Why did I write this article?
In May of 2021, I took the second dose of the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine. At the time, I was led to believe that everybody knows the vaccines are safe and effective. I kept hearing that anybody who believed in science should want to get vaccinated.
I used to be a biologist, so of course I believed in science. So I took the vaccine.
If I had known what I know now, I would not have taken it.
At the time, I had no idea of the level of censorship that hides Covid vaccine injuries from the public. At the time, I thought we could trust our health institutions, more or less.
But not all vaccines are the same, and not all vaccines are equally safe. And criticizing the Covid vaccines, does not make one “anti-vax.”
When it comes to the Covid vaccines, there is overwhelming evidence that they lead to much higher rates of injury and death, than what our health institutions, like the CDC, acknowledge and report to the public.
I wrote this article in order to take some of the evidence for this and compile it into one, shareable article.
If you’re a subscriber to this newsletter, some of what I will cover in this article won’t be news to you.
But most people don’t know anything about what’s been going on, because it’s being actively censored.
This article is for them. Please share it with them.
Introduction
On consilience
Let’s first define “consilience,” because we’ll be using it.
Consilience is when evidence from independent, unrelated sources “converge” or are in agreement, to support a conclusion.
In such a case, one would be justified in strongly believing a conclusion even when each piece of evidence is not a “slam dunk” on its own.
An example of consilience in action
Here’s an example. Suppose you host a large party at your house. Some of the guests are people you don’t know.
At the end of the party you go upstairs to your bedroom, and start to take off your earrings. You open up your jewelry box and notice that an expensive diamond necklace is missing.
You do some digging, and eventually evidence converges onto one particular friend of a friend being the culprit. Here’s what you learn:
This person has been arrested in the past for theft and fraud.
He was behind on alimony payments.
A few eyewitnesses saw a man of his description go upstairs at some point during the evening.
You obtain his phone number, and the one time he picked up the phone, as soon as he heard who you were, he hung up. After that, he stopped picking up the phone whenever you called.
Perhaps each of these pieces of evidence by themselves is not a slam dunk, but taken together, you’d be justified in having a strong suspicion that this person stole your necklace.
How consilience applies to this vaccine case
I will argue that if we look at the various pieces of evidence surrounding adverse events from the COVID vaccines, we are in a similar situation.
I’ve compiled multiple pieces of evidence to argue that injuries from the COVID vaccines are grossly underreported.
These include:
1. Testimonies from doctors and nurses
2. Testimonies from the vaccine injured
3. Evidence from medical records or official databases of adverse events
4. Evidence from the vaccine trials themselves
5. Plausible mechanisms of action
6. Evidence from animal studies
7. Evidence of past wrongdoing by Pharma
8. Evidence of corruption or undue influence in our health institutions
Bonus: Explanations for why we are not hearing about this in the media
Each section of this article could be its own book.
There is much to be curious about when it comes to the pandemic
Before we get into each type of evidence, I’ll just say that if you haven’t been paying much attention to these topics, I suspect that some of what I will cover in this article will be shocking or unbelievable to you.
But you’ve probably noticed that some of what’s been going on during the pandemic doesn’t make much sense.
You may have experienced some cognitive dissonance, or perhaps felt curious about what’s been going on, but set it aside for one reason or another. Life gets in the way.
We should all tap into that inner curiosity.
To foster that, I encourage you listen to this clip from Dr. Peter Doshi, a senior editor at The British Medical Journal, a highly prestigious medical journal:
Some excerpts:
I’m saddened that we are super saturated right now in the attitude of “Everybody knows.”
That has shut down intellectual curiosity. And led to self censorship.
So let me start with a few “Everybody knows” examples that I’m not sure we should be so certain about.
Everybody knows that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But if hospitalizations and deaths were almost exclusively occurring in the unvaccinated, why would booster shots be necessary?
Or why would the statistics be so different in the UK? Where most COVID hospitalizations and deaths are among the fully vaccinated?
There’s a disconnect there. There’s something to be curious about. There’s something not adding up.
He continues by talking about the vaccine trials:
Then there’s this. Everybody knows that Covid vaccines save lives. In fact, we‘ve known this from early 2021. The clinical trials proved that to be the case, as you can see here in the quote of a Feb article in the Journal of the American Medical Association. But is it true?
When that statement by prominent public health official was penned, there had been just one death- one death, across the 70,000 Pfizer and Moderna trial participants.
Today we have more data, and you can see that there were similar number of deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups.
The trials did not show a reduction in death, even for Covid deaths, as opposed to other causes… My point is not that I know what the vaccine can and cannot do.
My point is that those who claim the trials showed the vaccines were highly effective in saving lives were wrong.
The trials did not demonstrate this.
By the way, we now have updated numbers from the Pfizer trial. I’ll discuss that later.
Back to Dr. Doshi:
I am one of the academics that argues that these mRNA products which everybody calls vaccines, are qualitatively different than standard vaccines.
So I found it fascinating to learn that Mirriam-Webster changed its definition of “vaccine” early this year.
mRNA products did not meet the definition of “vaccine” that has been in place for fifteen years at Mirriam-Webster… but the definition was expanded such that mRNA products are now vaccines.
I highlight this to ask a question. How would you feel about mandating Covid vaccines if we didn’t call them vaccines? What if these injections were called drugs instead?
So here’s the scenario. We have this drug. And we have evidence that it doesn’t prevent infection. Nor does it stop viral transmission. But the drug is understood to reduce your risk of becoming very sick and dying of Covid.
Would you take a dose of this drug every six months or so, for possibly the rest of your life? If that’s what it took for the drug to stay effective?
By the way, the CDC also changed the definition of “vaccine” on its website. See before and after.
The point is, just because we call it a vaccine doesn’t mean we should assume these new products are just like all other products that get mandated.
Each product is a different product, and if people are ok with mandating something simply because: It’s a vaccine and we mandate other vaccines, so why shouldn’t we mandate this?
I think it’s time we inject some critical thinking into that conversation, and that is what I hope we’re doing today.
Now let’s get into the evidence.
1. Testimonies from doctors and nurses
Let’s start with testimonies from doctors and nurses.
Heart inflammatory conditions like myocarditis and pericarditis are officially recognized as possible adverse events from Covid vaccination, but many in the medical field argue that we are grossly underreporting these events.
In this clip, cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra discusses an abstract in the journal Circulation, showing that biomarkers associated with increased risk of heart attack, increased in patients after vaccination:
These biomarkers are proteins that we can think of as proxies for heart inflammation. Elevated levels of these biomarkers are predictive of more serious conditions like heart attacks in the future. They can also indicate that there is subclinical damage to the heart.
It should be clear that people who have elevated levels of these biomarkers would not get reported as “adverse events” in any of the official databases that are supposed to track adverse events due to the vaccines, because they might not experience any obvious symptoms in the near term. Also, most people are not getting tests done to measure these biomarkers.
Here’s what he said about the findings:
If this is true, then it’s very concerning indeed. But in medicine, in good science, we never rely on one study. We need to replicate these findings.
However, what I will share with you today… is that a few days ago, after this was published, somebody from a very prestigious British institution, cardiology department researcher… contacted me to say that the researchers in this department had found something similar within the coronary arteries, linked to the vaccine...
And they had a meeting and these researchers at the moment have decided they’re not going to publish their findings, because they are concerned about losing research money from the drug industry…
Knowing this information, which is very concerning, Steven Gundry’s paper in Circulation, and also anecdotal evidence; I mean I have a lot of interaction with the cardiology community across the UK and anecdotally I’ve been getting told by colleagues that they are seeing younger and younger people coming in with heart attacks.
More recently, Dr. Malhotra has expressed fear that what we are seeing is just the tip of the iceberg, and that he’s not the only cardiologist that feels that way:
Let’s hear from another doctor.
Dr. Patricia Lee, an ICU physician and surgeon based in California, who obtained her medical degree from University of Southern California and received post-graduate training at Georgetown University and Harvard-affiliated hospitals, reached out to the FDA and CDC after she witnessed a litany of serious harms and deaths from the Covid-19 vaccines.
You can read more about it here. In her letter she wrote:
While causation is difficult to prove definitively, it is my clinical judgement that each of these injuries were caused by a Covid-19 vaccine, because there was no other plausible explanation for these injuries other than the fact that the patients had recently been vaccinated.
And:
It appears statistically improbable that any one physician should witness this many COVID-19 vaccine injuries if the federal health authority claims regarding Covid-19 vaccine safety were accurate.
At first she received no response, but then she reached out to the law firm Siri & Glimstad, which eventually sent a legal letter on her behalf. Within hours, the FDA responded, but sadly their response was about public relations.
She had also “spoken with colleagues who have also had similar experiences in treating patients” but none would publicly acknowledge these injuries because they thought doing so would “fuel vaccine hesitancy” or result in “backlash.”
Since then however, Siri’s firm was contacted by more than a dozen other physicians.
Eleven of them have now come forward with their own declarations, which you can read about here:
Here’s Professor Nikolai Petrovsky, vaccine developer and professor at Flinders University, expressing his concerns about these vaccines:
Now let’s look at a video of healthcare workers testifying before their representatives about what they’re seeing in their hospitals. Start about 1 hour in:
At about 1:01:00, an ICU nurse reports:
I am here to discuss how vaccine reporting has gone on in our hospital. We have gotten very little direction on how to report…
I had a coworker… A young healthy man got the first dose of the vaccine and he had a severe reaction in which his lung partially collapsed…
He was told by the physician in the ER that it was an expected response to the vaccine. So I said Ok well maybe you should try to report that… Is this being reported? We know that he had this event within 24 hours of being vaccinated and I was told by my director that ER should be handling it… I wasn’t given any instruction on how to pursue reporting that.
I’ve definitely noticed over the past several months a sharp uptick in blood clotting disorders in our patients… and any time that is brought up… It’s always brushed aside, it’s not reported or mentioned in patient notes as a possible cause of their admission or their diagnosis.
It’s something that is occasionally passed on from nurse to nurse: Hey, they did get this dose within the past couple weeks. But there is no link being made at this time.
At about 1:04:13, an ICU nurse from a different facility also reported seeing numerous cases of heart issues in young people, and that what she was seeing in the cardiovascular ICU was “terrifying.”
She then described how she was ignorant of the fact that they had a state reporting system until recently; she did know about VAERS, or the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (our national reporting system), but no one knew who was responsible for reporting to VAERS.
She had asked management, physicians, every nurse in the ICU, her charge nurse, and none of them knew.
She added:
I believe that I represent the majority of nurses and doctors in this state that are unaware of the reporting system and I am concerned that is the reason there is mass underreporting.
At about 1:10:24 a third nurse recounts how her husband went to the ER shortly after his first shot because they thought he was having a stroke. When she asked the nurses there (her coworkers) if they had reported the incident, or planned to report, they said no, and said some confusing things along the lines of “You can do what you want but we’re not really trying to tell you what to do. We don’t think you should be reporting.”
She went on to describe how she has noticed multiple patients having blood clots or heart issues anywhere from 3 days to 3-4 weeks after the vaccine.
I’m having multiple people from the booster shots come in three days later- massive heart attacks… When I ask my physicians in the unit, is this related to the vaccine, three days post vaccination, they say no, it’s not related.
She attested that no one really knew much about VAERS in her hospital, or thought to report to it, or knew what they were supposed to be looking for regarding vaccine injuries. In fact they told her that any adverse reactions would only occur within 15 minutes after receiving the vaccine.
I encourage you to listen to the rest of the video which has testimonies from several more people.
Now let’s hear from Dr. Tess Lawrie, a medical doctor with expertise in research analysis who has served as an external consultant for groups at Cochrane and the World Health Organization.
In this interview she talks about why she thinks that the vaccine reporting systems are grossly undercounting adverse events. Start at around 1:10:00 in (the words “vaccine” or “covid” were partially removed to avoid censorship on Youtube):
According to her:
They’re grossly underreported...
The filling in of these forms is so onerous, and… I’m in contact with, well, for example, 40 doctors on the ground in the UK, and all of them have said that they have not reported all the cases that they suspected. They simply do not have the time.
So what we’ve heard from these stories is that doctors or nurses either do not report because they don’t have the time, or don’t even think to report, or are too scared to come forward.
And they’re not just scared to come forward because they might be vilified or labelled “anti vax.” It’s because they could actually lose their license.
Listen to this interview from Dr. James A Thorp, who describes how any healthcare provider who is deemed to be spreading “misinformation” (in the view of their governing board) is in danger of losing their medical license.
Under such conditions, how is it possible that we have not grossly underreported vaccine adverse events?
I’ll end this section with some declarations from doctors or scientists who disagree with the “official narrative” on covid and the vaccines.
There’s this declaration signed by more than 10,000 physicians and medical scientists: More than 10,000 Physicians and Medical Scientists Sign “Rome Declaration” in Protest, Launch New Information Platform
There’s this letter from over one hundred scientists and physicians from all over the world: Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns
And another from a UK group of doctors: Open Letter from UK doctors: Safety and Ethical Concerns Surrounding COVID-19 Vaccination in Children to Dr June Raine, Chief Executive, MHRA
And a letter in BMJ Opinion, from several clinicians and scientists: Why we petitioned the FDA to refrain from fully approving any covid-19 vaccine this year
And most recently, a scathing letter from Professor Edu Qimron, one of Israel’s leading immunologists, to the Israeli Ministry of Health
By the way, how is it possible that this is not getting more coverage by the media?
More on that later.
2. Testimonies from the vaccine injured
Next let’s look at testimonies from people who were injured by the Covid vaccines.
Kyle Warner was a well known professional mountain bike racer. In June 2021, he took the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.
In case youtube ever takes this video down (videos about vaccine injuries regularly get censored), here is a link to this interview on another platform.
I encourage you to listen to the whole interview, but I’d like to call attention to one part in particular. At around 5:25, Kyle says:
I went to the hospital. I said, “Hey, I know this is weird. I just read about myocarditis, pericarditis with the mRNA vaccine. I think I might be having this reaction.”
And they basically just said, “No you’re not… that’s very rare. You’re having an anxiety attack.”
The doctor at the ER didn’t believe him.
Kyle did eventually find a better doctor, but he will probably never ride professionally again.
By the way, the vaccine manufacturers have complete liability protection, so injured people like Kyle can’t sue them for damages.
Because his case became very public, over a thousand other vaccine injured people have since reached out to him, and he recently spoke at a press conference in Washington D.C. I highly recommend you listen to what he had to say there (just over 6 min long):
At the press conference, they invited Anthony Fauci, the directors of the CDC, NIH, and FDA, the CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna, and the representatives of all the states that the injured people who were speaking were from.
None of them showed up.
By the way, in Kyle’s last instagram post, he said that he’s lost friends over the fact that he’s been vaccine injured, and even had a hard time finding a therapist because as soon as they heard “vaccine injury” they said he was crazy.
This makes you wonder: does our current political climate make it more likely or less likely, that people would speak out about vaccine injuries?
Here are some more people who have talked about serious injuries after vaccination:
Brandon Goodwin, former Atlanta Hawks point guard, suffered from blood clots shortly after getting vaccinated.
Musician Eric Clapton, who was worried about speaking out for fear of losing friends and family, and believes fear of reprisal has prevented many from speaking out.
Anecdotally I’ve also heard of a lot of athletes collapsing or dying. More here from Steve Kirsch’s substack:
By the way, if you did a web search on Steve Kirsch, you’ll probably come across his Wikipedia entry.
Before you believe what it says, I suggest you read this:
Steve Kirsch has been heroically vocal about these vaccines, and has frequently put his money where his mouth is.
Next let’s look at the case of Maddie de Garay, who was actually part of a Pfizer clinical trial. She received her second dose on January 20, 2021, and shortly afterwards developed life-altering adverse reactions to the vaccine and is permanently wheelchair bound and needs to get her nutrition through a tube.
Here is her mother’s testimonial:
Aside from the slew of severe symptoms Maddie experienced, what was striking was that one doctor said that her symptoms were due to “functional neurologic disorder,” or anxiety. At one point they even tried to admit her to a mental hospital.
Read more about her case here, and how her injury has not appropriately been acknowledged by the FDA.
By the way, it’s curious that NY Times editor Carlos Tajeda died one day after receiving the Moderna booster, although the NY Times conveniently left that information out from his obituary.
There have been victims in other countries too, and strangely, there’s been a media blackout on those as well.
Here was a protest that happened in South Korea: Protests Erupt In South Korea Over Vaccination Deaths
Here was one in Italy: Italy Holds ‘March of the Vaccine Dead’
Here’s the Testimonies Project, which was started by an Israeli mother.
Lastly, here’s a FB post that WXYZ-TV Channel made in Sep 2021:
WXYZ-TV wanted to get stories of unvaccinated people dying of COVID (cause those are the only idiots getting and dying of COVID right?) for their “journalism,” but people would not play along.
If you look at the comments, you’ll see that most people are talking about someone getting myocarditis or dying because of the vaccine, or getting sick from remdesivir, or getting sick from COVID despite getting vaccinated.
I will say that I randomly looked into one of the posts; it looked like it had been made by a real person with a long history on FB, and her FB page had a post about her mother dying, and there were many non-fake seeming people posting condolences, and when I did a web search of her mother’s name I found a site with information on the memorial service.
Somebody should follow up on all of these. I would love to know which other ones look legit.
By the way someone running for Senate recently queried people on Facebook about whether they knew anyone who had a heart attack within 30 days of getting vaccinated. I know nothing about who this person is, but as of this writing, there are 3.9K comments.
But these are just anecdotes right? So let’s look at what we can glean from more “official sources.”
3. Evidence from medical records or official databases of adverse events
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was set up by the CDC and FDA to track adverse events from vaccines. It’s a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals (or their healthcare providers) to send in reports of their experiences.
We can’t necessarily assess causality from all these reports. These are vaccine associated adverse events or deaths; even if somebody died shortly after receiving a vaccine, we can’t know for certain that the death wasn’t caused by something else without doing an autopsy, for example.
However, it is supposed to act as an early warning signal; it was designed to warn policy makers and individuals of potential risks not detected during clinical trials.
You can look at the VAERS data here, or go to the OpenVAERS project, which is a a more user friendly way to look at the data.
More info on who is behind OpenVAERS:
It’s sad that vaccine injured people were the ones who made the data more browsable.
We have a signal that’s through the roof
According to the VAERS data, the number of deaths is the highest it’s been since we started recording data in 1990:
As of today, there are over over 21,000 COVID vaccine reported deaths, and 1.8 million reports of vaccine adverse events. The number of events reported in VAERS for these Covid vaccines is greater than the number of events for all the previous vaccines combined.
In 1976, they halted the H1N1 (swine) vaccine after 500 Guillan-Barre syndrome cases and 32 people died. More examples of vaccines that were pulled due to safety reasons can be found here.
However, there doesn’t seem to be a stopping condition for these vaccines.
So this looks bad, especially since we’ve been clued in on the fact that there might be underreporting.
Interpreting the VAERS data
Some people make excuses for the high number of reports by saying that “anyone can report to VAERS,” implying that people are intentionally faking reports.
Perhaps. But keep in mind: it not only takes time to make a report, it’s a federal crime to enter a false entry into VAERS. Plus, most of the reports to date have actually been filed by healthcare workers.
And let’s assume we all agree that VAERS is “unreliable” for making any claims about the rate of adverse events from these vaccines. Then that means we have no information on adverse events, which doesn’t mean that there are no adverse events. For more on that, read:
Adverse events are likely highly underreported
There are multiple peer reviewed papers that estimate that the underreporting factor is many times over: see here or here or here or Appendix section A here. In addition, here is a recent preprint, and useful non-peer reviewed articles on this topic: here or here or here or here.
One of the most thorough resources on underreporting is a document produced by entrepreneur and philanthropist Steve Kirsch, biologist Dr. Jessica Rose (more on her later), and statistician Mathew Crawford.
Their study uses multiple methods to arrive at an estimate of the number of Covid vaccine deaths in America, and an under-reporting factor of about 41X.
The document contains links to studies in the peer reviewed literature that arrive at similar estimates (page 2).
By the way, Steve Kirsch has offered a $1M academic grant to anyone who can show that their analysis was flawed by a factor of 4 or more in either direction; see here.
And here was another, independent way of arriving at the conclusion that VAERS in underreported:
Some have argued that we’d expect to see an uptick in reports recently (compared to previous vaccine rollouts) just because the COVID vaccines have been highly publicized and widely disseminated.
This seems plausible. On the other hand, it’s difficult to imagine how this would overcome all the forces that would lead to underrerporting:
Many people don’t even know about VAERS or V-Safe, which is a voluntary smartphone-based safety surveillance system for adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination. If you get vaccinated, ideally you would have been told about V-safe, but many people I’ve talked to who were vaccinated have not heard about it. By the way, the CDC is being sued to release the V-Safe data.
As we heard from some healthcare workers in the “1- Testimonies from doctors and nurses” it seems like at least in some hospitals, no one knows who is supposed to be the one reporting.
When submitting to VAERS online, you need to do it in one sitting. See “Option 1- Report Online to VAERS” here. If you’re inactive for 20 minutes, all the information gets erased. If you don’t complete it in 30 minutes, you have to start over.
As we heard earlier, many doctors don’t have the time to report to VAERS.
Once an entry is submitted, it gets vetted. There are people whose job it is to make sure that there are no duplicate entries (for example that a doctor and family member of someone aren’t both submitting for the same person).
If you do report an adverse event in V-Safe, depending on the answers you give, you might get a call from the CDC and they’ll tell you to report that adverse event to VAERS. Many people don’t do that.
Because of societal pressure and massive amounts of media and government messages screaming that the vaccines are “exceptionally safe and effective,” many people, including doctors, might not even let themselves consider the possibility that a health issue or death could be due to the vaccines.
Relatedly, if the vaccines cause issues that show up after many months or years, it seems highly unlikely that people would think to attribute the vaccine as a potential cause. It took several years to realize thalidomide led to birth defects. It also took decades to make the link between cigarettes and lung cancer.
After somebody dies, someone, perhaps the spouse or doctor of the deceased, would have to have the wherewithal to report the death to VAERS. It just seems highly doubtful that this would happen in most cases, given that most people in grief are… preoccupied.
If you’d like to hear more about VAERS, listen to this interview with Dr. Jessica Rose (see her CV here):
They discuss many other things besides VAERS, and their conversation is fascinating. You can find time stamps here. When asked about estimating the underreporting factor:
So I made this calculation; my estimate was 31X which means whatever number reports from VAERS you have to multiply by 31. I came to this estimation by using the Pfizer Phase 3 clinical trial data… Steve Kirsch has also done this, using a different data set… and he came up with 41. More recently a buddy of ours used CMS data, came up with 44… and Ronald Kostoff has also estimated this and his is 100.
So it’s somewhere between 31 and 100, we think.
This is a fairly narrow range for having used such diverse methods. But she continues:
Even though the underreporting factor is very much a real thing…
We don’t even need it in this case, if we’re talking about reasons why these rollouts should have stopped back in January, in terms of safety.
At around 1:15:37 they discuss back when around 50 deaths in VAERS would have been enough to take a vaccine off the market, back when “the FDA was still functioning as a regulatory body,” as Dr. Rose put it.
At around 2:16:13, they discuss a paper on myocarditis events from VAERS that Dr. Rose had published with cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough.
The paper had been accepted in the journal Current Problems in Cardiology, had passed peer review, and was up as a preprint for awhile (and got a lot of public attention), but then was inexplicably pulled without any notice to the authors.
This is highly unusual. Usually if a paper is retracted it’s because of some major error(s) or misconduct like data fabrication. In this case, the reason given was, in a nutshell, “we’re not publishing your paper because we don’t have to.”
As Dr. Rose put it:
It’s written in their rule book that during the publication process that it’s their right not to publish… So they decided to act on that “right.” We’re in litigation now; we suspect tortious interference, because something is really weird here…
But one other thing I’d like to add to this saga is that this happened… this paper got yanked… five days before my FDA meeting in front of the advisory panel to address injecting 5-11 year olds… My paper actually provided evidence that showed that that’s probably not a good idea, because myocarditis rates are really above background in kids…
I don’t believe in coincidences.
Vaccine-induced heart inflammation
There have been several more studies that have come out related to serious heart inflammatory conditions like myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination, and these indicate that the rates are much higher than what’s reported by our health institutions like the CDC. The rate is particularly high in young men.
Study 1
Here is a study, which looked at health insurance data and found that the incidence of myopericarditis was consistent with other nations’ estimates; namely, for men between the ages of 12-17 after dose 2, it was roughly in 1 in 2700, and for men between the ages of 18-24, it was roughly 1 in 1900.
Their conclusion: The “true incidence of myopericarditis is markedly higher than the incidence reported to US advisory committees.” More on this study here and here, which compares the numbers from this study with what the CDC claims.
Study 2
Here is an article on data that’s come out of Hong Kong which suggests that 1 in 2680 young men develop myocarditis or pericarditis after vaccination with Comirnaty (Pfizer vaccine):
Remember the reports of all the athletes collapsing? We were told from our health officials that myocarditis or pericarditis after these vaccines is “extremely rare.” 1 in 2680 is not “rare.”
Study 3
And last, but certainly not least, let’s look at this paper that came out recently: Risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmias associated with COVID-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection
Some key points about this study:
It was by investigators at the University of Oxford and published in Nature Medicine, a highly prestigious journal.
It combined the English National Immunisation (NIMS) Database of COVID-19 vaccination, which includes data on vaccine doses for all people vaccinated in England, and linked this data to national data for mortality, hospital admissions and SARS-CoV-2 infection, to examine the associations between the first and second doses of the vaccines.
One of the key charts was from Fig. 2, which showed that the rate of myocarditis in those who have had two doses of Moderna (orange) and are under 40, is higher than those who had SARS-CoV-2 infection (pink):
It’s even worse for young men. The authors recently updated their paper to include a chart that separated out the men. These results show that dose 2 of the AstraZeneca vaccine, dose 2 and 3 of the Pfizer vaccine, and dose 1 and 2 of the Moderna vaccine, have more myocarditis than infection (info on dose 3 of AstraZeneca and Moderna was left out because there wasn’t enough data):
Peach is the AstraZeneca vaccine, green is Pfizer, purple is Moderna, pink is SARS-CoV-2 test positivity. The results would likely be even worse for certain subgroups of men, like teens or men in their twenties, based on what we saw from the other studies.
Some have argued that even though the Covid vaccines could lead to myocarditis or pericarditis, that the rate of these conditions is higher under SARS-CoV-2 infection- but these results show that this is not necessarily the case, and that for some groups, the rate is actually higher with vaccination.
Moreover the vaccines don’t even prevent infection anyway and we don’t have data on whether vaccination somehow lessens your chances of heart conditions from infection. Getting vaccinated might mean you subject yourself to heart risk from both vaccination, and from when you invariably get infected.
Also remember consilience? This is curious:
You can see the results for yourself on Google Trends.
Moreover, and this is really important, many people who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 (in the pink column) would not have been documented so they would not have gotten counted in that pink column. In fact, I fully expect that a lot of people who have been infected might not have even taken a test. So when calculating the incidence of these events, the denominator for the “SARS-CoV-2 positive test” is likely higher in reality. That would bring the incidence rate down. In other words, that last column in the chart (pink) would go down.
Why does Moderna have higher incidence of myocarditis? Well, it has a higher concentration of mRNA compared to Pfizer. These charts suggest that the incidence depends on the concentration of mRNA (more on this later, when we talk about mechanisms of action).
Given that incidence of bad outcomes is dose dependent, this should make us pause about the fact that many countries are advocating for booster doses, despite the lack of any trial data studying their efficacy and safety.
This study only applies to those that had observable heart symptoms. But remember cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra from earlier? He talked about subclinical damage to the heart, which is damage that has not yet been diagnosed because it does not have obvious symptoms. How many people have subclinical damage, which will only show up months or years down the road?
This study only looked at conditions related to heart inflammation. We know that these vaccines are associated with many other types of adverse events, such as Bell’s palsy, anaphylaxis, thrombocytopenia, anaphylaxis, neurological symptoms, and even changes in women’s menstrual cycles. As time goes on, we might see more data like this for some of these other adverse effects as well.
The emergence of omicron changes the risk calculations even further. There’s a lot that could be said here, but from everything we know so far it seems to be much less dangerous than previous strains.
I am going to guess that most people won’t read this whole study, so I’ll include this video which summarizes some of the findings (note, this was made before the update stratifying the data by sex):
CDC recommendations are dangerous, and we’re being gaslit
Many nations in Europe (including most of the Scandinavian countries) have either pulled or restricted the use of the Moderna vaccine based on the myopericarditis findings. Meanwhile, our CDC is still recommending these vaccines in children.
I think the CDC budget is over $8 billion. What the hell are they doing with that budget?
We’re also being gaslit with media articles claiming that these incidences of myocarditis are “mild.” Except that damage to the heart is likely permanent, because as far as we know, heart cells don’t regenerate, or at the very least, if regeneration happens, it is very slow.
Also tell that to the the people who have actually been affected by this:
We have no data on how vaccine-induced heart inflammation will affect lifespan or quality of life years down the road. So anyone who says that they know that these kids will be “just fine,” is lying or deluded.
Deaths of children reported in VAERS are getting ignored by the CDC
Again, what’s the stopping condition for these vaccines? Has the CDC even acknowledged one death due to the vaccines?
They’ve certainly been made aware of some. For example, here’s an example of a 13-year old Michigan boy, Jacob Clynick, who died of myocarditis in June 2021, just three days after his second dose of the Pfizer Covid vaccine.
The CDC has said that they would be investigating the death; see page 2 of these emails, which were obtained by Judicial Watch. That was over 6 months ago.
More examples of kids whose deaths were reported to VAERS here.
Estimating the effect of vaccination on all-cause mortality, from other data
What’s the rate of death, or all-cause mortality, in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated?
All-cause mortality is a measure of death from any cause (could be COVID, heart attack, etc). It’s an important number to look at when trying to assess how well a health policy is doing, such as vaccination, because it is the least subject to manipulation.
Why do I mention manipulation?
Well, the “deaths due to COVID” numbers are unreliable because they are defined as cases where at the time of death, the person had a COVID positive diagnosis; so they could have died from something else, like a car accident, or cancer.
This is not conspiracy theory; statements from health officials here and here.
One of the reasons this happens, by the way, is that hospitals have financial incentives to inflate the COVID numbers because they get government money with each COVID diagnosis.
Even the definition of “vaccinated” has often been manipulated. Depending on which sources you look at, “fully vaccinated” usually means people who received their second dose of either the Modern or Pfizer Covid vaccine, or their first dose of the J&J Covid vaccine over 14 days ago. Partially vaccinated cases are often excluded from analyses.
Anyway, here’s an article that tries to look at the effect of vaccination on all-cause mortality, using CDC data, and data from the Office of National Statistics in England:
COVID-vaccines: in search of all-cause mortality
What it finds is that the CDC data is obfuscatory, and that the English data, though difficult to interpret, contains some worrying signals that all-cause mortality could be higher in the vaccinated, especially in those under 60 years of age.
4. Evidence from the vaccine trials themselves
Most of the data trying to estimate the rate of adverse events or deaths from these vaccines are from observational data, which can be difficult to interpret. The little randomized controlled trial (RCT) data we do have comes from the vaccine trial data themselves. So let’s look at what they found.
By the way, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that we should take any results from the trials with a grain of salt, which I will get into later in the “Evidence of wrongdoing in the past by Pharma” section.
Pfizer trial data
We’ll focus on the Pfizer trial data, as well as redacted versions of the documents the FDA used for its basis for approving the Comirnaty version of the Pfizer vaccine.
I will just summarize some key points but for a detailed look, see this: Did the Pfizer Trial Show the Vaccine Increases Heart Disease Deaths?
During the “blinded” phase of the trial, which is the portion of the trial when no one knows whether they have gotten the vaccine or the placebo, there were 29 deaths. 15 people died in the vaccine group and 14 died in the placebo group.
Once the emergency use authorization (EUA) was given for the vaccines, the trial participants were given the option to learn which group they were in, and placebo participants were given the option to be vaccinated.
After unblinding, 3 more people from the original vaccine group died, and 2 placebo group participants decided to get vaccinated, and then died. Arguably their deaths should get counted in the “vaccinated” group.
Later, the FDA released a (redacted) version of the documents it had used to approve the Pfizer vaccine, which contained more deaths than in the trial report. You can read more about why that might be here, in the section “Reconciling the clinical trial report with the FDA approval basis.”
In the end, we end up with 36 deaths, 21 in the vaccine and 15 in the placebo group.
On a relative basis the “six-month” mortality rate comes out to be about 31.2% higher in the vaccine group. You can see how this was calculated in the “Is the increase in mortality significantly significant” section of this article.
This means that even if there were some reduction of illness or death due to COVID, this might come at a cost of increased illness and death from the vaccines themselves.
More on the trial results in this video here, which was made by a group of independent Canadian doctors and scientists.
On “statistical significance”
Now, this result does not happen to be “statistically significant.”
People often use arguments like “but it’s not statistically significant” to try to discount results. I even hear people with PhDs or MDs say this, because somewhere in their schooling they are (falsely) taught that results need to be “statistically significant” to be “real.”
But even if a result is not statistically significant, it still remains the best available estimate for the effect in question. This is just common sense. “Statistically insignificant” does not mean that there is zero effect. More on statistical significance here.
So these results are red flags. If I were in the FDA, and cared about people’s health, the way I would read the Pfizer trial results is that they were consistent with the possibility that the vaccine caused a 31.2% increased risk of mortality, and it was completely reasonable to want to wait longer to see how the data played out over time.
Moreover, if there was something about the vaccines that was increasing one’s chances for all-cause morality, it could be compounded by booster shots, the safety of which has not been studied in any trials.
5. Plausible mechanisms of action
In the last section I alluded to “something about the vaccines that was increasing one’s chances for all-cause morality.”
We have plausible mechanisms of action for why the vaccines could cause such a diverse array of serious harms.
The Covid vaccines work by instructing your body to create something called the spike protein, and there are multiple studies showing that the spike protein is cytotoxic, which I’ve previously written about here.
What we don’t know is why some people experience such severe reactions from the vaccines, and others don’t experience anything obvious. It might be that some people produce more spike protein than others, or perhaps in some cases there has been accidental intravenous injection (see this).
It’s also unclear why the two mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) are more associated with heart inflammation, while the adenoviral viral vector based vaccines like the J&J or AstraZeneca vaccines are more associated with blood clotting issues, when all of them encode for the spike protein (although there are some differences between them).
When you look at VAERS, all the vaccines do have each of these conditions associated with them (heart inflammation, clotting), but we don’t know why the rates for each of the conditions seem higher for some vaccines more than others.
There could, of course, be other things going on with the adenoviral viral vector based vaccines like the J&J or AstraZeneca vaccines, and we also can’t rule out quality control or contamination issues. The differences might also have something to do with the dynamics of how spike protein is produced; for example, perhaps in a vaccine like Moderna, which has a higher concentration of mRNA compared to the Pfizer one, we get a sudden spike in spike protein (pun intended), while the adenoviral viral vector based vaccines lead to a more steady production of spike protein over a longer period of time.
We don’t know, because the vaccine companies were not required to study how much spike protein gets produced in the body, or for how long, or how much it varies across individuals, or how long it stays in the body, or where in the body it ends up, etc.
Other plausible mechanism of action are discussed here, here, and here.
On top of that, this study done in mice showed that the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) used to encase the mRNA vaccines might be highly inflammatory:
6. Evidence from animals studies
In addition to the study mentioned in the last section, there was another study done in mice which showed that injection with the Pfizer covid vaccine led to all sorts of heart and liver pathologies:
By the way, if you read this paper carefully, you’ll notice that the descriptions of the data often don’t match the data itself. I suggest you look at the data before reading the descriptions, which might bias your interpretations of the data. You might also notice weird things going on with some of the scales in the graphs.
Oh and don’t forget to look at the figures in the supplementary materials, especially the last one.
In fact, this paper offended me as a scientist. I wrote about this paper here:
We’ve missed the real story with this paper on the Pfizer vax
7. Evidence of wrongdoing in the past by Pharma
It’s almost comical that this needs to be said, but Big Pharma is not your friend.
If you want to dive more into this, I recommend this podcast with Dr. John Abramson, author of Overdosed America, and the upcoming book Sickening. I’ve also heard good things about Bad Pharma, by Ben Goldacre, though full disclosure: I haven’t finished this book.
And this article by Dr. Jason Fung is an excellent introduction into the way in which money from pharmaceutical companies influences doctors.
There is too much that could be said about the pharmaceutical industry, including its role in the opioid epidemic, but I’ll just list some key points about the companies that have produced the vaccines that are currently available in the U.S.
That would be Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna.
Pfizer
Pfizer has paid some of the biggest fines in corporate history. Take a look at the past violations from Pfizer and its subsidiaries: here.
On November 2021, The British Medical Journal (BMJ), a very prestigious medical journal, released a bombshell report from a whistleblower.
Ventavia was hired as a research contractor for the Pfizer vaccine trial, and one of the regional directors for Ventavia reported that the company had falsified data and prematurely unblinded trial participants, among other infractions.
This whistleblower submitted dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails. Several other employees for Ventavia have also corroborated the findings.
Moreover, the FDA was notified, but did nothing.
You can hear more about it here:
Absolutely shocking but… not that surprising if you look at the history of research integrity from the pharmaceutical industry going back many years…
The BMJ don’t do these investigations and publish them unless they’re very thorough, and this individual, this lady’s allegations, have been independently verified by two other employees…
It’s obviously also very worrying… that it’s not picked up- this should be international news, major international news. You know that Pfizer trial, that pivotal trial… because of that data, millions and millions of people have taken the vaccine.
So the problem is… clinical decisions are being made on incomplete, biased, and in many cases, potentially corrupted data.
The Canadian Covid Care Alliance, a group of independent Canadian scientists and doctors, produced these helpful slides about the Pfizer vaccine and all the problems with its clinical trials:
Video overview of the slides here.
And here were some Swedish doctors who also had concerns:
Sweden: 16 Doctors Sign Petition to Stop Pfizer Vaccine Roll out Over Suspected Fraud
Johnson & Johnson
Johnson & Johnson recently used a quirk of Texas state law to spin off a new subsidiary called LTL, in order to dump its avalanche of lawsuits onto it.
They were being sued for baby powder tainted with asbestos.
Here was a case where they paid $70 million to settle charges for bribing doctors.
Here’s another one, this time for $2.2 billion, for some more minor infractions.
More violations from Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries: here.
Moderna
Moderna, formerly known as ModeRNA, is relatively new. The company’s only commercial product is its COVID mRNA vaccine.
Before the pandemic, Moderna was in danger of hemorrhaging investors.
From 2016 right up until the emergence of the pandemic, Moderna was in turmoil, its stock was slumping, all while they were shedding key executives, top talent, and losing partners and investors.
And right up until the pandemic, their mRNA technology had had persistent safety problems.
There is little, if any, evidence that those once-well-recognized safety concerns were addressed prior to operation “Warp Speed.”
COVID-19 was a hail-Mary for Moderna.
8. Evidence of corruption or undue influence in our health institutions
Medical journals and researchers
Is it a problem that doctors, scientists, medical journals, teaching hospitals, and university medical schools can accept money from the pharmaceutical industry?
A former editor of the British Medical Journal describes how Pharma can cleverly use medical journals to its own advantage. And this review article investigates whether Pharma funding leads to more outcomes favorable for the funder (spoiler alert: it does).
Is it a problem that when drug companies submit their trial data to science journals, they own the data, and the peer reviewers and editors of the journal don’t get to actually see the raw data? So they have to take the drug companies for their word?
And is it a problem that most doctors don’t seem to know this?
Again, from the interview with Dr. John Abramson:
When a drug company sponsors a clinical trial, and they do the analysis and they write up a manuscript… and they send it to a medical journal and it gets peer-reviewed, and doctors are trained that they should trust peer-reviewed articles and that’s how the system works. The peer-reviewers and the editors of the medical journals don’t get to see the data. They have to take the word of the drug companies that they’ve presented the data accurately and reasonably completely. And you only get to see it in litigation, five years later…
He goes into more detail on this in his book Overdosed America, which I highly recommend.
By the way pharmaceutical companies also give money to the editors of prestigious medical journals. And many medical journals depend on the drug industry to pay for advertisements. Advertising is an important revenue stream for these journals, and industry spent a combined $637 million in 2016 to buy ads in medical journals, the majority of which were ads to market drugs to doctors.
More on the influence that Pharma has on medical journals and academic investigators here, here, here and here.
And watch an interview on this topic with Dr. Marcia Angell, Harvard Medical School faculty member and former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine: here.
Global health organizations
There are various global health organizations like the WHO, as well as non-profits and “public-private partnerships” that have enormous influence over global health. A discussion of them could fill a multivolume book, but I’ll just list some useful links here:
Covid-19, trust, and Wellcome: how charity’s pharma investments overlap with its research efforts
Private research funders court controversy with billions in secretive investments
WHO: Do financial contributions from ‘pharma’ violate WHO Guidelines?
L’OMS: Bateau ivre de la santé publique (translation: The WHO: Drunken boat of public health)
WHO Voluntary contributions by fund and by contributor, 2020
U.S. health institutions
The pharmaceutical/health products industries spent $266 million on lobbying in Washington in 2021 alone.
A 2007 study in the Emory Corporate Governance and Accountability Review summarized how compromised federal health officials have transformed the NIAID, NIH, CDC, and FDA into Pharma subsidiaries.
And here’s a 2019 report on the corporate capture of our policymakers.
Let’s dig into specific institutions.
The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety and efficacy of drugs and other products.
They do not test drug themselves. Drug manufacturers get to test their own drugs, and submit their results to the FDA to review. More here.
The FDA used to be entirely funded by taxpayer money, but today nearly half of the FDA’s budget comes from the very companies it is supposed to regulate.
FDA advisers can accept money from pharmaceutical companies, which creates incentives to “play nice” with them.
Drug companies can buy access to invitation-only meetings where they can meet with FDA officials and possibly influence them.
Roughly 32% of drugs approved by the FDA between 2001-2010 were later found to have a safety issue, according to a Yale-led study. The FDA has had a history of approving unsafe drugs, and all signs point to the problem getting worse.
The FDA (and other institutions) can make journalists compliant.
The FDA has promised “full transparency” on Covid vaccines. And yet, a group of more than 30 scientists and doctors had to sue the FDA to get it to release all the data and documents it relied upon to license Pfizer’s Covid vaccine.
The FDA’s response? First, it asked a federal judge for 55 years to fully release the data. That’s a rate of 55 pages per month. Then later, the FDA doubled down and asked for 75 years to fully release the data.
This, despite the fact that it took precisely 108 days for the FDA to review all the documents throughly enough to ensure that the Pfizer vaccine was safe and effective for licensure.
Luckily, the federal judge recently rejected the FDA’s request and ordered them to produce all the data at a rate of 55,000 pages per month. We’ll see what’s in those documents, but the first batch of documents released reveals that Pfizer actually had to hire more people in order to keep up with tracking all the adverse events being reported.
We already mentioned Maddie de Garay earlier, in the “2- Testimonies from the vaccine injured” section. As mentioned, her life-altering injuries were ignored by the FDA (as well as the CDC and NIH):
Speaking of kids, when the FDA was deciding on whether to approve Pfizer for children, a voting member of the FDA advisory committee admitted that we wouldn’t know how safe the Pfizer Covid vaccine was until we started administering it. His exact words were: "We're never gonna learn about how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it. That's just the way it goes." Video here.
Two top FDA officials, including the head of the FDA’s vaccine center, resigned back in Septermber, and it was speculated that it was over the issue of political pressure to authorize boosters in young people. In fact, the FDA chose to bypass its expert advisory committee and authorize boosters for children between 12 and 15 years of age.
At least the FDA is consistent: recently the FDA and CDC advised boosters for Omicron when (1) there is no clinical data supporting it, (2) in the past they had said they would not accept vaccine efficacy less than 50% and (3) Omicron, by all accounts, appears to be much milder than the previous strains and it’s unclear whether we need a vaccine for it. More here:
There’s a “revolving door” between Pharma and regulatory agencies. If regulators can leave the FDA for high-paying Pharma jobs, they might go easy on pharmaceutical companies in order to stay in their good graces.
I wonder if this is an example:
Recently, Biden picked Dr. Robert Califf as FDA Chief, despite the fact that he’s made millions as a consultant in the pharmaceutical industry and holds millions more in Pharma investments (see here or here).
We could go on, but hopefully you get the point.
The CDC is supposed to “protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S.”
Remember the V-Safe app data I mentioned earlier in the “3- Evidence from medical records or official databases of adverse events” section?
The CDC is being sued to release that data to the public. Apparently it contains 119 million entries.
Like the FDA, the CDC receives money from companies. This is often under the guise of “public-private partnerships.”
Here’s a list of their partners. The list not only includes pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Gilead, but also includes Facebook, Google, McDonalds and Coca-Cola.
Just like with other regulatory agencies, there’s a revolving door. Example here.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which sets the U.S. adult and childhood immunization schedules, is full of members that own vaccine patents or stock in vaccine companies, or receive money from vaccine manufacturers.
More here, for an overview of some of the conflicts of interests, and even accounts of data manipulation.
The Office of Inspector General, which is responsible for reducing fraud or abuse of our regulatory agencies, found that the CDC often didn’t comply with its own ethics requirements (see here and here).
A Congressional Government Reform Committee report criticized the FDA and CDC for routinely allowing scientists with conflicts of interest to serve on the advisory committees that influence vaccine policy.
In 2016, The Hill published a letter by more than a dozen senior CDC scientists charging that the agency was participating in research fraud.
In 2010, there was a scandal where Congress found that the CDC had deliberately manipulated scientific documents about the safety of Washington D.C. drinking water.
The CDC seems to have a cozy relationship with Pfizer.
I mentioned earlier that the CDC has said that they would be investigating the death of 13-year old boy Jacob Clynick; see page 2 of these emails, which were obtained by Judicial Watch. That was over 6 months ago.
More examples of kids whose deaths are being ignored here.
Like the FDA, the CDC is also pushing for boosters, despite no supporting clinical data. In fact, they don’t seem data-driven at all. As Dr. Marty Makary put it:
Remarkably, despite having 21,000 employees, the CDC is still unable to provide the key COVID statistics we need to inform public policy. The agency has not released data on natural-immunity reinfections, and chief Rochelle Walensky falsely said on “Fox News Sunday” that with Omicron, “prior infection protects you less well” than vaccination. I’d love to see that data.
Most alarming, two years into the pandemic, the CDC has not been able to tell us how many people are in the hospital for COVID versus with COVID. Reports from New York City and Miami Jackson Memorial Hospital are among many finding that the majority of COVID hospitalizations are primarily for other conditions — but when patients are admitted and tested, they’re found to have an incidental COVID infection.
More on how Covid deaths are counted and manipulated: here.
Speaking of a lack of data, why do we still not know what proportion of the U.S. population has already been infected with SARS-CoV-2? It wouldn’t be that difficult to randomly sample people for evidence of past infection. Wouldn’t this be useful information to know?
Reminder that the CDC budget is over $8 billion.
Then there’s evidence of sheer ineptitude. Here was an account from biologist Joanna Masel, on how frustrating it was to deal with CDC staff:
More here:
By the way, the CDC director recently hired a PR firm. They’re gonna need it.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIAID is supposed to conduct and support “basic and applied research to better understand, treat, and ultimately prevent infectious, immunologic, and allergic diseases.”
Since Dr. Anthony Fauci took charge of the NIAID in 1984, the prevalence of chronic allergic and autoimmune disease has only increased.
Instead of researching the causes of this explosion of allergic conditions, Fauci has funneled most of his $6.1 billion budget to the development of new drugs. He promotes the relationship with Pharma as a “public-private partnership” (see 34:06 here).
Pharmaceutical companies routinely pay extravagant royalties to Dr. Fauci and his employees at NIAID.
See:
The way it works is as follows: first, NIAID begins the process of drug discovery in its own labs. Then clinical trials for these drugs are farmed out to a network of some 1300 academic “principal investigators” (PIs), or researchers, who conduct the human trials at university-affiliated research centers and hospitals. These PIs receive funds from the NIAID. Then after these researchers develop a potential new drug, NIAID transfers some or all of its share of the intellectual property to private pharmaceutical companies, through HHS’s Office of Technology Transfer. The researchers (PIs) and their universities can also claim their share of the patents, which cements their loyalty to the NIAID (and Fauci).
Once the drug gets to market, the pharmaceutical company pays royalties through an informal scheme that allows Pharma to funnel profits from the drug sales to the NIAID officials who worked on the product. This is essentially a form of legalized kickbacks.
So Dr. Fauci and his employees personally pocket money from drugs they helped developed at taxpayers’ expense.
Emails that were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request made by the group American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) revealed that Fauci and the NIH director Francis Collins colluded to shut down dissenting views on lockdowns from highly credentialed epidemiologists.
Director of NIH Francis Collins emails Fauci and CCs Lawrence Tabak, Deputy Ethics Counselor at NIH The three “fringe” epidemiologists referenced in the email were professors from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford (here, here, and here).
These three epidemiologists had launched the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for focused protection of high-risk individuals rather than blanket lockdowns. To date, tens of thousands of scientists and doctors have signed the declaration.
Collins apparently felt that he knew all he needed to know about lockdowns, and didn’t want to hear the opinions of other scientists or doctors.
The response to the above email from Fauci referenced a piece from WIRED as an example of the “quick and devastating published takedown” that Collins wanted.
Fauci’s behavior in response to the COVID pandemic has some striking similarities to how he handled the AIDS crisis; he has focused on vaccines or expensive drugs (like remdesivir) that would help make pharmaceuticals money, over other interventions like cheap health measures that people could take to improve their health outcomes, or generic drugs that are off patent (would not make Pharma any money) that could treat COVID.
His role in the Wuhan lab leak needs to be investigated. At the very least, we should all be asking why the NIH was trying to conceal any documents related to the lab leak; The Intercept had to sue for their release.
If even a fraction of this were true, it begs the question: how are we not hearing more about this in the media?
That gets into what’s wrong with our media.
Bonus: Explanations for why we are not hearing about this in the media
This section is a little different. It’s not here as part of the evidence for vaccine adverse events being underreported per say, but I thought I needed to address how it could be that we haven’t heard much about this from the media.
If Covid vaccines were actually harming and even killing significant numbers of people, how is it possible that this wouldn’t get covered in the media? This begs for some kind of explanation.
Censorship, and the merger of state, media, and tech
So much could be said about the amount of money pharmaceutical companies spend in advertising, but I suggest you listen to the aforementioned podcast with Dr. John Abramson, if you haven’t already. Here’s a summary.
Oh, and this is fun:
Here is an ad brought to you by Pfizer #ScienceWillWin. Pfizer, I mean “Science,” will save you from those pesky conspiracy theories:
Then there’s what journalist Sharyl Attkisson calls “Astroturf,” which is when political, corporate, and special interests disguise themselves to publish ads and articles to smear or “debunk” those who disagree with them.
Her TED talk from 2015 is still highly relevant today:
By the way, it seems like Attkisson herself was smeared by Wikipedia.
Here’s what Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has said about how much he trusts the website he helped create:
Remember also what Wikipedia did to entrepreneur and philanthropist Steve Kirsch, and others.
Then there’s The Trusted News Initiative (TNI), which includes organizations like the BBC, Facebook, Twitter, Associated Press, Reuters, Washington Post, etc.
The TNI was originally started to battle “disinformation which threatens human life or disrupts democracy during elections,” but since the era of Covid it’s been weaponized to swamp out any dissent from the mainstream Covid narrative, and vilify individual scientists and doctors (example here).
Watch this short video about it here:
Also compare the search results you get for something like “vaccine heart attack” in google vs duckduckgo. Your results may vary, but when I did the search in google, almost every article downplayed the risk of heart attacks from vaccines (all but one), whereas in duckduckgo, 7 out of 10 of the articles were either more balanced, or were warnings from cardiologists about the vaccines.
Maybe it’s cause Google is also a pharmaceutical company
By the way, if you ever search for anything controversial about COVID, you’ll probably get shown a barrage of “fact check” articles. How comforting, to know that fact checkers are protecting us from Fake News and “misinformation.”
Want to become a fact checker? Here’s a job description:
Although fact checker is “generally considered an entry-level job,” the people who are hired to do this “have strong research skills” (whew!) and are “extremely detail-oriented” (oh ok!) and “Some employers may require fact checkers to have a Bachelor's degree in journalism, English, or communications. However, internships may also be available if you have a high school diploma.”
Apparently this qualifies you to “fact check” dissenting scientists or doctors with PhDs or MDs. More on that, by evolutionary biologist Heather Heying:
I also broke down some of the “fact check” articles about spike protein in Part III here; I suspect some of them were written by interns.
Also, never mind that in court filings Facebook actually admitted that their “fact checks” were mere opinions. Never mind that people like James C. Smith, is on the board of Pfizer and also Chairman of Reuters.
Oh and it looks like a Facebook-partnered Covid “fact-checking” project might be funded by a group that holds $1.9 billion in Johnson & Johnson stock and is headed by a former director of the CDC.
We could go on and on about the web of entanglements between corporations, media, governments, so-called philanthropic organizations or “public-private partnerships,’ but there’s too much to say here. I hope to write more about this in the future.
In the meantime, here’s another fun montage from the “news” networks:
Propaganda in the past
When you see how often corporate media flat-out lies, and constantly tries to make us panic, or misleads us, or tries to “nudge” us, or frequently back tracks, or contradicts itself, to the point where supreme court justices believe wildly false claims about COVID, we end up doing absurd things, and it can seem like we are living in an era of unprecedented artificial paid-for reality.
There are historical precedents for what we are experiencing now.
In his 1928 classic Propaganda, Edward L. Bernays explains how governments, corporations, and foundations are capable of manipulating people en masse, in all areas of life, including war, politics, education, and medicine:
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.
During World War I, America was bombarded with propaganda in order to enlist people into the army. The media spread stories of the Germans (“Huns”) committing atrocities in Belgium; the Huns supposedly impaled babies, cut off the breasts of Red Cross nurses, and crucified a Canadian. The German army was fairly ruthless, but they had done none of those things. Almost none of the American press told the truth.
We can recall more recent instances of propaganda. Remember the supposed WMDs in Iraq? Or the color codes put in place by the Homeland Security Advisory System?
All while the erosions of civil liberties got cemented into The Patriot Act.
By the way, have you noticed how we lurch from crisis to crisis?
There was the global war on terror, then it was Russia, then it was COVID, then it was the pandemic of racism, and now I’m being told that white supremacy is the most lethal threat to our democracy today. I think we’re supposed to think that these same white people are linked, or perhaps identical, to the so-called domestic terrorists responsible for January 6. Nevermind the role of the FBI there (here and here).
It’s interesting that we don’t talk about the global war on terror as much these days. Guess they’ve all been supplanted by the domestic ones?
My main source of information used to be newspapers like the New York Times, but over the course of a few years I gradually got red-pilled as I realized the number of verifiably fake news coming out of it (more on this in the future).
Glenn Greenwald, Pulitzer prize winning journalist and self-described leftie, has been particularly outspoken about the malpractice of mainstream media outlets (see examples here, here, here, here, and here).
In short, if you want good information you’ll have to look beyond corporate media (more on this here, here, here, or here). I find better (uncensored) information from podcasts, interviews, and Substack newsletters these days. They’re not perfect, but at least they’re uncensored and written by independent writers.
Here are some Substacks to follow for information on Covid. Bret Weinstein’s DarkHorse Podcast and Chris Martenson’s Peak Prosperity channel have also been invaluable sources of information on Covid. And when it comes to general news commentary or articles about the media and censorship, I like Matt Taibbi, and as mentioned earlier, Glenn Greenwald.
Concluding remarks
My vaccine experience
As I mentioned earlier, I took the Moderna vaccine. My immediate experience wasn’t too bad: after my second dose, I was fatigued, and had body aches and a headache.
However, I regret having taken it, because we don’t know anything about its long term health effects. Among other things, I don’t know whether I experienced any subclinical damage that will affect me down the road (see “Part IV- Adverse events are not binary,” from here).
I believe that for someone of my age and health, I was taking on more risk than reward, especially considering the fact that its efficacy wanes relatively quickly.
Personal anecdotes
Since I started paying attention to the issue of vaccine safety, I’ve also talked to some people in my own circle of family and friends, and the number of vaccine injuries, or suspected injuries, seems rather high anecdotally.
Here are the things I’m aware of, which by the way is likely an undercount, because I have not systematically surveyed all my friends and family:
A friend of a friend had heart inflammatory issues following her vaccination. She was a marathon runner. I’m not sure what her final diagnosis is but I’m guessing myocarditis or pericarditis.
Someone I know who I’ve fallen out of touch with developed long covid-like symptoms from the vax. I heard about his issues through a mutual friend that I am still in touch with.
The mother of one of my husband’s friends was described as “not being the same” after her vaccination. I don’t know the details on what he meant by that.
Someone my husband knows has had persistent unexplained pain in his leg after vaccination.
By the way, in all of these cases, I don’t think I would have found out about them if it weren’t for the fact that I’ve been talking about the Covid vaccines with the people around me.
In addition, there are a few cases that I suspect could be vaccination related, but I’m less sure about:
The father of one of my friend’s went to the emergency room because of heart/chest pains. My friend said, “No one thought to record it as potentially from the vax.”
A friend of my husband’s had quadruple bypass surgery. He doesn’t have the healthiest lifestyle (he’s a bit overweight and doesn’t get much exercise), but has never had a history of blocked arteries or other related issues, so his suddenly needing quadruple bypass surgery was… surprising, to say the least.
What about you? Have you asked your family or friends whether they, or anyone they know, have had any serious adverse effects from the vaccines?
Or can you think of any people in your life that might have been harmed, but they, and their doctors, never thought to think of the vaccines as the cause? Think heart issues, clotting, strokes, neurological issues, chronic fatigue, or changes in menstruation, just to name a few.
Or if you are a doctor or nurse treating patients: what have you seen?
Leave your comments below.
If you liked this article, please share it, and consider becoming a paid subscriber.