Dr Mercola: COVID Shots Impact Male/Female Fertility and are Causing Massive Depopulation. There's Been an Abrupt Drop in Births Along w/a Sudden Rise in Excess Deaths, Resulting in Reduced Population

/

From [MERCOLA] and [PDF]

STORY AT-A-GLANCE:

The first COVID shots rolled out in December 2020, and it didn’t take long before doctors and scientists started warning of possible reproductive effects, as the jab may cross-react with syncytin and reproductive genes in sperm, ova and placenta in ways that might impair reproduction

  • According to one recent investigation, 42% of women with regular menstrual cycles said they bled more heavily than usual after vaccination; 39% of those on gender-affirming hormone treatments reported breakthrough bleeding, as did 71% of women on long-acting contraceptives and 66% of postmenopausal women

  • Other recent research has found the Pfizer COVID jab impairs semen concentration and motile count in men for about three months

  • Miscarriages, fetal deaths and stillbirths have also risen after the rollout of the COVID shots. In November 2021, Lions Gate Hospital in North Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), delivered 13 stillborn babies in a 24-hour period, and all of the mothers had received the COVID jab

  • Many countries are now reporting sudden declines in live birth rates, including Germany, the U.K., Taiwan, Hungary and Sweden. In the five countries with the highest COVID jab uptake, fertility has dropped by an average of 15.2%, whereas the five countries with the lowest COVID jab uptake have seen an average decline of just 4.66%

The first COVID shots rolled out in December 2020, and it didn't take long before doctors and scientists started warning of possible reproductive effects.

Among them were Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., director of toxicology and molecular biology for Toxicology Support Services LLC, who in April 2021 submitted a public comment1 to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), highlighting the high potential for adverse effects on fertility.

I previously interviewed Lindsay in 2021. That article is not updated with the new information, but the interview (above) is a good primer for the information she shares below. In many ways, she predicted what we are now observing.

She stressed there's credible evidence that the COVID shots may cross-react with syncytin and reproductive genes in sperm, ova and placenta in ways that might impair reproductive outcomes. "We could potentially be sterilizing an entire generation," she warned.

Lindsay also pointed out that reports of significant menstrual irregularities and vaginal hemorrhaging in women who received the injections by then already numbered in the thousands, and that this too was a safety signal that should not be ignored.

4 in 10 COVID-Jabbed Women Report Menstrual Irregularities

As it turns out, early reports of menstrual irregularities were not a fluke. More recent investigations have confirmed that, indeed, many women experience menstrual irregularities after the shots. As reported by NBC News in mid-July 2022:2

"An analysis3 published Friday in the journal Science Advances found that 42% of people with regular menstrual cycles said they bled more heavily than usual after vaccination. Meanwhile, 44% reported no change and around 14% reported a lighter period.

Among nonmenstruating people — those post-menopause or who use certain long-term contraceptives, for example — the study suggests many experienced breakthrough or unexpected bleeding after their COVID shots."

Other categories of people reporting abnormal breakthrough bleeding included 39% of those on gender-affirming hormone treatments, 71% of women on long-acting contraceptives and 66% of postmenopausal women.4

Older women, those who used hormonal contraception, had been pregnant previously, or had diagnoses of endometriosis, fibroids or polycystic ovarian syndrome were more likely to experience heavier bleeding than normal after their shots.

Are Menstrual Irregularities Inconsequential?

It's worth noting that the COVID trials did not ask female participants about their menses, and didn't collect any data on reproductive impacts. Yet, despite this clear lack of data collection, the official narrative is that everything is fine — the shots are safe and won't impact fertility.

Just how do they know? They don't, and that's what makes such claims so egregious. Making matters worse, media reporting these findings continue to insist that post-jab menstrual irregularities are "normal" and not a sign that reproductive capacity is being impacted. For example, Science writes:5

"Clarifying the issue is vital. 'It's important to know about,' says Victoria Male, a reproductive immunologist at Imperial College London. 'Let's say you got the vaccine and the next day you felt really dreadful the way some people do.' 

If you hadn't been informed of the chance of fever, muscle aches, and other effects that quickly dissipate, 'you would be really worried,' she said. Illuminating the chance of menstrual irregularities and confirming they aren't a health risk also helps combat widespread misinformation that COVID-19 vaccines impair fertility, Male and others say."

Again, no one knows whether the shots affect fertility or not for the simple fact that it hasn't been studied. No study means no data, which means no knowledge. It's that simple. Any claims to the contrary are based on pure guesswork, and guessing is not science.

And, while a woman's menstrual cycle can fluctuate, abrupt changes have historically not been brushed off as inconsequential. On the contrary, suddenly abnormal menses has been listed as a potential sign of things like:6,7,8

  • Uterine and/or cervical cancer

  • Bleeding disorders

  • Thyroid dysfunction and/or pituitary disorders affecting your hormonal balance

  • Infection and/or disease

  • Perimenopause

Menstrual Cycle Length Is Also Affected

Research9 published April 1, 2022, in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, also found an association between the COVID jab and changes in menstrual cycle length. The change was small — about one day shorter than pre-injection after the second dose — and was not deemed to be of any great concern. Still, in my mind, the change indicates that something is happening. The question is what?

Infection Can Suppress Ovarian Function

Some investigators have suggested the menstrual irregularities seen in female COVID patients and the COVID-jabbed alike may be attributed to an immune response to the spike protein.

Back in January 2021, a Chinese study10 published in Reproductive BioMedicine Online found that 28% of unvaccinated women of reproductive age diagnosed with COVID-19 had a change in the length of their cycle, 19% had prolonged cycles and 25% had a change in menstrual blood volume.

The researchers hypothesized that "the menstruation changes of these patients might be the consequence of transient sex hormone changes" caused by a temporary suppression of ovarian function during infection.

Dr. Natalie Crawford, a fertility specialist, has suggested that the menstrual irregularities seen in female COVID-19 patients may be linked to a cellular immunity response, and since the COVID shot instructs your body to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which your immune system then responds to, the effects of the jab may be similar to the natural infection.11 In a 2021 BMJ editorial, Male, quoted by Science above, presented a similar view:12

"Menstrual changes have been reported after both mRNA and adenovirus vectored COVID-19 vaccines, suggesting that, if there is a connection, it is likely to be a result of the immune response to vaccination rather than a specific vaccine component. Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) has also been associated with menstrual changes.

... Biologically plausible mechanisms linking immune stimulation with menstrual changes include immunological influences on the hormones driving the menstrual cycle or effects mediated by immune cells in the lining of the uterus, which are involved in the cyclical build-up and breakdown of this tissue. Research exploring a possible association between COVID-19 vaccines and menstrual changes may also help understand the mechanism."

That doesn't mean menstrual irregularities are of no consequence, though. After all, it appears we're dealing with a manmade virus, and the mRNA in the shot that programs for spike protein production is genetically engineered on top of that.

Perhaps this is why a greater percentage of women report menstrual irregularities following the COVID jab, compared to the percentage of women who experience irregularities following natural infection?

It may also be worth looking into the parallels between the blood clotting disorders reported — both in some COVID-19 cases and post-COVID-19 jab — and Von Willebrand disease,13 a chronic condition that prevents normal blood clotting, thus resulting in excessively heavy periods.

Miscarriages, Fetal Deaths and Stillbirths Have Skyrocketed

Menstrual irregularities aren't the only safety signal. Miscarriages, fetal deaths and stillbirths have also risen after the rollout of the COVID shots. In November 2021, Lions Gate Hospital in North Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), delivered an astonishing 13 stillborn babies in a 24-hour period, and all of the mothers had received the COVID jab.14

In a typical month, there may be one stillborn baby at the hospital, making 13 stillbirths in 24 hours highly unusual. Scotland has also experienced an unusual rise in infant death rates. During September 2021, at least 21 babies under 4 weeks old died — a rate of 4.9 per 1,000 births. Historically, the average death rate among newborns in Scotland is about 2 per 1,000 births.15

Yet, despite stillbirths going up after the introduction of the COVID jabs — as opposed to rising beforehand — studies linking stillbirths to SARS-CoV-2 infection have been used to encourage pregnant women to get the shot.16

So, basically, it's been discovered that the infection itself can cause stillbirth (and we know the spike protein of the virus is the part that causes most of the problems), yet they want you to believe that the spike protein produced by the shot will somehow have a protective impact on pregnancy.

This line of reasoning falls apart even further when you consider that scientists are now saying post-jab menstrual irregularities are likely due to immune responses that arise in response to both the virus and the jab. If that's true, then why would the COVID shot not also be able to cause stillbirths to the same or greater degree than the virus?

There Are No Data to Support COVID Jab for Pregnant Women

Health officials are adamant that pregnant women get a COVID-19 injection, but the data don't support its safety. The CDC-sponsored study17 published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) that was widely used to support the U.S. recommendation for pregnant women to get injected was corrected in October 2021, with the correction stating:18

"In the table footnotes, the following content should have been appended to the double dagger footnote:

'No denominator was available to calculate a risk estimate for spontaneous abortions, because at the time of this report, follow-up through 20 weeks was not yet available for 905 of the 1224 participants vaccinated within 30 days before the first day of the last menstrual period or in the first trimester. Furthermore, any risk estimate would need to account for gestational week-specific risk of spontaneous abortion.'"

COVID Jab Affects Male Fertility Too

Other recent research19,20 has found the Pfizer COVID jab also "temporarily impairs semen concentration and motile count" in men. As noted by the authors:21

"The development of COVID-19 vaccinations represents a notable scientific achievement. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised regarding their possible detrimental impact on male fertility ...

Thirty-seven SD [semen donors] from three sperm banks that provided 216 samples were included in that retrospective longitudinal multicenter cohort study. BNT162b2 vaccination included two doses, and vaccination completion was scheduled 7 days after the second dose.

The study included four phases: T0 — pre-vaccination baseline control, which encompassed 1–2 initial samples per SD; T1, T2 and T3 — short, intermediate, and long terms evaluations, respectively. Each included 1-3 semen samples per donor provided 15-45, 75-125 and over 145 days after vaccination completion, respectively ...

Repetitive measurements revealed −15.4% sperm concentration decrease on T2 (CI −25.5%-3.9%, p = 0.01) leading to total motile count 22.1% reduction (CI −35% – −6.6%, p = 0.007) compared to T0.

Similarly, analysis of first semen sample only and samples' mean per donor resulted in concentration and total motile count (TMC) reductions on T2 compared to T0 — median decline of 12 million/ml and 31.2 million motile spermatozoa, respectively ... on first sample evaluation and median decline of 9.5 × 106 and 27.3 million motile spermatozoa ... on samples' mean examination. T3 evaluation demonstrated overall recovery without ...

This longitudinal study focused on SD demonstrates selective temporary sperm concentration and TMC deterioration 3 months after vaccination followed by later recovery verified by diverse statistical analyses."

As with women's menstrual problems, the authors blame these adverse effects in men on a "systemic immune response" to the COVID shot. However, while they claim men's' reproductive capacity will recover in about three months, this could still be a tremendous problem.

Remember, the mRNA shots are recommended at three-month intervals for the original series, and boosters are now being recommended at varying intervals thereafter. If you destroy a man's sperm for three months every time he gets a COVID shot, you're significantly reducing the probability of him fathering a child for a good part of any given year.

Massive Depopulation Underway

Whether accidental or intentional, the fact of the matter is that we're now seeing an abrupt drop in live births along with an equally sudden rise in excess deaths among adults. The end result will be a reduction in the global population.

That seems inevitable at this point, and the timing of these trends correspond with the release of these experimental COVID gene transfer injections. For example, Germany recently released data showing a 10% decline in birth rate during the first quarter of 2022.22


The live birth rate graph for Sweden looks much the same:23,24

Other countries are also seeing unexpected birth rate reductions, nine months after the start of the mass vaccination campaign against COVID. Between January and April 2022, Switzerland's birth rate was 15% lower than expected, the U.K.'s was down by 10% and Taiwan's was down 23%.25,26,27

In the five countries with the highest COVID jab uptake, fertility has dropped by an average of 15.2%, whereas the five countries with the lowest COVID jab uptake have seen an average reduction of just 4.66%.

In a July 5, 2022, Counter Signal article, Mike Campbell reported concerns expressed by Hungarian MP Dúró Dóra during a Parliamentary speech:28

"In January this year, something happened that has not happened for decades. The birth rate fell by 20% compared to the same period last year. And what is even more worrying is that the fertility has also fallen — something not seen since 2011 ...

[A] researcher at the KRTK Institute of Economics points out that this drastic decline came just nine months after the COVID mass vaccinations began in Hungary."

After looking into further, Campbell discovered that in the five countries with the highest COVID jab uptake, fertility has dropped by an average of 15.2%, whereas the five countries with the lowest COVID jab uptake have seen an average reduction of just 4.66%.

The U.S. is also showing signs of a drop in live births. Provisional data from North Dakota shows a 10% decline in February 2022, 13% reduction in March and an 11% reduction in April, compared to the corresponding months in 2021.29 Below is a chart from Birth Gauge30 on Twitter comparing live birth data for 2021 and 2022 in a large number of countries.

Take Responsibility for Your Health

At this time, women are not being warned about the risks for miscarriage, menstrual irregularities and the potential for fertility problems and stillbirths, even though all of these safety signals are glaringly obvious. As obstetrician-gynecologist specialist, Dr. James Thorp, told The Epoch Times in April 2022:31

"I've seen many, many, many complications in pregnant women, in moms and in fetuses, in children, offspring, fetal death, miscarriage, death of the fetus inside the mom… What I've seen in the last two years is unprecedented."

Tragically, doctors are under a worldwide gag order. They steer patients away from the COVID shot at the risk of losing their medical license. This puts patients in an incredibly risky situation, as most rely on their doctors to tell them the truth. Few expect doctors to lie or hide life saving information from them simply to protect their own career. So, we're in unprecedented times in more ways than one.

What this means is that you have no choice, really, but to do your own research and gauge the risks as best you can. There are tons of data out there — data that the mainstream media won't touch, and if they do, they still insist adverse events aren't a sign of danger. In such situations, you simply have to put on your thinking cap and think it through for yourself.

As of July 15, 2022, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had logged 1,350,947 adverse event reports following the COVID jab, including 29,635 deaths,32 and there's evidence that reports are being deleted from the system by the thousands. You can learn more about that in "Thousands of Deaths and Adverse Reactions Deleted From VAERS."

The safety signals coming from the COVID jabs exceed anything else in medical history. No drug or vaccine has ever been associated with as many injuries and deaths, including harm to the unborn.

At this point, it appears we're looking at a certain depopulation event. The question then is, are you willing to accept the risks? Are you willing to risk your fertility, even if only temporarily? Are you willing to risk the life of your baby? Are you willing to risk your own? If not, the answer is simple. Don't take the jab, and if you've already taken one or two (or three), never take another.

- Sources and References

Groups in Canada and Australia Beg Authorities to Reconsider COVID Shots for Children b/c They are at Extremely Low Risk of COVID and Harm from mRNA Shots Outweighs any Perceived Benefit

/

From [CHD] Groups in Canada and Australia are urging public health officials to reconsider rolling out COVID-19 vaccines for young children, following the authorization earlier this month in both countries of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 6 months to 5 years.

The Australian Vaccine-risks Network (AVN) on July 19 sent an open letter to Dr. Brendan Murphy, secretary of Australia’s Department of Health and Aged Care, voting members of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation and members of parliament threatening to “move forward with preparations for seeking the intervention of the Federal Court of Australia” if officials don’t respond.

The Canadian COVID Care Alliance (CCCA) on July 14 published an open letter to Canadian health officials stating their members would “be happy to meet you to discuss findings documented in this letter in greater detail.”

Both letters emphasized three arguments against authorizing the mRNA shots in young children and babies:

  1. Children don’t need COVID-19 vaccination because they are at extremely low risk of COVID-19.

  2. In any case, the mRNA shots don’t work well.

  3. The potential harm from the mRNA shots outweighs the benefits for young children.

Both letters also referenced the June 30 open letter to U.K. health officials from more than 70 physicians and scientists warning against vaccinating younger children against COVID-19.

The U.K. letter, written in response to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in mid-June of the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shots for children as young as 6 months, urged U.K. health officials to not “make the same mistake” the FDA made.

All three letters referenced Søren Brostrøm, director of the Danish Health and Medicines Authority, who in June said, “We did not get much out of having children vaccinated against coronavirus last year.”

Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration on July 18 provisionally approved a pediatric dose of Moderna’s Spikevax COVID-19 shot for children ages 6 months to 5 years old. Rollout of the vaccines is contingent on input from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation.

A few days earlier, on July 14, Health Canada authorized the use of Spikevax for children 6 months to 5 years of age. According to the statement, “As a result of this authorization, approximately 1.7 million children are now eligible for vaccination against COVID-19.”

Risks ‘far outweigh’ benefits for children

The 11-page CCCA letter contains 117 references and six pages of figures and graphs to support the group’s argument that “the data shows that, in the Omicron era, when population-based immunity is widespread, the risks associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines far outweigh the benefits in children.”

The authors of the CCCA letter criticized the FDA, stating, “no gold standard, placebo-controlled disease endpoint trials, large enough [with at least 800,000 participants] to categorically establish the clinical safety and long-term efficacy of the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations in children 12- to 15-years-old, 5- to 11-years-old, 2- to 4-years-old, and 6-months-old to 23-months-old have been undertaken.”

Instead, the EUA for Pfizer was “based on the preliminary results of four very small immuno-bridging trials, enrolling fewer than 3,000 participants each.”

The CCCA letter presented data from the Canadian province of Ontario, which “reported a negative dose-response effect for the COVID-19 vaccinations [original emphasis].”

The letter continued:

“In other words, the proportion of cases of COVID-19 were highest among those who had been ‘boosted,’ lower among the ‘fully inoculated’ and least among the ‘not fully inoculated’ (which includes the ‘uninoculated’).”

The authors presented graphs from the Public Health Ontario website, noting a similar pattern was observed in the 12- to 17-year-olds and the 5- to 11-year-old age groups.

“Additionally, a greater proportion of ‘boosted’ Ontarians have died, revealing that the vaccinations may be associated with serious secondary effects.”

The CCCA letter concludes:

“We trust that our research has provided you with evidence needed to adjust Canadian health policy to protect our children from undue harm. We would be happy to meet you to discuss findings documented in this letter in greater detail.”

‘Huge gap’ in Pfizer’s vaccine trial documentation

According to the authors of the AVN letter, the Pfizer documentation presented to the FDA had huge gaps in the evidence provided.

For example, the letter stated:

“The protocol was changed mid-trial. The original two-dose schedule exhibited poor immunogenicity with efficacy far below the required standard. A third dose was added by which time many of the original placebo recipients had been vaccinated.”

The AVN letter argued the Moderna shot for young children fails to meet Australia’s regulatory requirements to be granted “provisional determination” (similar to EUA in the U.S.) under regulation 10L(1)(a) of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations.

To receive provisional determination, there must be “an indication of the medicine is the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of a life-threatening or seriously debilitating condition,” the letter stated.

The authors said Australia’s health department and TGA did not “show any data or science to support a conclusion that COVID-19, and particularly the Omicron variant now widespread across Australia, is ‘life-threatening’ to infants aged 6 months up through 4 years, nor indeed that infants 6 months up through 4 years suffer ‘seriously debilitating’ symptoms when infected with COVID-19.”

The authors also addressed the issue of manipulative strategies used to promote COVID-19 vaccination of children, and said pushing unnecessary and novel mRNA-based vaccines onto young children risks undermining parental confidence in routine immunization programs.

In Return for Not Paying Billions in Taxes, Nonprofit Hospitals are Required to Provide Community Benefits, Like Free/Discounted Care for Poor People. WSJ Analysis Found a Serious Lack of Generosity

/

From [HERE] Nonprofit hospitals get billions of dollars in tax breaks in exchange for providing support to their communities. A Wall Street Journal analysis shows they are often not particularly generous.

These charitable organizations, which comprise the majority of hospitals in the U.S., wrote off in aggregate 2.3% of their patient revenue on financial aid for patients’ medical bills. Their for-profit competitors, a category including publicly traded giants such as HCA Healthcare Inc., wrote off 3.4%, the Journal found in an analysis of the most-recent annual reports hospitals file with the federal government.

Among nonprofits with the smallest shares of patient revenue going toward charity care—well under 1%—were high-profile institutions including the biggest hospitals of California’s Stanford Medicine and Louisiana’s Ochsner Health systems. At Avera Health, a major hospital system in South Dakota, charity care was roughly half of 1% of patient revenue across all its 18 hospitals.

“The financial assistance programs, the charity care that’s provided, are as important as the actual medical services,” said Ngozi Ezike, president and CEO of Sinai Chicago, which has two general hospitals that serve patients in west and south Chicago. The hospitals rank in the top 10% nationally for what they spend on financial aid as a share of their revenue. “We don’t want limited financial resources to mean limited lifespan,” Dr. Ezike said.

‘Charity care’

In return for not paying taxes, nonprofit hospitals are supposed to provide community benefits. The clearest form is free or discounted care for poor patients who otherwise couldn’t afford it, say many health-policy experts. Hospitals have traditionally described the cost of erasing, or writing off, bills as spending on “charity care.”

Federal law requires nonprofit hospitals to have policies to assist such patients. But federal guidelines allow them broad freedom to write and implement those policies and don’t require hospitals to meet any specific targets for financial-assistance totals.

The value of nonprofit hospitals’ subsidy from avoiding taxes is more than $60 billion a year, according to estimates by Johns Hopkins University professor Gerard Anderson.

Nonprofit hospitals say the national charity-care figures don’t provide a full picture, because some states expanded their Medicaid programs under the Affordable Care Act, reducing the uninsured population and resulting in less need for free care. [MORE]

Dr Malone: Monkeypox or Moneypox? Monkey-Minded WHO Puppetician Overrules Panel, Unilaterally Declares Public Health Emergency [the Vested Interests Pulling His Strings are Law Unto Themselves]

/

From [DR MALONE] In a move that is sure to trigger widespread discussion concerning the independence, objectivity and wisdom of granting authority to the World Health Organization (WHO) to manage global infectious diseases responses, the monkeypox outbreak has been declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by WHO.

The declaration was made unilaterally, in direct contradiction to independent review panel advice, by WHO Director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

Tedros made the declaration despite a lack of consensus among members of the WHO’s emergency committee on the monkeypox outbreak, and in so doing overruled his own review panel, who had voted 9 against and 6 for declaring the PHEIC.

Tedros asserted that this committee of experts, who met last week, was unable to reach a consensus, so it fell on him to decide whether to trigger the highest alert possible. Any objective outside observer would conclude that the committee failed to endorse moving to a PHEIC.

When a similar meeting was previously held on June 23, the committee resolved by consensus to advise the WHO director-general that at this stage the outbreak should be determined to not constitute a PHEIC.

An official United Nations article summarizing this can be found here. When the group met in June, the breakdown was 11 against and 3 for.

It is not clear what has changed in the intervening four weeks to justify the change in Tedros’ position, although comments from internet pundits (see below) raise concerns that the unilateral action was taken in response to pressure from special interest advocacy groups.

There has also been a sudden burst of coordinated social media posts raising concerns regarding monkeypox risks to children, which raises the question “if monkeypox is a sexually transmitted disease, why are kids getting it?”

Last week, the U.S. confirmed the first two cases of monkeypox in children, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky said.

The CDC has said children, especially those under 8 years old, are among those at “especially increased risk” for severe monkeypox disease.

At a virtual event with the Washington Post on Friday focused on new coronavirus variants, Walensky stated:

“Both of those children are traced back to individuals who come from the men-who-have-sex-with-men community, the gay men’s community.”

Clearly, the WHO committee did not reach the desired decision to declare a PHEIC, and so for some extraordinary reason, Tedros stepped in.

Though the committee does not formally vote, a survey of the members revealed that nine thought a PHEIC should not be declared and six supported a declaration.

Tedros said in a news conference called to announce the decision:

“Nine and six is very, very close. Since the role of the committee is to advise, I then had to act as a tie-breaker.”

Tedros made the declaration despite a lack of consensus among members of the WHO’s emergency committee on the monkeypox outbreak. It’s the first time a leader of a United Nations health agency has made such a decision unilaterally.

In the event of a deadly disease outbreak, a group of WHO experts can declare a PHEIC to trigger global action.

Since the procedures to declare a PHEIC was implemented in 2005, the WHO has only done so six times. The last time the WHO declared an international emergency was in early 2020 for COVID-19.

The designation of a PHEIC is the WHO’s highest alert level. It is based on international health regulations established in 2005, to define countries’ rights and obligations in handling cross-border public health occurrences.

The WHO defines a PHEIC as “an extraordinary event which is determined to constitute a public health risk to other states through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response.”

The WHO further explains how this definition implies a situation that is serious, sudden, unusual or unexpected; carries implications for public health beyond an affected country’s border and may require immediate international action.

Tedros’ statements clearly demonstrate that he unilaterally substituted his own opinions for those of the convened panel, raising questions about his objectivity, commitment to process and protocol, and whether he has been unduly influenced by external agents.

Tedros stated:

“I have decided that the global monkeypox outbreak represents a public health emergency of international concern.

“WHO’s assessment is that the risk of monkeypox is moderate globally and in all regions, except in the European region where we assess the risk as high.

“We have an outbreak that has spread around the world rapidly through new modes of transmission about which we understand too little and which meets the criteria in the international health regulations.

“I know this has not been an easy or straightforward process and that there are divergent views among the members” of the committee.

“Although I am declaring a public health emergency of international concern, for the moment this is an outbreak that is concentrated among men who have sex with men, especially those with multiple sexual partners. That means that this is an outbreak that can be stopped with the right strategies in the right groups.”

As the outbreak continues to grow, epidemiologists are split as to whether the WHO’s decision was correct. The meeting was the second time the emergency committee convened, after a meeting on June 23 when it decided the outbreak had not met that threshold.

Dr. Jimmy Whitworth, a professor of international public health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, stated:

“It is a tricky decision for the committee, in some senses, it meets the definition — it is an unprecedented outbreak widespread in many countries and would benefit from increased international coordination.

“On the other hand, it seems to be an infection for which we have the necessary tools for control; most cases are mild and the mortality rate is extremely low.”

The PHEIC designation comes from the International Health Regulations (IHR) created in 2005, and it represents an international “agreement” to help prevent and respond to public health risks that have the potential to spread around the globe.

The CDC describes the IHR regulations as:

“A legally binding agreement of 196 countries to build the capability to detect and report potential public health emergencies worldwide. IHR requires that all countries have the ability to detect, assess, report, and respond to public health events.”

These are the same IHR the Biden administration sought to further strengthen, but the attempt to implement proposed modifications was placed on hold after an international, multi-country outcry concerning the loss of national autonomy. The unilateral actions of Tedros in this current situation clearly demonstrate that these concerns were warranted.

Despite the statement by the CDC, the WHO IHR is not a treaty that has been endorsed by the U.S. Senate, and the assertion that these are legally binding has been challenged.

In an article supportive of the declaration, Vox provided a summary of the potential financial beneficiaries of this declaration; that being vaccine manufacturers and the holding companies who have invested in them.

Vox wrote:

The emergency ought to get countries to share vaccines. But it’s not guaranteed.

Vaccination plays a key role in controlling monkeypox transmission during an outbreak, and crucially, these vaccines already exist.

The COVID-19 pandemic taught the world some painful lessons about the importance of global coordination to ensure fast and equitable vaccine distribution. The PHEIC alarm bell hopefully will spur action so the same mistakes are not repeated.

A major reason global health experts have been anxious over the timeliness of a WHO emergency declaration for monkeypox is the declaration’s potential to get vaccines to the most vulnerable groups quickly.

Vaccines do exist to prevent monkeypox, and while many countries have a quantity of these vaccines on hand as part of their national stockpiles, U.S. demand has greatly outpaced supply, and the global supply of vaccines is relatively small.

Countries have been scrambling to order more vaccines, and while the producer of the most popular monkeypox vaccine has not disclosed which countries have put down orders, the nations that have announced vaccine purchases have generally been higher-income ones, like Germany, Britain and Canada.

That portends a pattern of vaccine inequity that unfolded to tragic effect during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, with poorer countries struggling to acquire vaccines and cut off from vaccine production efforts.

In his announcement of the WHO’s Emergency Committee’s plan to convene in June, WHO Europe Director Hans Kluge said following a more equitable blueprint for monkeypox vaccine distribution would be a key step in controlling the outbreak.

“A ‘me first’ approach could lead to damaging consequences down the road if we do not employ a genuinely collaborative and far-thinking approach,” Kluge said. “I beseech governments to tackle monkeypox without repeating the mistakes of the pandemic — and keeping equity at the heart of all we do.”

When the WHO declares an emergency, it also makes recommendations to affected countries, which often relate to vaccination strategies. This spurs countries to coordinate vaccine strategies to increase vaccine supply in less wealthy countries.

It can also spur donors to fund vaccination efforts that prioritize equitable access to vaccines. However, the WHO’s recommendations in the face of an emergency are ultimately just recommendations.

“There’s no way to enforce that globally,” Heymann said.

The ACT Accelerator, a collaboration to raise funds to distribute COVID-19 tests, therapies and vaccines to low-resource countries, was an attempt at an equitable solution in the pandemic.

However, in the eyes of many, it did not succeed. Public health experts are hopeful earlier action on monkeypox could avoid some of the ACT Accelerator’s pitfalls.

In its announcement today, WHO representatives said it was encouraging countries with large vaccine stockpiles to share and donate vaccines to other countries that do not currently have access to vaccines.

‘Monkeypox’ Appears to be Only Circulating in Countries where the Pfizer Injection has been distributed & is being used to advance a Technocratic Great Reset

/

From [DAVIDICKE] Since around the middle of May 2022, you will have most likely heard or seen the word Monkeypox mentioned numerous times in the mainstream media. 

If you haven’t then you’re about to. 

This is because on Saturday 23rd July 2022, the Director General of the World Health Organization, Dr Tedros, overruled the World Health Organization to single-handedly declare the alleged monkeypox outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. (Source)

Allegedly, for the first time since its discovery among humans in Africa over 50 years ago, the monkeypox virus is circulating throughout several countries including the USA, UK, Canada, Brazil, Australia and most of Europe all at the same time.

But it just so happens that every single country where monkeypox is allegedly circulating is also a country that has distributed the Pfizer Covid-19 injection to its population; excluding some countries in Africa where the disease has been endemic for the past 50 or so years.

The World Health Organization has not received a single report of monkeypox from any country in the world where the Pfizer vaccine was not administered.

Why is this?

Well, it’s most definitely not because we’re witnessing what we will soon be told is a second pandemic to hit the world within the past two years.

It’s because we’re seeing the consequences of injecting millions of people with an experimental mRNA injection that causes untold damage to the immune system, and public health authorities are now scrambling to cover up Covid-19 vaccine-induced shingles and using it as an opportunity to advance their technocratic agenda of implementing ‘The Great Reset’.

Click on the below image and take a good long look to compare which countries have reported cases of monkeypox to the W.H.O. since May 2022, and which countries have distributed the Pfizer Covid-19 injection.

Mother Accuses Argentinian Government of Murdering Her 3-Year-Old Girl: 'Son of a Bitches Forced Us To Get Vaccinated.' Healthy Child Died 1 Day After Injection

/

From [HERE] A three-year-old healthy little girl, Ambar Maite Catán, died after being forced by the Argentinian government to be “vaccinated.” Ambar’s distraught mother, Miryam, recounted the heartbreaking story of her daughter’s senseless death in a television interview. The mother not only holds the government responsible for “killing” her child but vowed to fight the government to protect other children from receiving the dangerous and deadly experimental Covid injections. 

The little girl passed away on Thursday, December 16, 2021, but her story, like many who died following the covid injections, went unreported by the U.S. left-wing news. The day after Ambar passed away, the mother told reporters that her 3-year-old girl died from the Chinese Sinopharm vaccine required for her to enter kindergarten. Argentina approved the vaccine for children between three and eleven in October 2021. 

On Wednesday, the perfectly healthy child received her first controversial Covid vaccine injection at the Hippodrome [Covid vaccination hub], and then the next day, she dropped dead. 

Yesterday between 10 and 11 am, I took my daughter to the Hipodromo [vaccination hub] to get her vaccinated. Because, well, they were vaccinating children aged three and up. 

I had pre-enrolled her in the school. So she would start kindergarten this coming year, where you need to be vaccinated. She was healthy; she was fine. She was not ill at all; she had no Covid, she had nothing. 

She had Covid last year, and she was hospitalized. She was hospitalized at the San Lucas Hospital for five days. She had already had Covid; I am not getting why 

Today my daughter got up, and she was really fine. She hung out with her friends. And in the afternoon, she collapsed and she fainted. I can’t believe it. 

Miryam blames the government for requiring Covid vaccines: 

They tell us to get vaccinated repeatedly. They tell us to get our children vaccinated repeatedly. I know it is the vaccine that made my 3-year-old daughter die. It did because my daughter was a healthy child. 

That son of a bitch government forces us to get vaccinated. They made my 3-year-old baby die. She was really healthy. She had no pathology; she was not a sick child. She was a healthy child.

In addition, Miryam explained how the events happened the morning her child died: 

This morning she got up as usual, like every day. She had breakfast and played with me. She told me: “Mom, I am going to play with my friends.” I told her: “Play right here in the garden, in front of the door.”She was playing with the other girls. 

Then I went out for a moment, 10 or 15 minutes. I found my daughter dead. I can’t believe it.

The mother repeatedly emphasized that Ámbar was healthy:

She did not have a fever. I asked her whether she did, because yesterday I got him [Ambar’s brother] vaccinated too, he is 14 years old. 

I asked her: “Ambar, does your arm hurt?” “No, mom!” 

Whereas his arm did hurt, and mine did too because I got vaccinated too. I got the second jab. 

She said: “No, mom, I am fine.”It was her first jab. 

Although, according to an autopsy carried out by the government, the girl had “heart disease and a long-standing lung infection.” However, the mom said her daughter was healthy and not sick. 

Ambar’s mom does not want another family to suffer the tremendous pain and loss she is experiencing. She vows to fight not to allow the government to ‘kill” another child: 

I will fight to the end. I don’t want other Ambars to die. But, because I don’t want this to happen to other children, as it happened to my daughter, the government here in Tucuman demands that everyone be vaccinated to be allowed to do anything. So they kill our children.

Argentina Wants All Children ‘Vaccinated’

Argentina moved aggressively last year to vaccinate every child over three by the end of 2021. “Argentina will finish 2021 with the full coverage and protection of people over three years,” vowed health minister Carla Vizzotti last October.

According to Life Site News, Children and teenagers face virtually no risk of death or serious illness from COVID-19. According to the American Pediatric Association, 0-0.03 percent of COVID cases in the United States under age 18 have resulted in death. In addition, the survival rate for coronavirus has been estimated at no lower than 99.7 percent for all age groups under 60 years old.

"We are Being Lied to." A Group of New Zealand Doctors Calls for Criminal Investigations into COVID Injection Deaths. 'The Shots are Not Vaccines because They Don't Prevent Disease or Spread'

/

From [HERE] The group New Zealand Doctors Speaking out With Science (NZDSOS) has published an open letter calling for a comprehensive investigation into the wave of deaths occurring in New Zealand among the “fully vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).

A redacted version is available for the public to read, while an unredacted version is still being carefully prepared for law enforcement to ensure it contains all of the necessary information for a proper investigation to be conducted.

According to the group, there is a “shockingly large burden of deaths and injuries following the Covid-19 vaccine, of itself and compared to any other treatment or vaccine in modern times.”

“We report many cases that DEMAND proper investigation, as befits any medication lacking safety studies,” the letter’s executive summary further states.

NZDSOS says the country’s surveillance systems, which would otherwise catch these injuries and deaths, have been disabled “in order to hide the extent of harm.”

“Adverse event reporting is NOT COMPULSORY, and this alone undermines any attempt to portray the injections as safe,” the group further explains.

“CARM (New Zealand’s version of the U.S.-based Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) was never designed to early warn about experimental drugs rolled out to massive numbers.”

Post-covid injection deaths are the elephant in the room that nobody wants to address

Perhaps most concerning are the large numbers of young children who after getting shot are suffering cardiac injuries that used to only occur among the elderly – though many elderly people have mysteriously died post-jab as well.

Seeing as how children have a zero percent risk of dying from covid, let alone getting sick from it in the first place, jabbing them is arguably the worst crime against humanity that has occurred in modern times.

“We believe we are being lied to,” says NZDSOS. “We appeal AGAIN to the Police, headed by Andrew Coster, and our MPs (members of parliament), to intervene to protect the People.

Halfway through the letter, a long list of cases is presented showing that post-injection injuries and deaths are anything but “rare.” They are disturbingly and obviously common when looking at the data, though few are brave enough to actually look.

A summary of some 500 post-injection deaths is included in the letter, as recorded in the Citizen’s Database. A community group of volunteers with backgrounds in healthcare, information technology and science help to maintain it with the support of epidemiology and database professionals.

“It has been built mainly from notifications by relatives, friends and health workers of people who have died following the covid-19 shots,” the letter explains.

“Scientific accuracy forbids the use of the word ‘vaccine,’ since it does not prevent the disease nor its transmission. Some information has been gleaned from social media posts, newspaper reports and obituaries. Has anyone noticed how many there are? ‘Taken too soon,’ ‘sudden and unexpected’ adorn the pages.”

Because the so-called “authorities” refuse to even look into the situation at all is a huge red flag all on its own. If the jabs really are “safe and effective” as claimed, then there should be no problem looking through each case in order to debunk it as unrelated to the injections, right?

This is the elephant in the room that almost nobody in any position of power is willing to address, and NZDSOS is demanding once again that someone step up to the plate and take the matter seriously on behalf of public health.

“Whatever the actual truth, NZDSOS and many others are certain that the true number of dead and injured people is very elevated, and not made clear to the public, who thus continue to sleepwalk into a treatment that is much more dangerous than the disease it purports to prevent, especially for the young,” the group says.

UK Gov. Data Shows COVID Injections are Killing Children. Report Demonstrates that "Vaccinated" Kids are Substantially More Likely to Die than Unvaccinated Kids

/

From [HERE] and [EXPOSE] On June 17th 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criminally extended the emergency use authorisation of the mRNA Covid-19 injections for use in children as young as 6 months. 

There has never been an emergency in regard to Covid-19 infection among children. Two years of evidence show the alleged disease has only adversely affected the elderly and vulnerable. Children have been unlucky to suffer symptoms more severe than those associated with the common cold. 

But despite this fact, the FDA has decided it is perfectly safe to administer an experimental injection to babies and toddlers, with FDA Commissioner Robert Califf saying – 

“Many parents, caregivers and clinicians have been waiting for a vaccine for younger children and this action will help protect those down to 6 months of age.  As we have seen with older age groups, we expect that the vaccines for younger children will provide protection from the most severe outcomes of COVID-19, such as hospitalization and death. 

Those trusted with the care of children can have confidence in the safety and effectiveness of these COVID-19 vaccines and can be assured that the agency was thorough in its evaluation of the data.”

The FDA Commissioner will live to regret that last sentence. As will any parent who takes the Commissioners words at face value. Because official data from the UK’s Office for National Statistics show that Covid-19 vaccinated children are between 8,100% and 30,200% more likely to die than unvaccinated children.

On 16th May 2022, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published a dataset containing details on ‘deaths by vaccination status in England’ between 1st Jan 2021 and 31st March 2022.

The ONS data shows that between 1st Jan 21 and 31st March 22, double vaccinated children aged 10-14 were statistically up to 39 times more likely to die than unvaccinated children, and double vaccinated teenagers aged 15-19 were statistically up to 4 times more likely to die than unvaccinated teenagers.

For every 100,000 kids aged 10 to 14 who were FULLY VACCINATED in England, over 40 died from Covid-19. That’s a negative effectiveness rate against death of minus 13,633 percent among the triple-vaxxed kids and early teens, but that’s not all. The ONS failed to publish the death rate for children under 10 years young, obviously because that was most likely even MORE shocking. [MORE]

…The ONS data shows that between 1st Jan 21 and 31st March 22, triple jabbed children aged 10-14 were statistically 303 times more likely to die than unvaccinated children of Covid-19, 69x more likely to die of any cause other than Covid-19 than unvaccinated children, and 82x more likely to die of all-causes than unvaccinated children.

This suggests that three doses of a Covid-19 injection increase the risk of all-cause death for children by an average of 8,100%, and the risk of dying of Covid-19 by an average of 30,200%. Whilst two doses increase the risk of all-cause death by an average of 3,600%.

But as things currently stand it’s the other way round for teenagers. Two doses of a Covid-19 injection increase the risk of all-cause death for teens aged 15 to 19 by an average of 300%. Whilst three doses increase the risk of all-cause death by an average of 100%. [MORE]

Letter from 76 Doctors Urgently Tells the UK Government: ‘mRNA Vaccines Are Inappropriate for Small Children’

/

From [CHD] The letter below was signed by 76 doctors in the U.K. and sent to the Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and other U.K. Government officials.

This letter lays out comprehensive reasons why the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) decision authorizing COVID vaccinations in infants and young children must not happen in the U.K.

June 30, 2022

Dear Dr. Raine,

We are writing to you urgently concerning the announcement that the FDA has granted an Emergency Use Authorization for both Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines in preschool children.

We would urge you to consider very carefully the move to vaccinate ever younger children against SARS-CoV-2, despite the gradual but significant reducing virulence of successive variants, the increasing evidence of rapidly waning vaccine efficacy, the increasing concerns over long-term vaccine harms, and the knowledge that the vast majority of this young age group have already been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 repeatedly and have demonstrably effective immunity.

Thus, the balance of benefit and risk which supported the rollout of mRNA vaccines to the elderly and vulnerable in 2021 is totally inappropriate for small children in 2022.

We also strongly challenge the addition of COVID-19 vaccination into the routine child immunization program despite no demonstrated clinical need, known and unknown risks (see below) and the fact that these vaccines still have only conditional marketing authorization.

It is noteworthy that the Pfizer documentation presented to the FDA has huge gaps in the evidence provided:

  • The protocol was changed mid-trial. The original two-dose schedule exhibited poor immunogenicity with efficacy far below the required standard. A third dose was added by which time many of the original placebo recipients had been vaccinated.

  • There was no statistically significant difference between the placebo and vaccinated groups in either the 6-23-month age group or the 2-4-year-olds, even after the third dose. Astonishingly, the results were based on just three participants in the younger age group (one vaccinated and two placebo) and just seven participants in the older 2-4-year-olds (two vaccinated and five placebo). Indeed, for the younger age group the confidence intervals ranged from minus-367% to plus-99%. The manufacturer stated that the numbers were too low to draw any confident conclusions. Moreover, these limited numbers come only from children infected more than seven days after the third dose.

  • Over the whole time period from the first dose onwards (see page 39 Tables 19 and 20), there were a total of 225 infected children in the vaccinated arm and 150 in the placebo arm, giving a calculated vaccine efficacy of only 25% (14% for the 6-23 months, and 33% for 2-4s).

  • The additional immunogenicity studies against Omicron, requested by the FDA, only involved a total of 66 children tested one month after the third dose (see page 35).

It is incomprehensible that the FDA considered that this represents sufficient evidence on which to base a decision to vaccinate healthy children. When it comes to safety, the data are even thinner: only 1,057 children, some already unblinded, were followed for just two months.

It is noteworthy that Sweden and Norway are not recommending the vaccine for 5-11s and Holland is not recommending it for children who have already had COVID-19.

The director of the Danish Health and Medicines Authority stated recently that with what is now known, the decision to vaccinate children was a mistake.

We summarize below the overwhelming arguments against this vaccination.

A. Extremely low risk from COVID-19 to young children

  • In the whole of 2020 and 2021, not a single child aged 1-9 died where COVID-19 was the sole diagnosis on the death certificate, according to ONS data.

  • A detailed study in England from March 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021, found only six children under 18 years died with no co-morbidities. There were no deaths aged 1-4 years.

  • Children clear the virus more easily than adults.

  • Children mount effective, robust, and sustained immune responses.

  • Since the arrival of the Omicron variant, infections have been generally much milder. That is also true for unvaccinated under-5s.

  • By June 2022 it is now estimated that 89% of 1-4-year-olds had already had SARS-CoV-2 infection.

  • Recent data from Israel show excellent long-lasting immunity following infection in children, especially in 5-11s.

B. Poor vaccine efficacy

  • In adults, it has become apparent that vaccine efficacy wanes steadily over time, necessitating boosters at regular intervals. Specifically, vaccine efficacy has waned more rapidly against the latest Omicron variants.

  • In children, vaccine efficacy has waned more rapidly in 5-11s than in 12-17s, possibly related to the lower dose used in the pediatric formulation. One study from New York showed efficacy against Omicron falling to only 12% by 4-5 weeks and to negative values by 5-6 weeks post second dose.

  • In the Pfizer 0-4s trial, the efficacy after two doses fell to negative values, necessitating a change to the trial protocol. After a third dose, there was a suggestion of efficacy from 7-30 days but there is no data beyond 30 days to see how quickly this will wane.

C. Potential harms of COVID-19 vaccines for children

  • There has been great concern about myocarditis in adolescents and young adults, especially in males after the second dose, estimated at one per 2,600 in active post-marketing surveillance in Hong Kong. The emerging evidence of persistent cardiac abnormalities in adolescents with post-mRNA vaccine myopericarditis, as demonstrated by cardiac MRI at 3-8 months follow-up, suggests this is far from ‘mild and short-lived’. The potential for longer-term effects requires further study and calls for the strictest application of the precautionary principle in respect of the youngest and most vulnerable children.

  • Although post-vaccination myocarditis appears to be less common in 5-11-year-olds than older children, it is, nonetheless, increased over baseline.

  • In the Pfizer study, 50% of vaccinated children had systemic adverse events, including irritability and fever. Diagnosis of myocarditis is much more difficult in younger children. No troponin levels or ECG studies were documented. Even a vaccinated child in the trial, hospitalized with fever, calf pain and a raised CPK, had no report of D-dimers, anti-platelet antibodies, or troponin levels.

  • In Pfizer’s 5-11s post-authorization conditions, it is required to conduct studies looking for myocarditis and is not due to report results until 2027.

  • Of equal concern are, as yet unknown, negative effects on the immune system. In the 0-4s trial, only seven children were described as having “severe” COVID-19 – six vaccinated and one given placebo. Similarly, for the 12 children with recurrent episodes of infection, 10 were vaccinated against only two who received placebo. These are all tiny figures and much too small to rule out any adverse impacts such as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and other impacts on the immune system.

  • Also unanswered is the question of Original Antigenic Sin. It is of note that in a large Israeli study, those infected after vaccination had poorer cover than those vaccinated after infection. In the Moderna trial, N-antibodies were seen in only 40% of those infected after vaccination, compared with 93% of those infected after placebo.

  • There is evidence of vaccine-induced disruption of both innate and adaptive immune responses. The possibility of developing an impaired immune function would be disastrous for children, who have the most competent innate immunity, which by now has been effectively trained by the circulating virus.

  • Totally unknown is whether there will be any adverse effect on T-cell function leading to an increase in cancers.

  • Also, in terms of reproductive function, limited animal bio-distribution studies showed lipid nanoparticles concentrate in ovaries and testes. Adult sperm donors have showed a reduction in sperm counts particularly of motile sperm, falling by three months post-vaccination and remaining depressed at four to five months.

  • Even for adults, concerns are rising that serious adverse events are in excess of hospitalizations from COVID-19.

D. Informed consent

  • For 5-11s, the JCVI, in recommending a “non-urgent offer” of vaccination, specifically noted the importance of fully informed consent with no coercion.

  • With the low uptake in this age group, the presence of ‘therapy dogs’, advertisements including superhero images and information about child vaccination protecting friends and family all clearly run contrary to the concept of consent, fully informed and freely given.

  • The complete omission of information explaining to the public the different and novel technology used in COVID-19 vaccines compared to standard vaccines, and the failure to inform of the lack of any long-term safety data, borders on misinformation.

E. Effect on public confidence

  • Vaccines against much more serious diseases, such as polio and measles, need to be prioritized. Pushing an unnecessary and novel, gene-based vaccine onto young children risks seriously undermining parental confidence in the whole immunization program.

  • The poor quality of the data presented by Pfizer risks bringing the pharmaceutical industry into disrepute and the regulators if this product is authorized.

In summary, young healthy children are at minimal risk from COVID-19, especially since the arrival of the Omicron variant. Most have been repeatedly exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, yet have remained well, or have had short, mild illness.

As detailed above, the vaccines are of brief efficacy and have known short- to medium-term risks and unknown long-term safety. Data for clinically useful efficacy in small children are scant or absent.

In older children, for whom the vaccines are already licensed, they have been promoted via ethically dubious schemes to the potential detriment of other, and vital, parts of the childhood vaccination program.

For a tiny minority of children for whom the potential for benefit clearly and unequivocally outweighed the potential for harm, vaccination could have been facilitated by restrictive licenses.

Whether following the precautionary principle or the instruction to First Do No Harm, such vaccines have no place in a routine childhood immunization program.

Signed by:

Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMed Sci, Principal, Institute for Cancer Vaccines & Immunotherapy (ICVI)

Professor Anthony Fryer, Ph.D., FRCPath, Professor of Clinical Biochemistry, Keele University

Professor David Livermore, BSc, Ph.D., Retired Professor of Medical Microbiology, UEA

Professor John Fairclough FRCS FFSEM retired Honorary Consultant Surgeon

Lord Moonie,  MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, House of Lords, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State 2001-2003, former consultant in Public Health Medicine

Dr. Abby Astle, MA(Cantab), MBBChir, GP Principal, GP Trainer, GP Examiner

Dr. Michael D Bell, MBChB, MRCGP, retired General Practitioner

Dr. Alan Black, MBBS, MSc, DipPharmMed, Retired Pharmaceutical Physician

Dr. David Bramble, MBChB, MRCPsych, MD, Consultant Psychiatrist

Dr. Emma Brierly, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr. David Cartland, MBChB, BMedSci, General practitioner

Dr. Peter Chan, BM, MRCS, MRCGP, NLP, General Practitioner, Functional medicine practitioner

Michael Cockayne, MSc, PGDip, SCPHNOH, BA, RN, Occupational Health Practitioner

Julie Coffey, MBChB, General Practitioner

John Collis, RN, Specialist Nurse Practitioner, retired

Mr. Ian F Comaish, MA, BM BCh, FRCOphth, FRANZCO, Consultant Ophthalmologist

James Cook, NHS Registered Nurse, Bachelor of Nursing (Hons), Master of Public Health

Dr. Clare Craig, BMBCh, FRCPath, Pathologist

Dr. David Critchley, BSc, Ph.D. in Pharmacology, 32 years of experience in Pharmaceutical R&D

Dr. Jonathan Engler, MBChB, LlB (hons), DipPharmMedDr Elizabeth Evans, MA (Cantab), MBBS, DRCOG, Retired Doctor

Dr. John Flack, BPharm, Ph.D., retired Director of Safety Evaluation at Beecham Pharmaceuticals and retired Senior Vice-president for Drug Discovery SmithKline Beecham

Dr. Simon Fox, BSc, BMBCh, FRCP, Consultant in Infectious Diseases and Internal Medicine

Dr. Ali Haggett, Mental health community work, 3rd sector, former lecturer in the history of medicine

David Halpin, MB BS FRCS, Orthopaedic and trauma surgeon (retired)

Dr Renée Hoenderkampf, General Practitioner

Dr. Andrew Isaac, MB BCh, Physician, retired

Dr. Steve James, Consultant Intensive Care

Dr. Keith Johnson, BA, DPhil (Oxon), IP Consultant for Diagnostic Testing

Dr. Rosamond Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant pediatrician

Dr. Tanya Klymenko, Ph.D., FHEA, FIBMS, Senior Lecturer in Biomedical Sciences

Dr. Charles Lane, MA, DPhil, Molecular Biologist

Dr. Branko Latinkic, BSc, Ph.D., Molecular Biologist

Dr. Felicity Lillingstone, IMD DHS Ph.D. ANP, Doctor, Urgent Care, Research Fellow

Dr. Theresa Lawrie, MBBCh, Ph.D., Director, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, Bath

Katherine MacGilchrist, BSc (Hons), MSc, CEO/Systematic Review Director, Epidemica Ltd.

Dr. Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, MD, FRCP, Consultant Physician, retired

Ahmad K Malik FRCS (Tr & Orth) Dip Med Sport, Consultant Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgeon

Dr. Kulvinder Singh Manik, MBBS, General Practitioner

Dr. Fiona Martindale, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr. S McBride, BSc (Hons) Medical Microbiology & Immunobiology, MBBCh BAO, MSc in Clinical Gerontology, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, FRCP (Edinburgh). NHS Emergency Medicine & Geriatrics

Mr. Ian McDermott, MBBS, MS, FRCS(Tr&Orth), FFSEM(UK), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

Dr. Franziska Meuschel, MD, ND, Ph.D., LFHom, BSEM, Nutritional, Environmental and Integrated Medicine

Dr. Scott Mitchell, MBChB, MRCS, Emergency Medicine Physician

Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH. Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology

Dr. David Morris, MBChB, MRCP(UK), General Practitioner

Margaret Moss, MA (Cantab), CBiol, MRSB, Director, The Nutrition and Allergy Clinic, Cheshire

Dr. Alice Murkies, MD FRACGP MBBS, General Practitioner

Dr. Greta Mushet, MBChB, MRCPsych, retired Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy

Dr. Sarah Myhill, MBBS, retired GP and Naturopathic Physician

Dr. Rachel Nicholl, Ph.D., Medical researcher

Dr. Christina Peers, MBBS, DRCOG, DFSRH, FFSRH, Menopause specialist

Rev Dr. William J U Philip MB ChB, MRCP, BD, Senior Minister The Tron Church, Glasgow, formerly physician specializing in cardiology

Dr. Angharad Powell, MBChB, BSc (hons), DFRSH, DCP (Ireland), DRCOG, DipOccMed, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr. Gerry Quinn, Ph.D. Postdoctoral researcher in microbiology and immunology

Dr. Johanna Reilly, MBBS, General Practitioner

Jessica Righart, MSc, MIBMS, Senior Critical Care Scientist

Mr. Angus Robertson, BSc, MB ChB, FRCSEd (Tr & Orth), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

Dr. Jessica Robinson, BSc(Hons), MBBS, MRCPsych, MFHom, Psychiatrist and Integrative Medicine Doctor

Dr. Jon Rogers, MB ChB (Bristol), Retired General Practitioner

Mr. James Royle, MBChB, FRCS, MMedEd, Colorectal surgeon

Dr. Roland Salmon, MB BS, MRCGP, FFPH, Former Director, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre Wales

Sorrel Scott, Grad Dip Phys, Specialist Physiotherapist in Neurology, 30 years in NHS

Dr. Rohaan Seth, BSc (hons), MBChB (hons), MRCGP, Retired General Practitioner

Dr. Gary Sidley, retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist

Dr. Annabel Smart, MBBS, retired General Practitioner

Natalie Stephenson, BSc (Hons) Paediatric Audiologist

Dr. Zenobia Storah, MA (Oxon), Dip Psych, DClinPsy, Senior Clinical Psychologist (Child and Adolescent)

Dr. Julian Tompkinson, MBChB MRCGP, General Practitioner GP trainer PCME

Dr. Noel Thomas, MA, MBChB, DCH, DObsRCOG, DTM&H, MFHom, retired doctor

Dr. Stephen Ting, MB CHB, MRCP, Ph.D., Consultant Physician

Dr. Livia Tossici-Bolt, Ph.D., Clinical Scientist

Dr. Carmen Wheatley, DPhil, Orthomolecular Oncology

Dr. Helen Westwood MBChB MRCGP DCH DRCOG, General Practitioner

Mr. Lasantha Wijesinghe, FRCS, Consultant Vascular Surgeon

Dr. Damian Wilde, Ph.D., (Chartered) Specialist Clinical Psychologist

Dr. Ruth Wilde, MB BCh, MRCEM, AFMCP, Integrative & Functional Medicine Doctor

[Genthanasia = A Slow Motion Extermination of Undesirable People by Elites] According to UK Data Thousands of People are Dying “Unexpectedly” Every Week in the Post-Covid Era

/

From [Natural News] For the week ending July 8, 2022, 10,232 deaths were recorded by the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics (ONS), 432 of which were recorded as being related to the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19). This is nearly 1,000 more deaths than normal compared to pre-covid levels, a trend that has been going on for at least the past 11 weeks.

“Excess deaths,” as they call them, have been noteworthy ever since Chinese Virus injections were first introduced. Many now believe that the cause is the shot, which is why there have been calls to end the jabbing and boosting agenda.

“This is not just a U.K. phenomenon,” said Dr. John Campbell, PhD, in a July 6, 2022, video. “This is an international phenomenon.”

Dr. Campbell earned his doctorate from the University of Bolton in 2013, with an emphasis on teaching biosciences in the context of national and international nurse education. His YouTube channel, which boasts some 2.39 million subscribers, contains many videos about the Fauci Flu and the lies that are being told about it.

“Way more people are dying than we would expect based on the previous five years,” he says. “What is going on here? This is too many to be a statistical artifact. This is a genuine effect.”

Covid “vaccines” are a form of mass genocide

Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former vice president at Pfizer, has also come forward with claims that Chinese Virus injections are, in fact, responsible for the excess deaths phenomenon now being seen all around the world.

Prior to Operation Warp Speed, death rates were mostly stable and generally predictable. Now, more people are dying than usual, and there is only one obvious culprit: the jabs.

Even if you exclude the deaths that are being blamed on covid and not the jabs, there is still an excess of them that cannot be explained by anything other than the jabs, Campbell says.

“Excluding that data, the excess death rate in 2022 for England and Wales is 16.6 percent combined, and 18.2 percent just in Wales alone,” write Jennifer Margulis and Joe Wang for The Epoch Times.

One young boy, 14-year-old Ted Sanderson, died suddenly at his school, Woodham Academy, on June 21. Sanderson received his covid injections as recommended by the government, and now his life is over.

That same day, another person named Chris Houghton-Rai collapsed while working his job at a Toyota dealership. For 90 minutes, paramedics tried to revive him but were unable to stop his sudden death.

About a week later, a retired professional soccer player named Gary Pearson, who had just taken on a new job as a soccer team manager, collapsed at his home. Two weeks prior, Pearson had received heart surgery and was “expected to make a complete recovery.”

That did not happen, though, as Pearson, who was described by his friends as being “fit and healthy,” died for no apparent reason. Like Houghton-Rai, paramedics tried to revive Pearson but to no avail.

While plandemic-induced stress and isolation may have also played a role in some of the excess deaths, leading to fatal conditions like cancer that were left either undiagnosed or untreated, the biggest elephant in the room is the injections.

Some post-injection deaths are immediate, but others take weeks or even months to develop. It all depends on a person’s immune capacity as well as any pre-existing conditions that may exist.

Neurologist Dr. Tom Lowry, MD, a concussion and musculoskeletal expert based out of San Antonio, says he and his colleagues are likewise seeing an uptick in neurological damage ever since the jabs were introduced – and young people are especially prone to these conditions, he says.

“We should be doing autopsies on every one of these young people,” Lowry is quoted as saying. “If we did, we would know for sure within six months what is actually going on.”

Professor Richard Ennos Says Official data From Scotland for 2021 -2022 ‘Provide Very Strong Evidence for a Causal Relationship’ Between Vaccinations and a Huge Number of Excess Deaths

/

From [JOEL SMALLEY] A dramatic and unexplained resurgence in excess death in Scotland points to the covid-19 injections, it is being claimed.

Retired Edinburgh professor Richard Ennos says official data for 2021 and 2022 ‘provide very strong evidence for a causal relationship’ between the vaccinations and a huge number of excess deaths in the country.

Professor Ennos has written to Siobhian Brown MSP, convener of the Scottish government’s covid-19 recovery committee, calling on her to re-open a public inquiry into the deaths which can only be partially explained by the virus.

Earlier this year, the committee investigated the cause of an unprecedented level of excess death recorded in Scotland from week 21 to week 52 of 2021.

Numbering 4,819, it was 12% above the average – the worst ever recorded.

Recorded deaths so far in 2022 are heading in the same direction, and Professor Ennos suggests they are now a consequence of the booster jab.

In a recent letter to Ms Brown, on July 12, he also expresses his concern that the public inquiry earlier this year into the 2021 excess death figures failed to make any mention of the injections as a potential cause.

He states that of 103 public submissions to the inquiry, more than a third pointed to the jabs as a possible reason for the inflated loss of lives.

He tells Ms Brown: ‘However, in your report to Humza Yousaf, cabinet secretary for health and social care, there was not a single mention of adverse reactions to covid-19 vaccines as a possible cause of the excess death seen Scotland in 2021.

‘This was despite the fact that a number of respondents provided detailed information from peer reviewed scientific papers showing that death is a known adverse reaction to the covid-19 vaccines, and that a variety of mechanisms of action have been established (induction of blood clots, myocarditis etc.).

‘Post mortems have also confirmed that covid-19 vaccination can cause death of recipients, and this is acknowledged by the UK government who have already paid compensation to multiple families of those who have died as a consequence of covid-19 vaccination.

‘Your lack of any reference to covid-19 vaccine adverse reactions as a contributor to excess death in Scotland in 2021 is even more concerning because recent detailed analysis of National Records of Scotland data now suggests a causal relationship between excess death in Scotland and covid-19 vaccinations.’

Professor Ennos states that the argument leading to this conclusion begins with the observation that in the last 32 weeks of 2021, excess death began in different age classes of the Scottish population in a staggered manner, approximately 12 weeks after peak vaccination of that age class.

Beginning with the oldest, this pattern was repeated as the jabs rollout continued down through ever younger age groups.

He suggests there can only be two reasons put forward for the extra deaths: it was the injections or it was a lack of medical care caused either by withdrawal of NHS services, or to patients’ failure to access these services, ‘both consequences of the Scottish government response to covid-19’.

However, he says, there was no consistent rise in excess deaths to point to delayed medical care as a result of long waiting lists.

Instead, what National Records of Scotland data reveal, says Professor Ennos, is a second staggering of excess deaths following the booster (third dose) jab – with 2022 mirroring the pattern of 2021 whereby age group deaths occurred approximately 12 weeks after peak administration of the vaccine. [MORE]

Due to Deaths Caused by COVID Shots Lincoln National, the 5th Largest US Life Insurance Company, Reported a 163% Increase in Death Benefits Paid Under its Group Life Insurance Policies in 2021

/

From [HERE] Five months after breaking the story of the CEO of One America insurance company saying deaths among working people ages 18-64 were up 40% in the third quarter of 2021, I can report that a much larger life insurance company, Lincoln National, reported a 163% increase in death benefits paid out under its group life insurance policies in 2021.

This is according to the annual statements filed with state insurance departments — statements that were provided exclusively to Crossroads Report in response to public records requests.

The reports show a more extreme situation than the 40% increase in deaths in the third quarter of 2021 that was cited in late December by One America CEO Scott Davison — an increase that he said was industry-wide and that he described at the time as “unheard of” and “huge, huge numbers” and the highest death rates that have ever been seen in the history of the life insurance business.

The annual statements for Lincoln National Life Insurance Company show that the company paid out in death benefits under group life insurance polices a little over $500 million in 2019, about $548 million in 2020, and a stunning $1.4 billion in 2021.

From 2019, the last normal year before the pandemic, to 2020, the year of the Covid-19 virus, there was an increase in group death benefits paid out of only 9 percent. But group death benefits in 2021, the year the vaccine was introduced, increased almost 164 percent over 2020.

Here are the precise numbers for Group Death Benefits taken from Lincoln National’s annual statements for the three years:

2019: $500,888,808

2020: $547,940,260

2021: $1,445,350,949

Here are the key numbers for 2021, below, shown on the company’s annual statement that was filed with the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services. These are national numbers, not state-specific:

Lincoln National is the fifth-largest life insurance company in the United States, according to BankRate, after New York Life, Northwestern Mutual, MetLife and Prudential.

The company was founded in Fort Wayne, Indiana in 1905, getting the OK from Abraham Lincoln’s son, Robert Todd Lincoln, to use his father’s name and likeness in its advertising.

It’s now based in Radnor, Pennsylvania.

The annual statements filed with the states do not show the number of claims — only the total dollar amount of claims paid.

Group life insurance policies, in most cases, cover working-age adults ages 18-64 whose employer includes life insurance as an employee benefit.

How many deaths are represented by the 163% increase? It is not possible to determine by the dollar figures on the statements.

But the average death benefit for employer-provided group life insurance, according to the Society for Human Resource Management, is one year’s salary.

If the average annual salary of people covered by group life insurance policies in the United States is $70,000, this may represent 20,647 deaths of working adults, covered by just this one insurance company. This would represent at least 10,000 more deaths than in a normal year for just this one company.

The statements for the three years also show a sizable increase in ordinary death benefits — those not paid out under group policies, but under individual life insurance policies.

In 2019, the baseline year, that number was $3.7 billion. In 2020, the year of the Covid-19 pandemic, it went up to $4 billion, but in 2021, the year in which the vaccine was administered to almost 260 million Americans, it went up to $5.3 billion.

The statements show that the total amount that Lincoln National paid out for all direct claims and benefits in 2021 was more than $28 billion, $6 billion more than in 2020, when it paid out a total of $22 billion, which was less than the $23 billion it paid out in 2019, the baseline year. [MORE]