbjørn Bæk’s research reveals the vaccinated in Denmark account for more cases, hospitalisations and deaths than the unvaccinated and have done all year.

Now that vaccination statuses are stable enough that the tomfoolery of misclassification no longer meddles with the analysis, we can see a clear picture of the ineffectiveness of the Covid vaccine, Joel Smalley commented.

In this article, Joel Smalley summarised and commented on Danish data collated and made publicly available by Danish molecular biologist Kristoffer Torbjørn Bæk. 

Bæk has also co-authored a pre-print study published on medRxiv, ‘Estimates of excess mortality for the five Nordic countries during the Covid-19 pandemic 2020-2021’, comparing Nordic all-cause deaths using “other estimates” to a recent study in the Lancet, “which is a clear outlier” and “most likely substantially overestimates excess deaths of Finland and Denmark, and probably Sweden.”

“Other estimates are more consistent and suggest a range of total Nordic excess deaths of approximately half of that in the Lancet study,” the authors of the study wrote. [MORE]

The Experimental Drug Remdesivir is ‘Disastrous’ as a COVID Treatment b/c It Causes Death and Organ Damage, But the US Government Pays Hospitals to Use It on Unvaxxed Persons

/

From [chd] Story at a glance:

  • So far, all of the drugs developed against COVID-19 have been disastrous in one way or another. Remdesivir, which to this day is the primary COVID drug approved for use in U.S. hospitals, routinely causes severe organ damage and, often, death.

  • Despite that, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved remdesivir for in-hospital and outpatient use in children as young as 1 month old.

  • Another COVID drug, Paxlovid, will in some cases cause the infection to rebound when the medication is withdrawn.

  • Molnupiravir (sold under the brand name Lagevrio) also has serious safety concerns. Not only might it contribute to cancer and birth defects, it may also supercharge the rate at which the virus mutates inside the patient, resulting in newer and more resistant variants.

  • The fact that U.S. health authorities have focused on these drugs to the exclusion of all others, including older drugs with high rates of effectiveness and superior safety profiles, sends a very disturbing message. They’ve basically become extensions of the drug industry, protecting the drug industry’s interests at the cost of public health.

So far, all of the drugs developed against COVID-19 have been disastrous in one way or another. Remdesivir, for example, which to this day is the primary COVID drug approved for use in U.S. hospitals, routinely causes severe organ damage, and, often, death.

Despite its horrible track record, the U.S. government actually pays hospitals a 20% upcharge for sticking to the remdesivir protocol, plus an additional bonus. Hospitals must also use remdesivir if they want liability protection.

Incentives like these have turned U.S. hospitals into veritable death traps, as more effective and far safer drugs are not allowed, and hospitals are essentially forced to follow the recommendations of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

If you are at the hospital and your hear “Remdesivir,” It Means RUN DEATH IS NEAR. Don’t let them do this to you or your family

As reported by Forbes science reporter JV Chamary back in January 2021, in an article titled, “The Strange Story of Remdesivir, a COVID Drug That Doesn’t Work”:

“Remdesivir is an experimental drug developed by biotech company Gilead Sciences (under the brand name Veklury) in collaboration with the US Centers for Disease Control and Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases …

“The drug proved ineffective against the Ebola virus … yet was still subsequently repurposed for SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. News media prematurely reported that patients were responding to treatment.

“But the published data later showed that ‘remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits [and] the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies’ …

“What’s weird about remdesivir is that it hasn’t been held to the same standards as other drug candidates. Normally, a drug is only approved for use by a regulatory body like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration if it meets the two criteria for safety and efficacy.

“Nonetheless, in October 2020, remdesivir was granted approval by FDA based on promising data from relatively small trials with about 1,000 participants. A large-scale analysis by the World Health Organization’s Solidarity trial consortium has cleared up the confusion.

“Based on interim results from studying more than 5,000 participants, the international study concluded that remdesivir ‘had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with COVID-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation and duration of hospital stay.’ As a consequence of being mostly ineffective, WHO recommends against the use of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients.”

Shockingly, US approves remdesivir for babies

Curiously, while Big Tech — aided and abetted by the U.S. government — has spent the last two years censoring and banning any information that doesn’t jibe with the opinions of the WHO, the U.S. government has completely ignored the WHO’s recommendation against remdesivir.

In fact, in late April, the FDA approved remdesivir as the first and only COVID-19 treatment for children under 12, including babies as young as 28 days, which seems beyond Orwellian and crazy considering it’s the worst of both worlds: It’s ineffective AND has serious side effects.

What’s worse, the drug is also approved for outpatient use in children, which is a first. In an April 30 blog post, Dr. Meryl Nass expressed her concerns about the FDA’s approval of remdesivir for outpatient use in babies, stating:

“Remdesivir received an early EUA (May 1, 2020) and then a very early license (October 22, 2020) despite a paucity of evidence that it actually was helpful in the hospital setting. A variety of problems can arise secondary its use, including liver inflammation, renal insufficiency and renal failure …

“WHO recommended against the drug on November 20, 2020. Few if any other countries used it for COVID apart from the US. A large European trial in adults found no benefit. The investigators felt 3 deaths were due to remdesivir (0.7% of subjects who received it). However, on April 22, 2022 the WHO recommended the drug for a new use: early outpatient therapy in patients at high risk of a poor COVID outcome.”

Remdesivir — a reckless choice for children

Nass goes on to recount how monoclonal antibody treatment centers have been turned into outpatient treatment centers using remdesivir instead, but we still don’t have a lot of data on its effectiveness in early treatment. She continues:

“The FDA just licensed Remdesivir for children as young as one month old. Both hospitalized children and outpatients may receive it. The drug might work in outpatients, but the vast majority of children have a very low risk of dying from COVID.

“If 7 deaths per 1,000 result from the drug, as the European investigators thought in the study of adults cited above, it is possible it will harm or kill more children than it saves.

“Shouldn’t the FDA have waited longer to see what early outpatient treatment did for older ages? Or studied a much larger group of children? Very little has been published on children and remdesivir …

“When we look at the press release issued by Gilead, we learn the approval was based on an open label, single arm trial in 53 children, 3 of whom died (6% of these children died); 72% had an adverse event, and 21% had a serious adverse event.”

Overall, remdesivir appears to be an exceptionally risky treatment choice for young children. Certainly, there are safer early treatment protocols that are very effective. Two other COVID drugs, Paxlovid and Molnupiravir, also have serious safety concerns.

Post-Paxlovid COVID rebound

As reported by Bloomberg, COVID patients treated with a five-day course of Paxlovid sometimes experience severe rebound when the medication is withdrawn.

U.S. government researchers are now planning to study the rate and extent to which the drug is causing SARS-CoV-2 infection to rebound, and whether a longer regimen might prevent it.

Bloomberg describes the post-Paxlovid rebound of David Ho, a virologist at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia University:

“Ho said he came down with COVID on April 6 … His doctor prescribed Paxlovid, and within days of taking it, his symptoms dissipated and tests turned negative. But 10 days after first getting sick, the symptoms returned and his tests turned positive for another two days.

“Ho said he sequenced his own virus and found that both infections were from the same strain, confirming that the virus had not mutated and become resistant to Paxlovid. A second family member who also got sick around the same time also had post-Paxlovid rebound in symptoms and virus, Ho says.

“‘It surprised the heck out of me,’ he said. ‘Up until that point I had not heard of such cases elsewhere.’ While the reasons for the rebound are still unclear, Ho theorizes that it may occur when a small proportion of virus-infected cells may remain viable and resume pumping out viral progeny once treatment stops.”

Clinical Director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Dr. Paul Sax, told Bloomberg:

“Providers who are going to be prescribing this should be aware that this phenomenon occurs, and if people have symptoms worsening after Paxlovid, it’s probably still COVID. The big problem is that when this drug was released, this information wasn’t included [on the label].”

Pfizer defends Paxlovid

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has stated it is “evaluating the reports of viral load rebound after completing Paxlovid treatment and will share recommendations if appropriate.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has not yet commented on the findings.

Pfizer, meanwhile, insists the increase in viral load post-treatment “is unlikely to be related to Paxlovid” because viral rebound was found in “a small number” of both the treatment and placebo groups in Pfizer’s final-stage study.

Clifford Lane, deputy director for clinical research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), told Bloomberg that some people may simply “need longer dosing of Pfizer’s drug than the standard five days.”

“There’s two things that suppress the virus: the drug and the host immune response,” he said. “If you stop the drug before the host immune response has had a chance to kick in, you may see the virus come back.”

Molnupiravir supercharges viral mutation

Molnupiravir (sold under the brand name Lagevrio) also has serious safety concerns. This drug was developed by Merck and Ridgeback Therapeutics and approved for emergency use by the FDA December 23, 2021, for high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID symptoms.

However, not only might it contribute to cancer and birth defects, it may also supercharge the rate at which the virus mutates inside the patient, resulting in newer and more resistant variants. As reported in November 2021 by Forbes contributor and former professor at Harvard Medical School, William Haseltine, Ph.D.:

“… I believe the FDA needs to tread very carefully with molnupiravir, the antiviral currently before them for approval. My misgivings are founded on two key concerns.

“The first is the drug’s potential mutagenicity, and the possibility that its use could lead to birth defects or cancerous tumors. The second is a danger that is far greater and potentially far deadlier: the drug’s potential to supercharge SARS-CoV-2 mutations and unleash a more virulent variant upon the world …

“My concern with molnupiravir is because of the mechanism by which this particular drug works. Molnupiravir works as an antiviral by tricking the virus into using the drug for replication, then inserting errors into the virus’ genetic code once replication is underway. When enough copying errors occur, the virus is essentially killed off, unable to replicate any further …

“But my biggest concern with this drug is … molnupiravir’s ability to introduce mutations to the virus itself that are significant enough to change how the virus functions, but not so powerful as to stop it from replicating and becoming the next dominant variant.”

Haseltine cites prepandemic experiments showing MERS-CoV and the mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) both developed resistance against the drug, thanks to mutations that occurred.

While the central idea behind the drug is that the genetic errors will eventually kill the virus, these experiments showed the viruses were in fact able to survive and replicate to high titers despite having large numbers of mutations throughout their genomes.

The drug did slow down replication, but as noted by Haseltine, “outside of the lab, as the drug is given to millions of people with active infections, this disadvantage may quickly disappear as we would likely provide a prime selection environment to improve the fitness of the virus.”

This risk may be particularly high if you fail to take all the prescribed doses (typically 800 milligrams twice a day for five days).

Experts question usefulness of Molnupiravir

More recently, in a January 10 article, Newsweek cited concerns by professor Michael Lin of Stanford University:

“‘I am very concerned about the potential consequences now that molnupiravir has been approved … It would only be a matter of time, perhaps a very short time, before a lucky set of mutations occurs to create a variant that is more transmissible or immunoevasive …

“The drug simply speeds up that natural process. The hope is that over enough days all the viral copies will have so many mutations that none of the copies can function.’ But Lin said he was concerned that in the real world, there is a possibility that a mutated virus could jump from a patient taking molnupiravir to another individual, citing the relatively modest efficacy of the drug.

“‘For cases that get worse so that people have to go to the hospital, this drug only prevents that from happening 30% of the time. That means 70% of the time the virus isn’t being eliminated quickly enough to make a difference. And we know COVID patients going to hospitals are highly contagious.’

“Lin said the risks could be heightened when a patient does not comply exactly with the dosing schedule of the drug … ‘In any of those situations viruses will have picked up some mutations but not enough to kill all the virus copies,’ he said. ‘The survivors are now mutated, perhaps have picked up immunoevasion and can go on to infect others’ …

“According to Lin, the ‘very low efficacy alone’ should have disqualified the drug from approval … ‘Even if the drug were great we wouldn’t take such a risk, but this drug is worse than any other drug that’s sought approval for COVID-19. It’s completely not worth it.’”

Haseltine also told Newsweek that, “Of all the antiviral drugs I have ever seen, this is by far the most potentially dangerous,” and “The more people that take it, the more dangerous it will be.”

One of the FDA panel members who actually voted against the approval of molnupiravir, James Hildreth, president of Meharry Medical College in Tennessee, wanted Merck to do a better job of quantifying the risk of mutations before approval.

During the panel meeting, he noted that:

“Even if the probability is very low, 1 in 10,000 or 100,000, that this drug would induce an escape mutant which the vaccines we have do not cover, that would be catastrophic for the whole world.”

Government has sold out to Big Pharma

Widespread use of a drug that turbocharges mutation of an already rapidly mutating virus probably isn’t the wisest strategy. Likewise, using drugs that cause high rates of organ failure, like remdesivir, and drugs that causes the virus to rebound with a vengeance, like Paxlovid, don’t seem to be in the best interest of public health either.

The fact that U.S. health authorities have focused on these drugs to the exclusion of all others, including older drugs with high rates of effectiveness and superior safety profiles, sends a very disturbing message.

They’ve basically become extensions of the drug industry and have abandoned their original purpose, which is to protect public health — by ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs, in the case of the FDA, and by conducting critical science and data analysis in the case of the CDC.

Instead, they seem to be doing everything they can to protect Big Pharma profits, even if it costs you your life. Remdesivir, for example, is an extremely expensive drug, costing between $2,340 and $3,120 depending on your insurance.

Ivermectin, meanwhile — which has been very effective against COVID and shown to outperform at least 10 other drugs, including Paxlovid — costs between $48 and $94 for 20 pills depending on your location. The average cost is said to be about $58 per treatment.

Paxlovid costs $529 per five-day course of treatment, and molnupiravir is around $700. While not quite as expensive as remdesivir, both are still nearly 10 times costlier than ivermectin, which is more effective.

Paxlovid alone has cost U.S. taxpayers $5.29 billion. Just imagine the billions we could have saved had we saner leadership.

Since the FDA and CDC cannot be trusted, it’s imperative to take responsibility for your own health. Do your own research and follow your own conscience and conviction.

Remember, when it comes to COVID-19, early treatment is crucial, and effective protocols are readily available — just not from the FDA, CDC or even most hospitals.

New UK Government Data Shows COVID Injections Kill More People than They Save

/

Figure 6. Only at the start of the data collection period did the numbers look favorable for the vaccine. They all turn negative over time for Doses 1 and 2 over time meaning the vaccines are nonsensical. No cherry picking required. You can see it visually. Source: All-Cause Mortality by Vaccination Status

From [HERE] and [HERE] New UK government data allows us to analyse the data in a way we couldn’t before. This new analysis shows clearly that the Covid vaccines kill more people than they save for all age groups. In other words, they shouldn’t be used by anyone. The younger you are, the less sense it makes.

“The bottom line is this: finally, the data is publicly available in plain sight that shows clearly that our governments have been publicly killing us with these vaccines and vaccine mandates.” – Steve Kirsch

Anyone can validate the data and methodology. The results make it clear that the Covid vaccines should be halted immediately.

If the vaccines really work, then why hasn’t any government anywhere in the world produced a proper risk-benefit analysis that shows the opposite result?

If the vaccines work, then why do all the lines in Figure 6 below show that Dose 1 and Dose 2 of the vaccines kill more people than they save?

What the data shows

Here’s the result of the analysis.

What this means is that if you are 25 years old, the vaccine kills 15 people for every person it saves from dying from Covid. Below 80, the younger you are, the more nonsensical vaccination is. The cells with * means that the vaccine actually caused more Covid cases to happen than the unvaccinated.

Above 80, the UK data was too confounded to be useful. Until we have that data, it’s irresponsible to make a recommendation.

I describe below how you can compute this yourself from the UK data.

Introduction

One of my friends recently sent me a link to the mortality data from the UK government Office of National Statistics from 1 January 2021 to 31 January 2022. I had not seen this data before so I analysed it.

What I found was absolutely stunning because it was consistent with the VAERS risk-benefit analysis by age that I had done in November 2021.

Where to get the UK government source data

The government data is archived here. You want to open the spreadsheet and look at the spreadsheet tab labelled Table 6.

You can also access the original source at: ONS dataset, Deaths by vaccination status, England, which you can see at the top of the page.

In either case, you click the green button labelled “xlsx” to get the spreadsheet, then go to tab “Table 6”:

England.
Death by vaccination status dataset. Table 6. All-cause, Covid 19, Non-Covid 19 age-specific mortality rates per 100k Person Years.
All age groups (*exc. 10-14yo: Too few deaths. 'Error bars' too wide).https://t.co/fuKiimFqJU
All-cause. pic.twitter.com/7d4ciM9Sr4

— O.S. (@OS51388957) March 22, 2022
Note: The data is from England only, not all of the UK.

Where to get my analysis of the data

I annotated the UK source data and you can download it here. This makes it easier to see what is going on. You can see all the original data and my formulas for calculating the ACM ratios and risk benefit analysis on the Table 6 tab.

It is all in plain sight for everyone to see. I then copied values to the Summary and Exec Summary tabs.

Methodology

I compared the all-cause mortality (“ACM”) for people who got 2 shots at least 6 months ago with the unvaccinated. The 6-month time frame provides a minimum reasonable “runway” to observe the outcomes for the typical “fully vaccinated” person.

Summary of the data

This summary below (which I put on the Summary tab which is to the right of the Table 6 tab) shows the rates of all- cause mortality per 100,000 person-years for each age range and also shows the risk benefit ratio.

The data clearly shows that any mortality benefit you get from taking the vaccine and lowering your risk of death from Covid is more than offset by the mortality you lose from the vaccine itself. This isn’t new. It is something I have been saying since May, 2021. But now I finally found the data where I could calculate it reliably.

In the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, there was a 40% increase in ACM in the vaccinated group. They killed an estimated 7 people for every person they saved from Covid!

In the Pfizer Phase 3 trial, there were a total of 21 deaths in the vaccine group and 15 deaths in the placebo group.

This 40% increase in the all-cause mortality in the trial (21/15=1.4) was of course dismissed as not statistically significant. While that is true, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pay attention to the number.

But now, based on the UK data, we know that the result in the Phase 3 trial wasn’t a statistical fluke. Not at all.

In fact, if we look at the risk benefit, we see that we saved 1 life from dying from Covid (1 Covid death in the treatment group vs. 2 Covid deaths in the placebo group= 1 life saved), but there were 7 excess non-Covid deaths (20 – 13).

So, the Pfizer trial showed that for every person we saved from Covid, we killed 7 people. However, the numbers were too small to place a high confidence in this point estimate.

However, I’d argue that Pfizer trial was a best case because:

1. The trial enrolled abnormally healthy people who died at a 10X lower rate than the population (there is a 1% US average death rate per year, yet there were just 15 deaths in the 22,000 placebo arm in 6 months which is a .1% death rate)

2. They were able to get rid of anyone who had a reaction to the first dose without counting them

The most important point though is that the Pfizer trial killed:save ratio of 7:1 and the ACM ratio of 1.4 is consistent with the hypothesis that the vaccine kills more people than it saves.

My ACM risk/benefit estimate using VAERS

This is from a risk/benefit computation I did on 1 November 2021 using the VAERS data to compute the ratio of the # of people killed from the vaccine (V) to the # of people who might be saved from Covid (C) if they took the vaccine and it had 90% effectiveness over 6 months (since we knew it waned over time and variants would change). Of course, that was a conservative estimate of the benefit, but that’s because I wanted to make sure I was on solid ground if attacked.

So now we know that my VAERS calculations approximately match the actual UK data in Figure 1. Since my analysis was deliberately conservative, many of the numbers are smaller than the actuals.

This is another example that people who claim (without evidence) that the VAERS data is too “unreliable to use” are wrong. If it is so unreliable, how did it match the real-world UK results so well?

Note how that VAERS showed exactly the same effect back then that we just learned from this UK data: that the younger you are, the more nonsensical getting vaccinated is.

Our V:C column decreases as you get older (from 6:1 down to 1.8:1) just like column E decreases (from 1.9:1 to 1:1 over the same range) in Figure 2.

Isn’t that an interesting “coincidence”? They are within a factor of 3 of each other.

Confirmation from others

I’m hardly the only person noting that the Covid vaccines kill more people than they save. Other articles show either no benefit at all or a negative benefit.

For example, check out:

  1. 99.6% of Covid deaths in Canada were among fully vaccinated people between April 10-17 which can only happen if the vaccinated have a great ACM than the unvaccinated since there is only an 86% vaccination rate in Canada. This is hard for anyone to explain.

  2. Fully Vaccinated 6x Higher Overall Mortality Than Non-Vaccinated (October 30, 2021)

  3. Follow-up of trial participants found ‘no effect on overall mortality’

Figure 4. Table from the Denmark paper published as a pre-print in the Lancet

4. Horowitz: The failure of the mRNA shots is on display for all with open eyes

Note that the Denmark paper (pre-published in the Lancet) showed overall zero all-cause mortality benefit based on clinical trial data. That’s certainly more optimistic than the UK numbers, but the problem for the vaccine makers is that the UK numbers showed up to 38% of the deaths were from Covid so if the vaccines actually worked and were safe, you’d see a huge ACM benefit and you saw nothing.

Why are we mandating a vaccine with a zero ACM benefit?? No public health official wants to answer questions about that.

What makes this analysis different than previous work

The dataset used here contains both Covid and non-Covid deaths by age. We haven’t had that before.

This enables us, for the first time, to validate the data as we explain in the next section.

In short, the data we have in this dataset is more detailed than in the more frequently cited UK Health Security Agency summaries. [MORE]

CDC Authorities Tracked Millions of Phones to See If Americans Obeyed Useless COVID Shelter in Place Orders which Destroyed People's Livelihoods During Government's COVID Vax Dependency Promotion

/

From [HERE] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bought access to location data harvested from tens of millions of phones in the United States to perform an analysis of compliance with curfews, track patterns of people visiting K-12 schools and specifically monitor the effectiveness of policy in the Navajo Nation, according to CDC documents obtained by Motherboard.

The documents also show that although the CDC used COVID-19 as a reason to buy access to the data more quickly, it intended to use it for more general CDC purposes.

Location data is information on a device’s location sourced from the phone, which can then show where a person lives, works and where they went. The sort of data the CDC bought was aggregated — meaning it was designed to follow trends that emerge from the movements of groups of people — but researchers have repeatedly raised concerns about how location data can be deanonymized and used to track specific people.

The documents reveal the expansive plan the CDC had last year to use location data from a highly controversial data broker. SafeGraph, the company the CDC paid $420,000 for access to one year of data, includes Peter Thiel and the former head of Saudi intelligence among its investors. Google banned the company from the Play Store in June.

COVID Shots are Killing People w/o Anyone Noticing. CDC Data Shows Record Numbers (1 Million) of Non-COVID, Excess Deaths Since the Plandemic Began (heart disease, high blood pressure, dementia, etc)

/

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, more than 1 million excess deaths — that is, deaths in excess of the historical average — have been recorded since the COVID-19 pandemic began two years ago, and this cannot be explained by COVID-19. Deaths from heart disease, high blood pressure, dementia and many other illnesses rose during that time

  • Across the world, death rates have also risen in tandem with COVID shot administration, with the most-jabbed areas surpassing the least-jabbed in terms of excess mortality and COVID-related deaths

  • According to Walgreens data, during the week of April 19 through 25, 2022, 13% of unvaccinated persons tested positive for COVID. Of those who received two doses five months or more ago, 23.1% tested positive, and of those who received a third dose five months or more ago, the positive rate was 26.3%. So, after the first booster shot (the third dose), people are at greatest risk of testing positive for COVID

  • U.K. government data show the all-cause mortality rate is between 100% and 300% greater among people who got their first COVID shot 21 days or more ago. The risk for all-cause death is also significantly elevated among those who got their second dose at least six months ago, and mildly elevated among those who got their third dose less than 21 days ago. As of January 2022, all who got one or more doses at least 21 days ago were dying at significantly elevated rates

  • Other data also show that COVID mortality rates are far higher in areas with high vaccination rates, and risk-benefit analyses reveal the jabs do more harm than good in most age groups

FROM [MERCOLA -PDF] According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data(1), more than 1 million excess deaths — that is, deaths in excess of the historical average — have been recorded since the COVID-19 pandemic began two years ago, and this cannot be explained by COVID-19.

Deaths from heart disease, high blood pressure, dementia and many other illnesses rose during that time.2 "We've never seen anything like it," Robert Anderson, CDC's head of mortality statistics, told The Washington Post in mid-February 2022.3

According to University of Warwick researchers, "the scale of excess non-COVID deaths is large enough for it to be seen as its own pandemic."4 A number of explanations have been offered, including the fact that lockdowns and other COVID restrictions discouraged or prevented people from seeking care. But another, less discussed factor may also be at play.

Across the world, death rates have risen in tandem with COVID shot administration, with the most-jabbed areas surpassing the least-jabbed in terms of excess mortality and COVID-related deaths. This flies in the face of official claims that the shots prevent severe COVID infection and lower your risk of death, be it from COVID or all causes.5

Boosted? You're Now at Highest Risk of COVID

Ever since the announcement that the COVID "vaccines" would be using novel mRNA gene transfer technology, I and many others have warned that this appears to be a very bad idea.

Numerous potential mechanisms for harm have been identified and detailed in previous articles, and we're now seeing some of our worst fears come to bear. "Fully vaccinated" individuals are both more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to die, whether from COVID or some other cause.

As reported by investigative journalist Jeffrey Jaxen in the April 22, 2022, Highwire video above, data from Walgreens' COVID-19 tracker6 reveal that COVID-jabbed individuals are testing positive for COVID at higher rates than the unjabbed. What's more, people who got their last shot five months or more ago have the highest risk.

As you can see in the screenshot below, during the week of April 19 through 25, 2022, 13% of unvaccinated tested positive for COVID (with Omicron being the predominant variant). (The data reviewed by Jaxen are from the week of April 10 through 16.)

Of those who received two doses five months or more ago, 23.1% tested positive, and of those who received a third dose five months or more ago, the positive rate was 26.3%. So, after the first booster shot (the third dose), people are at greatest risk of testing positive for COVID.

A deeper dive into the data7 reveals that two doses appear to have been protective for a short while, but after five months, it becomes net harmful. The group faring worst of all is the 12 to 17 cohort, where no one with one dose tested positive, but after the second dose, cases suddenly appear, and get higher still after five months. After the third dose, positive cases drop a bit, but then shoot up higher than ever after five months.8

Deaths by Vaccination Status in the UK

Data sets from the U.K. government reveal an equally disturbing trend. The raw data from the Office for National Statistics9 is difficult to interpret, so Jaxen had data analysts create a bar graph to better illustrate what the data actually tell us. A screenshot from Jaxen's report is below.

Bars going upward are a good thing, as it indicates the risk for all-cause mortality based on vaccination status is either normal or reduced. Bars that dip below zero percent are indicative of increased all-cause mortality, based on vaccination status.

As you can see, the all-cause mortality rate is between 100% and 300% greater among people who got their first dose 21 days or more ago. The risk for all-cause death is also significantly elevated among those who got their second dose at least six months ago, and mildly elevated among those who got their third dose less than 21 days ago. As of January 2022, all who got one or more doses at least 21 days ago were dying at significantly elevated rates.

More Jabs, More COVID Deaths


Everywhere we look, we find trends showing the COVID shots are resulting in higher death rates. Above is an animated illustration10 from Our World In Data, first showing the vaccination rates of South America, North America, Europe and Africa, from mid-December 2020 through the third week of April 2022, followed by the cumulative confirmed COVID deaths per million in those countries during that same timeframe.

Africa has had a consistently low vaccination rate throughout, while North America, Europe and South America all have had rapidly rising vaccination rates. Africa has also had a consistently low COVID mortality rate, although a slight rise began around September 2021. Still, it's nowhere near the COVID death rates of North America, South America and Europe, all of which saw dramatic increases.

Here's another one,11 also sourced from Our World In Data, first showing the excess death rate in the U.S. (the cumulative number of deaths from all causes compared to projections based on previous years), between January 26, 2020, and January 30, 2022, followed by an illustration of the tandem rise of vaccine doses administered and the excess mortality rate. It clearly shows that as vaccination rates rose, so did the excess mortality rate.

Risk-Benefit Analysis Condemns the COVID Jabs

At this point, we also have the benefit of more than one risk-benefit analysis, and all show that, with very few exceptions, the COVID jabs do more harm than good. For example, a risk-benefit analysis12by Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and independent researcher Kathy Dopp, published in mid-February 2022, concluded that the COVID jab is deadlier than COVID-19 itself for anyone under the age of 80.

They looked at publicly available official data from the U.S. and U.K. for all age groups, and compared all-cause mortality to the risk of dying from COVID-19. "All age groups under 50 years old are at greater risk of fatality after receiving a COVID-19 inoculation than an unvaccinated person is at risk of a COVID-19 death," Seneff and Dopp concluded. And for younger adults and children, there's no benefit, only risk.

"This analysis is conservative," the authors note, "because it ignores the fact that inoculation-induced adverse events such as thrombosis, myocarditis, Bell's palsy, and other vaccine-induced injuries can lead to shortened life span.

When one takes into consideration the fact that there is approximately a 90% decrease in risk of COVID-19 death if early treatment is provided to all symptomatic high-risk persons, one can only conclude that mandates of COVID-19 inoculations are ill-advised.

Considering the emergence of antibody-resistant variants like Delta and Omicron, for most age groups COVID-19 vaccine inoculations result in higher death rates than COVID-19 does for the unvaccinated."

The analysis is also conservative in the sense that it only considers COVID jab fatalities that occur within one month of injection. As demonstrated by the U.K. data above, the risk of all-cause death is nearly 300% greater for those who got a second dose at least six months ago.

Teens Are at Dramatic Risk of Death From the Jabs

Similarly, an analysis13 of data in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) by researchers Spiro Pantazatos and Herve Seligmann suggests that in those under age 18, the shots only increase the risk of death from COVID, and there's no point at which the shot can prevent a single COVID death, no matter how many are vaccinated.

If you're under 18, you're 51 times more likely to die from the COVID jab than you are to die from COVID if not vaccinated.

If you're under 18, you're a whopping 51 times more likely to die from the jab than you are to die from COVID if not vaccinated. In the 18 to 29 age range, the shot will kill 16 for every person it saves from dying from COVID, and in the 30 to 39 age range, the expected number of vaccine fatalities to prevent a single COVID death is 15.

Only when you get into the 60 and older categories do the risks between the jab and COVID infection even out. In the 60 to 69 age group, the shot will kill one person for every person it saves from dying of COVID, so it's a tossup as to whether it might be worth it for any given person.

How Many Are We Willing to Sacrifice?

We also have a risk-benefit analysis by researchers in Germany and The Netherlands. The analysis was initially published June 24, 2021, in the journal Vaccines.14 The paper caused an uproar among the editorial board, with some of them resigning in protest.15 In the end, the journal simply retracted it — a strategy that appears to have become norm.

After a thorough re-review, the paper was republished in the August 2021 issue of Science, Public Health Policy and the Law.16 The analysis found that, "very likely for three deaths prevented by vaccination we will have to accept that about two people die as a consequence of these vaccinations," the authors wrote in a Letter to the Editor17 of Clinical and Translational Discovery. Defending their work, they went on to note that:18

"The database we based our analysis on was a large naturalistic study of the BioNTech vaccine in Israel. This was the only study at the time that allowed for a direct estimation of an absolute risk reduction (ARR) in mortality.

Admittedly, the ARR estimate was only available for a short observation period of 4 weeks after the first vaccine dose, a point raised by critics. One might have wanted a longer observation period to bring out the benefit of vaccinations more clearly, and our estimate of a number needed to vaccinate (NNV) of 16 000 to prevent one death might have been overly conservative.

The recently published 6-month interim report of the BioNTech-regulatory clinical trial now covers a period long enough to let us look at this risk benefit ratio once again. In Table S4 of this publication, 14 deaths are reported in the placebo group (n = 21 921) and 15 in the vaccination group (n = 21 926).

Among them, two deaths in the placebo-group were attributed to COVID-19, and one in the vaccination group was attributed to COVID-19 pneumonia. This leads to an ARR = 4.56 × 10–5, and conversely to an NNV = 1/ARR = 21 916 to prevent one death by COVID-19. This shows that our original estimate was not so far off the mark.

The most recent safety report of the German Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) that covers all reported side effects since the vaccination campaign began (27 December 2020 until 30 November 202119 ... reports 0.02 deaths per 1000 BioNTech vaccinations or 2 per 100 000 vaccinations.

We had gleaned four mortality cases per 100 000 vaccinations (all vaccines) from the Dutch pharmacovigilance database LAREB. Using the data of Thomas et al., a liberal NNV = 20 000, we can calculate that by 100 000 vaccinations we save five lives.

Using the PEI pharmacovigilance report for the same product, we see that these 100 000 vaccinations are associated with two deaths, while using the LAREB database back in June 2021, they were associated with four deaths across all vaccines and are associated with two deaths in the most recent reports concerning the BioNTech vaccine ... In other words, as we vaccinate 100 000 persons, we might save five lives but risk two to four deaths."

The risk-benefit ratio may be even worse than that, though, as these calculations do not take into account the fact that passive pharmacovigilance data "are notorious for underestimating casualties and side effects," the authors note, or the fact that severe side effects such as myocarditis are affecting young males at a staggering rate, which can reduce lifespan in the longer term.

We Do Not Have a Functioning Pharmacovigilance System

In an August 2021 editorial, editor-in-chief of Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., wrote:20

"There are two messages from those who hold appointed offices or other influential positions in Public Health on long-term vaccine safety.

The first message is that long-term randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trials are not necessary for the long-term study of vaccine safety because we have 'pharmacovigilance'; i.e. long- term post-market safety surveillance that is supported by widely accessible, passive vaccine adverse events tracking systems.

The second message is that any use of those very same vaccine adverse events tracking systems that leads to the inference or conclusion that vaccines might cause serious adverse events or death is unsupported by such systems ...

When those seeking support for public health initiatives, such as a new vaccination program, offer evidence that long-term vaccine safety studies are well in hand due to the possibility of detecting adverse events that happened following vaccination, they are either:

(a) unaware that the vaccine adverse events tracking systems upon which they are basing their confidence about society's ability to detect and track vaccine adverse events are alleged to be unable to be used to infer causal links between health outcomes and vaccination exposure, or:

(b) participating in a disinformation campaign to end scrutiny over the absence of properly controlled long-term randomized clinical trials to assess long- term vaccine safety. Neither of these is sufficient empirical basis for the knowledge claim of long- term safety ...

There must be room for disagreement in science; otherwise, science does not exist. It is sad to bear witness to the fact that science has degenerated into a war against unwanted and inconvenient results, conclusions and interpretations via the process of post-publication retraction for issues other than fraud, grave error in execution, and plagiarism.

The weaponization of the process of retraction of scientific studies is well underway, and it induces a bias that could be called "retraction bias", or, in the case in which a few persons haunt journals in search of studies that cast doubt on their commercial products, a 'ghouling bias,' which leads to biased systematic reviews and warped meta-analyses."

In his editorial, Lyons-Weiler specifically criticized the Vaccine journal for its retraction of the risk-benefit analysis cited above, and mocked the editorial board members who quit in protest, noting that "Rage-quitting is not science."

"The resigning editorial board members' knowledge claim is that no deaths have occurred due to the vaccination program. As helpful as that claim might be to a prescribed narrative, it is not based on empirical evidence, and it is, therefore, unwarranted," Lyons-Weiler wrote.21

"From a Popperian view of science, one can see the fatal flaw in the editorial board members' knowledge claim: if, as they insist, passive vaccine adverse events tracking systems cannot test the hypothesis of causality, then how can editorial board members, resigning or otherwise, know that the events were NOT caused by the vaccine? ...

It is logical to conclude that since passive vaccine adverse event tracking systems do not lend themselves well to testing hypotheses of causality, they do not provide the opportunity to design and conduct sufficiently critical tests of causality, and therefore a replacement system is needed ... one that is suitable to detect risk."

While we may indeed need better pharmacovigilance, there's really no doubt at this point that the COVID jabs are ill-advised for most people. I believe that in the years to come, people will look back at this time and vow to never repeat it. In the meantime, all we can do is look at and assess the data we do have, and make decisions accordingly.

- Sources and References

Pfizer Documents Reveal Govt Authorities and Pfizer knew COVID Vaccine caused Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease

/

From [HERE] Confidential Pfizer documents that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been forced to publish by Court Order, confirm that both Pfizer and the FDA knew Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease was a possible consequence of the mRNA Covid-19 injections.

They also reveal that they received evidence of it occurring, including several deaths, but swept it under the carpet and claimed “no new safety issues have been raised”.

The consequences of this cover-up are now being realised in official Government data that strongly suggests the fully vaccinated population have been suffering Antibody-Dependent Enhancement since the beginning of 2022. 

With figures showing the fully jabbed are up to 2 times more likely to be hospitalised with Covid-19, and 2 to 3 times more likely to die of Covid-19.

Before we dive into the Pfizer documents, let’s take a look at the real-world consequences of Medicine Regulators and Pfizer ignoring the fact the Covid-19 injections have the ability to cause 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.

Here’s a short video of the Chief Medical Advisor to the U.S. President, Dr Anthony Fauci, explaining the undesirable consequence. In it he confirms it could be a possible danger of the Covid-19 injections and that this would not be the first time it has happened. 

Unfortunately, it looks like ADE may now be occurring because of the Covid-19 injections; and it looks as if the UK Health Security Agency have been doing their best to hide it. 

The Consequences

At the turn of the year the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) decided to stop publishing the case, hospitalisation and death rates for the double vaccinated, instead choosing to only publish the rates for the triple vaccinated in their weekly Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance report. 

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.

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 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 –

And here’s a chart showing the double vaccinated population size by age and week in England. We’ve taken the figures from the chart above, and the Week 8 and Week 4 reports – 

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 hospitalisations and deaths by the answer to that equation, to calculate the hospitalisation and death rates.

Here’s a chart showing the number of Covid-19 hospitalisations among both the unvaccinated and double vaccinated in the Week 5, Week 9 and Week 13 UKHSA Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance reports

[MORE]

CDC report Acknowledges 74.2 Million people have not had a single dose of a COVID Injection and 157 Million have refused a 2nd or 3rd dose

/

From [DI] The American people have seen right through President Biden’s propaganda and lies on the effectiveness of the Covid-19 injections because according to CDC data, 70% of the entire population of the USA have not had either a first, second or third dose of the Covid-19 vaccine.

President Joe Biden has lied to the American people and is still lying to the American people. In July 2021, Biden falsely stated that “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations,” and “If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the ICU unit, and you’re not going to die.”

Then in December 2021, Biden falsely claimed “This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. The unvaccinated. Not the vaccinated, the unvaccinated. That’s the problem. Everybody talks about freedom and not to have a shot or have a test. Well guess what? How about patriotism? How about making sure that you’re vaccinated, so you do not spread the disease to anyone else.”

There is plenty of evidence out there that proves the above statements made by President Biden are outright lies (see here), but the most hilarious evidence of all must be the recent outbreak that occurred due to journalists and Government leaders attending the ‘Gridiron Dinner at the beginning of April 2022. An annual event in Washington DC.

All guests at the event were required to show proof of vaccination. A week later at least 72 of the 630 fully vaccinated/boosted guests tested positive for Covid-19.

But it would appear the majority of the American people can already see through President Biden’s lies without us needing to put the record straight. Because according to data published by the US Centers for Disease Control, 74.2 million Americans are still completely unvaccinated, and a further 157 million Americans have refused a second or third dose of the Covid-19 injection.

Meaning 50% of the entire country has potentially become wise to the propaganda and lies spouted by the American Government, Dr Anthony Fauci, and the mainstream media over the past two years.

Vax is Safe, Not Harming People? As stated, Fact Checkers are Coin Operated Liars Whoring for CrimethInc: A Study of 23 Million People Shows Risk of Myocarditis After COVID Vaccines

/

From [CHD] A new study involving 23 million people proves a COVID-19 vaccine side effect — once labeled “misinformation” — is real.

So claimed comedian, writer and political commentator Jimmy Dore on the Monday episode of “The Jimmy Dore Show.”

Dore examined an April 21 article in the U.K.’s Express, “Vaccine Study of 23 Million Shows Risk of ‘Heart Problems’ from Moderna or Pfizer Jab.”

The article reported on an investigation published online in JAMA Cardiology on April 20: “SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis in a Nordic Cohort Study of 23 Million Residents.”

The JAMA study vindicates commentators who discussed connections between heart problems and the COVID-19 vaccines months or even years ago — and who were dismissed or vilified, said Dore.

Podcaster Joe Rogan, for instance, was harshly criticized and accused of spreading “misinformation” when he first discussed the vaccine-myocarditis connection.

But according to the study, “both first and second doses of mRNA vaccines were associated with increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis. For individuals receiving 2 doses of the same vaccine, risk of myocarditis was highest among young males (aged 16-24 years) after the second dose.”

Specifically, among young men receiving two doses of the same vaccine, between four and seven excess myocarditis and pericarditis events occurred in 28 days per 100,000 vaccinees after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and between nine and 28 excess myocarditis and pericarditis events occurred per 100,000 vaccinees after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

The study concluded, “The risk of myocarditis in this large cohort study was highest in young men after the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose” and recommended, “this risk should be balanced against the benefits of protecting against severe COVID-19 disease.”

Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle that can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and death. Pericarditis is inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart that can cause sharp chest pain and other symptoms. The Defender has featured stories of people developing myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccinations.

Dore pointed out that Denmark in October 2021 suspended administration of the Moderna vaccine to people younger than 18, while Sweden did the same for people under 30.

Dore also recalled the days when Kamala Harris and Joe Biden expressed hesitancy about vaccination when then-president Donald Trump endorsed it.

When people form an opinion about the vaccines based on the political climate, not on data, it shows they are either wedded to their fear or disingenuous, he said.

Utility Companies [elite whites] Have Disconnected the Electricity of More than 3.5 Million Homes Since the Plandemic, while shareholder returns and executive compensation have skyrocketed

/

From [HERE] Electric utilities have disconnected U.S. households more than 3.5 million times since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, while shareholder returns and executive compensation have skyrocketed, according to Powerless in the Pandemic 2.0, a new report from the Center for Biological Diversity and BailoutWatch.

The massive wave of power shutoffs preceded Russia’s war on Ukraine, which has led to high volatility in fossil gas prices that may put more families at risk of disconnection.

Changes in gas prices generally pass through to utility customers rather than utilities, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

“It’s appalling that millions of families in the United States have lost electricity while utility oligarchs reap huge windfall payouts,” said Jean Su, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s energy justice program. “Russia’s war on Ukraine has only heightened household energy fragility and put more folks at risk. This moment is a clarion call to the federal government to reform the broken utility power sector, which relentlessly puts profits over people and the planet.”

“Utility companies are deliberately prolonging their dependence on fossil fuels and passing volatile fuel prices on to consumers,” said Chris Kuveke, data analyst at BailoutWatch and principal of Tiger Moth LLC. “Our research shows that millions of Americans are disconnected when they can’t pay their monthly electric bills, while these utilities pass windfall profits to shareholders and executives through dividends and bonuses.”

1 Million Copies Sold — ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’ — The book that launched a movement. BUY TODAY!

The report’s key findings:

  • Households had their power shut off more than 3.6 million times between January 2020 and December 2021, with an increase of 79% between 2020 and 2021.

  • A 12-member Hall of Shame — including utility holding companies NextEra Energy (parent of Florida Power & Light), Duke Energy, Southern Company (parent of Georgia Power), Exelon (parent of Pepco), and DTE — perpetrated 87% of all documented disconnections. These companies shut off customers more than 3 million times in 2020 and 2021 while increasing shareholder payouts by $1.9 billion, or 13%. Those shareholder payout increases could have forgiven the unpaid bills five times over.

  • Eight Hall of Shame companies laid off employees while increasing executive compensation by an average of 24%.

  • Five states accounted for 69% of all disconnections: Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Illinois.

  • Only 33 states and Washington, D.C., require utilities to disclose disconnections. There is no federal oversight to address this lack of transparency. Though this report presents the most exhaustive data set available, it covers a fraction of the people affected.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee recently demanded that top utility companies answer for their high customer shutoff rates during COVID-19.

In September 2021, the Center for Biological Diversity and BailoutWatch published “Powerless In the Pandemic: After Bailouts, Electric Utilities Chose Profits Over People,” which found that electric utilities had shut off the electricity of poor U.S. households nearly 1 million times during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, increasing the likelihood people would become sick and die.

A recent analysis by InfluenceMap showed that top private utilities have actively fought to obstruct climate policy that would rein in carbon pollution. Utility companies Southern Company and First Energy top the list for both high disconnection rates and actions taken against climate policy progress.

India Top Ct Rules the Right to Bodily Integrity Includes the Right to Refuse COVID Shots. Finds No Basis for Discriminatory Treatment of Unvaxed b/c They Don’t Pose Any Greater Risk to Spread COVID

/

From [HERE] The Supreme Court of India Monday held that the right to bodily integrity of a person includes the right to refuse vaccination under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The present writ petition was filed by Dr. Jacob Puliyel, a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group of Immunization. The petition challenged the constitutional validity of the vaccine mandates imposed by states like Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. The petitioner also raised issues of non-disclosure of vaccine trial data, improper collection and reporting of Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFIs) and vaccination of children.

The petitioner’s [low budget] case was limited however as it appeared to rest on scientific and newspaper articles as opposed to actual in court expert testimony directly from the doctors and researches themselves.

The Government also contended the ambit of judicial review on the present matter, and the court clarified that it can decide an issue if:

  • It violates articles of the Constitution;

  • It dehors the provisions of the Act and the regulations;

  • The delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation; or

  • If the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger policy.

The government has the authority to impose limits on individual rights in the name of public health, but those restrictions must fulfill the court’s three-part legality, genuine necessity and proportionality test established in the Puttaswamy decision.

The court found that mandatory vaccination imposed by various state governments and other authorities in the consideration of the COVID-19 pandemic is “not proportionate” because no sufficient evidence has been presented on the record to establish that the risk of COVID-19 virus transmission from unvaccinated people is higher than from vaccinated people. The court found it undisputed that

“an unvaccinated person does not pose a greater risk than a vaccinated person in terms of transmission of the infection.”

It also stated,

“neither the Union of India nor the State Governments have produced any material before this Court to justify the discriminatory treatment of unvaccinated individuals in public places by imposition of vaccine mandates.”

The court further ordered the Government to publish reports on AEFIs from the general public and physicians on a publicly accessible basis without jeopardising the privacy of those who report adverse events. Lastly, on the issue of vaccination of children, the court held that it won’t second guess the opinion provided by the experts and vaccination shall continue as per global standards and practices.

CDC finds majority of Americans have natural immunity against COVID

/

From [HERE] A new CDC study shows that the record number of infections during the Omicron wave gave many Americans infection-induced immunity. Between December 2021 and February 2022, the estimated percentage of the U.S. population with infection-induced antibodies increased from 34% to 58% across all age groups. The largest increases were in children and adolescents (see figure below).

Here are the details from the CDC report:

During December 2021–February 2022, overall U.S. seroprevalence increased from 33.5% (95% CI = 33.1–34.0) to 57.7% (95% CI = 57.1–58.3). 

Over the same period, seroprevalence increased from 44.2% (95% CI = 42.8–45.8) to 75.2% (95% CI = 73.6–76.8) among children aged 0–11 years and from 45.6% (95% CI = 44.4–46.9) to 74.2% (95% CI = 72.8–75.5) among persons aged 12–17 years. [Note the very high levels reached for children.]

Seroprevalence increased from 36.5% (95% CI = 35.7–37.4) to 63.7% (95% CI = 62.5–64.8) among adults aged 18–49 years, 28.8% (95% CI = 27.9–29.8) to 49.8% (95% CI = 48.5–51.3) among those aged 50–64 years, and from 19.1% (95% CI = 18.4–19.8) to 33.2% (95% CI = 32.2–34.3) among those aged ≥65 years.

Look at the figure below to more clearly see how the natural immunity increased for different age groups. [MORE]

James Clyburn and Maxine Waters are Among the Congressional Puppeticians Pressuring the FDA to Inject Infants and Children with Experimental, Deadly COVID Treatments

/

From [HERE] There is probably no other single issue in American politics today that unites both Democrats and Republicans more than the topic of vaccines, and especially the topic of COVID-19 experimental “vaccines” and issuing as many emergency use authorizations (EUAs) as possible to inject as many people as possible with these deadly shots.

You cannot hold a political office at the federal level today if you are anti-vaccine. Being pro-vaccine and supporting Big Pharma is a requirement for both Democrats and Republicans who want to be elected, and it is the one issue that both previous U.S. President Donald Trump and current U.S. President Joe Biden agree on today.

A group of pro-child abuse and pro-attempted murder of babies and young children members of Congress are now pressuring the FDA to approve COVID-19 vaccines for babies and young children under the age of 5.

They are the members of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, originally setup in April of 2020 under then President Donald Trump, and they are upset that the FDA has not issued an EUA for babies and children under the age of 5 so that parents can attempt to murder and abuse their children with one of these deadly shots.

Fierce Pharma reports:

Even though most people in the U.S. have been eligible for COVID-19 vaccines and boosters for quite some time, children under 5 still don’t have vaccine options. Now, lawmakers are asking the FDA to lay out its plans in this age group⁠—and address a perceived delay for Moderna’s product.

Yesterday, Congress’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis sent a letter (PDF) to FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, M.D., requesting a briefing on the status of COVID-19 vaccines for the under 5 age group.

The letter comes after U.S. chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci, M.D., indicated on CNN that the FDA is considering holding off on reviewing Moderna’s vaccine candidate in order to authorize it at the same time as Pfizer’s to “not confuse people” with a staggered rollout, the lawmakers wrote. That could lead to a potential delay of several weeks for Moderna’s shot, they said.

Moderna reportedly plans to submit its vaccine for the under-5 age group by the end of April. Pfizer, for its part, is prepping a filing for June, the lawmakers wrote.

Congress is hopeful that the FDA briefing requested would provide scientific rationale for the potential Moderna delay. (Full article.)

These members of Congress are complicit with the criminal act of attempted murder against the nation’s babies and children, and I encourage everyone who reads this to contact them and let them know that they will be held accountable for their actions, if not in this life, then when they die and meet their Creator.