UPDATE 21. May 2022: Pfizer Moves to Dismiss Lawsuit From COVID-19 Vaccine Trial, Citing ‘Prototype’ Agreement


UPDATE 13. May 2022: Look Away Now: This Article Contains Dangerous Warning Signals

UPDATE 10. May 2022: 44,348 Dead, 4,279,200 Injured Following COVID-19 Vaccines in European Database of Adverse Reactions as More Pfizer Fraud Uncovered


UPDATE 08. May 2022: Fully Jabbed Healthy Gorilla Dies “Unexpectedly” of Organ Failure – Zookeepers Baffled + EYESISWATCHIN PODCAST #46 - PFIZER DATA DUMP, DEPOPULATION CONFIRMED, THE VIRUS DELUSION

UPDATE 07. May 2022: DR. MALONE - MRNA CAUSES AIDS - CAN LEAD TO CANCER, BLOOD CLOTS, FERTILITY ISSUES ETC + 'Vaccinated' Hospitalised for Non-Covid Reasons at FIVE Times the Rate of the Unvaccinated, U.K. Government Data Show



UPDATE 04. May 2022: New Peer-Reviewed Study: COVID-19 Vaccines Increase Risk of Cardiac Arrest in Young People by 25 Percent

Nobody can be forced to get vaccinated, says Supreme Court of India

The court also directed the Centre to make the data on adverse effects of the Covid-19 vaccinations public.

Covid-19: Nobody can be forced to get vaccinated, says Supreme Court
A man wearing a face shield receives a dose of Covid-19 vaccine at at a vaccination centre. | Francis Mascarenhas/Reuters
By  - 02. May 2022

The Indian Supreme Court on Monday held that an individual cannot be forced to get vaccinated against Covid-19 as citizens have the right to bodily integrity under Article 21 of the Constitution, Live Law reported.

A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai observed that the government is entitled to impose restrictions on individual rights in the interest of public health, but the curbs should meet the requirements of “legality, legitimate need and proportionality”.

The court was hearing a petition filed Jacob Puliyel, a former member of the National Technical Advisory Group. In his plea, Puliyel had sought disclosure of clinical trial data of Covid-19 vaccines and a declaration that making vaccination mandatory is unconstitutional, reported Bar and Bench.

In its order on Monday, the Supreme Court also directed the Centre to make public the data on adverse effects of Covid-19 vaccination without compromising the details of individuals.

“Regarding segregation of vaccine trial data, subject to privacy of individuals, all trials conducted and to be subsequently conducted, all data must be made available to the public without further delay, the judgment said.

The court also held that orders passed by various state governments to make Covid-19 vaccination mandatory for citizens to avail public services were “not proportionate”, Live Law reported. There is no substantial data to show that the risk of transmission of the virus from an unvaccinated person is higher than from those who are inoculated, the court observed.

However, the court held that on the basis of scientific data, expert opinions on severe diseases and hospital admissions, the Centre’s vaccination policy cannot be called arbitrary, as was sought in the petition.

“Till [Covid-19] numbers are low, we suggest that relevant orders are followed and no restriction is imposed on individuals on access to public areas or recall the same if already not done,” the court ruled, reported Bar and Bench.

On March 22, the Centre had submitted to the court that it has not made Covid-19 vaccines mandatory, but has only directed states to ensure 100% inoculation.

At an earlier hearing on March 2, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Puliyel, had argued that vaccines cannot be made mandatory without clearly demonstrating that unvaccinated people pose any health risk.

India’s Covid positivity rate crosses 1% after two months

Meanwhile, India’s Covid positivity rate went past 1% on Monday for the first time in two months, the Union Health Ministry said. The country reported of 3,157 Covid-19 infections in the last 24 hours and 26 deaths due to the disease.

The positivity rate refers to the percentage of all coronavirus tests performed that return a positive result. A higher positive rate means a higher transmission rate for the virus.

The daily positivity rate on Monday was 1.07%, the highest since 1.11% on February 27, PTI reported. India’s overall Covid-19 tally rose to 4,30,82,345 cases and the toll went up to 5,23,869 on Monday. The active caseload stood at 19,500.





How about we come together and rid ourselves from the chains of evil? Why are we not all coming together to form our own militia and make a new Constitution and arrest all the traitors? We have the evidence against them. Why are we allowing this to continue? Too many talkers , no walkers. The evidence is clear. They have killed millions now. If we do not rise up to protect each other now then we have none to blame but ourselves.




First published on BITCHUTE May 22nd, 2022.




First published on BITCHUTE May 22nd, 2022.

channel image

Tim Truth

Well if Pfizer is allowed to "skirt many rules" including but not limited to - not using the double-blind protocol and kicking people out of the tally who had adverse reactions - then they can't possibly call this "science." Not one thing about the covid hoax was scientific anyway: the PCR tests, dismissal of natural immunity, not counting people as vaxxed until 2 weeks after injection, banning Ivermectin etc.

Pfizer is a criminal enterprise, and even with all the protection they've received from the US government, they were still found guilty in court on numerous occasions. Of course they're asking for a dismissal of charges, they're guilty as hell and it'll be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.


Pfizer to Court: Toss Lawsuit That Revealed COVID-19 Vaccine Testing Issues

By Nick Koutsobinas - 22. May 2022

Pfizer has asked a U.S. court to throw out a lawsuit brought by a whistleblower that revealed problems at the testing sites used in Pfizer's critical phase III trial of its COVID-19 vaccine.

A gloved hand holds a vial with a needle inserted into it.

A health worker prepares a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine against COVID-19. (Daniel Munoz/AFP via Getty Images)

Brook Jackson, the whistleblower, filed a False Claims Act lawsuit against Pfizer, Ventavia, and ICON, alleging they had "concealed violations of both their clinical trial protocol and federal regulations, including falsification of clinical trial documents."

But Pfizer, in its motion to dismiss the case, argued that such regulations don't apply to its vaccine contract with the U.S. Department of Defense because the agreement was conducted under the auspices of an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA), reported The Epoch Times' Zachary Stieber. An OTA allows contractors to circumvent otherwise existing rules and laws that typically apply to contracts. Pfizer was granted its contract to develop a "prototype," which falls under the protection of an OTA.

Kathryn Ardizzone, who serves as counsel with Knowledge Ecology International, said the government made up "an absurd fiction" and used an OTA to grant the contract.

Ardizzone noted that because the agreements shield contract holders from some regulations and laws, "the increasing use of OTAs, which includes contexts where it's inappropriate to do so, is undermining the rule of law and jeopardizing the public's interests." The Pfizer contract is an example of this inappropriate context, because it "was not about producing a prototype."

Pfizer argued that Jackson's claim that it was required to comply with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) "is simply wrong," due to the protections listed in the OTA.

But Warner Mendenhall, the lawyer in charge of Jackson's case, said that Pfizer has "clearly not followed federal procurement laws.

"And now they're saying, 'Of course we didn't follow federal procurement laws. We didn't have to. This was just for a prototype.'"

Mendenhall added that Jackson's lawyers are currently looking to counter Pfizer's argument.

"We may lose on this issue because their contract imposes … none of the normal checks and balances on quality control and consumer protection that we fought for decades in this country," he said.

The contract in question, which was signed in the summer of 2020, outlined a base agreement and a statement of work.

Since then, the government agreed to pay $1.9 billion for 100 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine pending U.S. regulatory approval.

"The agreement," Pfizer said, "makes no mention of the FDA regulations and FAR provisions cited in relator's complaint. The agreement instead conditions payment, more simply, on Pfizer's delivery of an FDA authorized or approved product. Pfizer's vaccine has satisfied that condition since December 2020, as the complaint acknowledges, and the vaccine continues to satisfy that condition today. The Court should reject Relator's express certification claim for this reason alone."

Commenting on the delay of Pfizer releasing the raw data from its vaccine trial, the British Medical Journal wrote, "Pharmaceutical companies are reaping vast profits without adequate independent scrutiny of their scientific claims. The purpose of regulators is not to dance to the tune of rich global corporations and enrich them further; it is to protect the health of their populations. We need complete data transparency for all studies,
we need it in the public interest, and we need it now."

Related Stories:


Pfizer Moves to Dismiss Lawsuit From COVID-19 Vaccine Trial, Citing ‘Prototype’ Agreement

By Zachary Stieber - 21. May 2022 - Updated: May 22, 2022

Pfizer has asked a U.S. court to throw out a lawsuit from a whistleblower who revealed problems at sites that tested Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Albert Bourla, chief executive officer of Pfizer pharmaceutical company, at the New York Stock Exchange in New York on Jan. 17, 2019. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Albert Bourla, chief executive officer of Pfizer pharmaceutical company, at the New York Stock Exchange in New York on Jan. 17, 2019. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Brook Jackson, the whistleblower, alleged in a suit that was unsealed in February that Pfizer and associated parties violated clinical trial regulations and federal laws, including the False Claims Act.

In its motion to dismiss, Pfizer says the regulations don’t apply to its vaccine contract with the U.S. Department of Defense because the agreement was executed under the department’s Other Transaction Authority (OTA), which gives contract holders the ability to skirt many rules and laws that typically apply to contracts.

That means that Jackson’s claim that Pfizer must still comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulations “is simply wrong,” Pfizer said.

Warner Mendenhall, a lawyer who is working on Jackson’s case, said in a recent interview that Pfizer has “clearly not followed federal procurement laws.”

“And now they’re saying, ‘of course we didn’t follow federal procurement laws, we didn’t have to—this was just for a prototype,'” he added.

Mendenhall, who declined an interview request, said lawyers for Jackson are working on figuring out legal ways to counter Pfizer’s argument.

“We may lose on this issue because their contract imposes … none of the normal checks and balances on quality control and consumer protection that we fought for decades in this country,” he said.

The contract in question was outlined in a base agreement and a statement of work for the agreement, which was signed in the summer of 2020.

The government agreed to pay up to $1.9 billion for 100 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine pending U.S. regulatory clearance. That included the manufacturing of the vaccine on top of researching and developing it.

The contract was granted under the “prototype” provision, which falls under the OTA. The rules for prototypes state that just one of four conditions must be satisfied. The condition that was satisfied in the Pfizer contract was the involvement of a “nontraditional defense contractor.”

Federal law defines nontraditional defense contractors as “an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed” a contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense for at least one year preceding the solicitation of the OTA agreement. Pfizer has dozens of contracts with the military.

That means the government certified “an absurd fiction” to use an OTA to grant the contract, Kathryn Ardizzone, counsel with Knowledge Ecology International, told The Epoch Times in an email.

The Department of Defense and other government agencies have increased the use of the OTA over time. Thirty-four such agreements were hammed out in fiscal year 2016; by fiscal year 2018, that number was 173, according to the Government Accountability Office (pdf).

Because the agreements shield contract holders from some regulations and laws, “the increasing use of OTAs, which includes in contexts where it’s inappropriate to do so, is undermining the rule of law and jeopardizing the public’s interests,” Ardizzone said. The Pfizer contract is an example of an inappropriate context, because the contract “was not about producing a prototype,” she asserted.

As far as Pfizer’s argument, about the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) not applying to the agreement, it’s not clear that is the case.

The base agreement only mentions the regulations pertaining to the handling of classified information. The statement of work does not mention any.

“I’m not sure what it means when an OTA is silent on a regulation that appears in the FAR,” Ardizzone said. “That would be up for the judge to decide, and it might side with Pfizer since the prevailing view is that FAR regulations do not necessarily apply for an OTA.”

Pfizer, in its motion to dismiss, noted that the government did not join Jackson’s suit—it was filed on the government’s behalf—nor have regulators rescinded clearance of its vaccine, which was authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in late 2020, after Jackson revealed issues at sites managed by Ventavia Research Group, a Pfizer subcontractor.

“The agreement makes no mention of the FDA regulations and FAR provisions cited in relator’s complaint,” Pfizer said. “The agreement instead conditions payment, more simply, on Pfizer’s delivery of an FDA authorized or approved product. Pfizer’s vaccine has satisfied that condition since December 2020, as the complaint acknowledges, and the vaccine continues to satisfy that condition today. The Court should reject Relator’s express certification claim for this reason alone.”


Zachary Stieber

Zachary Stieber - REPORTER - Zachary Stieber covers U.S. and world news. He is based in Maryland. Follow



First published on BITCHUTE May 15th, 2022


Look Away Now: This Article Contains Dangerous Warning Signals

German medical insurer publishes shocking harms data

At the back end of February we wrote about the known problem of underreporting of adverse effects related to new and novel pharmaceutical products. 

The article referenced Andreas Schöfbeck, a director of a large German medical insurer, who had taken a reporting action that had caused a bit of a stir. 

His company’s data indicated that serious adverse effects (not just any side effects) are running at approximately 10 times the official rate reported by the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), the German vaccine regulator. Mr Schöfbeck got summarily fired for his troubles, despite only calling for further analysis. 

What point is observing a warning signal if you do not act on it? After all, in the words of the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), his actions might have ‘made a lifetime of difference for others’. If it saves one life…

Two months on, a large study at the Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin (a large medical research university owned by the Federal State of Berlin in Germany) has come up with data from a long-term observational study.

It looks like Mr Schöfbeck, unfortunately but predictably got fired after his revelatios, was on the money, but in fact, the situation seems potentially even worse than Mr Schöfbeck postulated:

The number of serious complications after vaccinations against Sars-CoV-2 is 40 times higher than previously recorded by the Paul Ehrlich Institute. This is one of the results of a long-term observational study by the Berlin Charité.

They show that suspected cases are not officially reported. And so the numbers of serious vaccination reactions at the Paul Ehrlich Institute, at 0.2 reports per 1,000 vaccine doses, are also significantly lower than in the Charité study”.

Such underreporting rates are standard, and in fact inline with precedent: the MHRA expects factors of between 10x and 50x:

It is estimated that only 10% of serious reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported.

Mr Schöfbeck will be sleeping well tonight, safe in the knowledge that he has done his bit in reporting appropriate warning signals.  He fulfilled his fiduciary duties to his customers and shareholders – and his moral duties to humanity – by following regulators’ exhortations to gather and report appropriate safety data. 

No-one should ever lose their livelihood for such an act. As the MHRA says, it could make a lifetime of difference for others and surely on a human level, everyone has a moral duty to make known such life-threatening facts.


44,348 Dead 4,279,200 Injured Following COVID-19 Vaccines in European Database of Adverse Reactions as More Pfizer Fraud Uncovered

By Brian Shilhavy - 10. May 2022

The European (EEA and non-EEA countries) database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, verified by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and they are now reporting 44,348 fatalities, and 4,279,200 injuries following injections of five experimental COVID-19 shots:

From the total of injuries recorded, almost half of them (1,946,847) are serious injuries.

Seriousness provides information on the suspected undesirable effect; it can be classified as ‘serious’ if it corresponds to a medical occurrence that results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation, results in another medically important condition, or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect.”

Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the four COVID-19 shots we are including here. It is a lot of work to tabulate each reaction with injuries and fatalities, since there is no place on the EudraVigilance system we have found that tabulates all the results.

Since we have started publishing this, others from Europe have also calculated the numbers and confirmed the totals.*

Here is the summary data through May 7, 2022.

Total reactions for the mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2,Comirnaty) from BioNTechPfizer: 20,749 deathand 2,166,345 injuries to 07/05/2022

  • 66,523   Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 301 deaths
  • 76,192   Cardiac disorders incl. 3,008 deaths
  • 675        Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 63 deaths
  • 28,556   Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 16 deaths
  • 2,713     Endocrine disorders incl. 10 deaths
  • 32,132   Eye disorders incl. 53 deaths
  • 159,322 Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 826 deaths
  • 540,805 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 5,746 deaths
  • 2,486     Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 118 deaths
  • 24,046   Immune system disorders incl. 132 deaths
  • 120,090 Infections and infestations incl. 2,158 deaths
  • 40,805   Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 420 deaths
  • 52,567   Investigations incl. 575 deaths
  • 13,892   Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 361 deaths
  • 249,232 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 279 deaths
  • 2,391     Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 238 deaths
  • 341,887 Nervous system disorders incl. 2,231 deaths
  • 3,136     Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 82 deaths
  • 296        Product issues incl. 3 deaths
  • 38,251   Psychiatric disorders incl. 240 deaths
  • 7,935     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 303 deaths
  • 93,843   Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 6 deaths
  • 90,440   Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 2,202 deaths
  • 96,978   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 181 deaths
  • 5,239     Social circumstances incl. 27 deaths
  • 24,680   Surgical and medical procedures incl. 243 deaths
  • 51,233   Vascular disorders incl. 927 deaths

Total reactions for the mRNA vaccine SPIKEVAX/mRNA-1273 (CX-024414) from Moderna: 11,839 deathand 704,650 injuries to 07/05/2022

  • 19,061   Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 134 deaths
  • 24,243   Cardiac disorders incl. 1,303 deaths
  • 218        Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 15 deaths
  • 8,257     Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 8 deaths
  • 713        Endocrine disorders incl. 6 deaths
  • 9,397     Eye disorders incl. 35 deaths
  • 56,026   Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 448 deaths
  • 186,526 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 3,833 deaths
  • 953        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 65 deaths
  • 7,845     Immune system disorders incl. 38 deaths
  • 31,056   Infections and infestations incl. 1,085 deaths
  • 10,804   Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 212 deaths
  • 15,469   Investigations incl. 404 deaths
  • 5,719     Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 281 deaths
  • 87,443   Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 236 deaths
  • 828        Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 90 deaths
  • 116,286 Nervous system disorders incl. 1,131 deaths
  • 1,024     Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 12 deaths
  • 122        Product issues incl. 4 deaths
  • 11,570   Psychiatric disorders incl. 190 deaths
  • 3,738     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 230 deaths
  • 19,162   Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 9 deaths
  • 28,830   Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 1,253 deaths
  • 36,287   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 107 deaths
  • 2,671     Social circumstances incl. 45 deaths
  • 5,575     Surgical and medical procedures incl. 217 deaths
  • 14,827   Vascular disorders incl. 448 deaths

Total reactions for the vaccine AZD1222/VAXZEVRIA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/ AstraZeneca8,940 deathand 1,257,036 injuries to 07/05/2022

  • 14,771   Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 320 deaths
  • 22,859   Cardiac disorders incl. 938 deaths
  • 268        Congenital familial and genetic disorders incl. 10 deaths
  • 14,514   Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 7 deaths
  • 772        Endocrine disorders incl. 6 deaths
  • 21,403   Eye disorders incl. 34 deaths
  • 113,719 Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 476 deaths
  • 334,902 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 2,075 deaths
  • 1,142     Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 81 deaths
  • 6,333     Immune system disorders incl. 44 deaths
  • 54,171   Infections and infestations incl. 749 deaths
  • 14,538   Injury poisoning and procedural complications incl. 219 deaths
  • 30,144   Investigations incl. 225 deaths
  • 14,050   Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 142 deaths
  • 180,604 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 184 deaths
  • 844        Neoplasms benign malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 50 deaths
  • 250,351 Nervous system disorders incl. 1,287 deaths
  • 689        Pregnancy puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 22 deaths
  • 203        Product issues incl. 1 death
  • 22,591   Psychiatric disorders incl. 79 deaths
  • 4,660     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 91 deaths
  • 18,000   Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 44,391   Respiratory thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 1,198 deaths
  • 55,630   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 77 deaths
  • 2,148     Social circumstances incl. 10 deaths
  • 2,818     Surgical and medical procedures incl. 39 deaths
  • 30,521   Vascular disorders incl. 573 deaths           

Total reactions for the COVID-19 vaccine JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) from Johnson & Johnson2,820 deaths and 150,173 injuries to 07/05/2022

  • 1,507     Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 65 deaths
  • 3,273     Cardiac disorders incl. 239 deaths
  • 54           Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 1,644     Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 131        Endocrine disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 1,980     Eye disorders incl. 12 deaths
  • 10,652   Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 104 deaths
  • 40,674   General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 801 deaths
  • 185        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 17 deaths
  • 697        Immune system disorders incl. 11 deaths
  • 11,844   Infections and infestations incl. 242 deaths
  • 1,389     Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 31 deaths
  • 6,985     Investigations incl. 150 deaths
  • 933        Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 76 deaths
  • 19,263   Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 62 deaths
  • 121        Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 11 deaths
  • 26,422   Nervous system disorders incl. 269 deaths
  • 95           Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 1 death
  • 34           Product issues
  • 2,158     Psychiatric disorders incl. 29 deaths
  • 652        Renal and urinary disorders incl. 40 deaths
  • 3,817     Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 6 deaths
  • 5,309     Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 352 deaths
  • 4,552     Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 13 deaths
  • 510        Social circumstances incl. 6 deaths
  • 1,100     Surgical and medical procedures incl. 93 deaths
  • 4,192     Vascular disorders incl. 183 deaths

Total reactions for the COVID-19 vaccine NUVAXOVID (NVX-COV2373) from Novavax0 deaths and 996 injuries to 07/05/2022

  • 19           Blood and lymphatic system disorders
  • 53           Cardiac disorders
  • 19           Ear and labyrinth disorders
  • 20           Eye disorders
  • 74           Gastrointestinal disorders
  • 228        General disorders and administration site conditions
  • 3             Hepatobiliary disorders
  • 4             Immune system disorders
  • 36           Infections and infestations
  • 15           Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
  • 36           Investigations
  • 7             Metabolism and nutrition disorders
  • 117        Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
  • 1             Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
  • 181        Nervous system disorders
  • 1             Product issues
  • 17           Psychiatric disorders
  • 2             Renal and urinary disorders
  • 14           Reproductive system and breast disorders
  • 42           Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
  • 69           Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
  • 1             Social circumstances
  • 7             Surgical and medical procedures
  • 30           Vascular disorders

*These totals are estimates based on reports submitted to EudraVigilance. Totals may be much higher based on percentage of adverse reactions that are reported. Some of these reports may also be reported to the individual country’s adverse reaction databases, such as the U.S. VAERS database and the UK Yellow Card system. The fatalities are grouped by symptoms, and some fatalities may have resulted from multiple symptoms.

The latest Pfizer documents released by the FDA show evidence of more fraud during the COVID-19 vaccine trials.

The number of people that were allegedly enrolled for the studies appeared very quickly, suggesting that fraud was committed.

Steve Kirsch published an article and video about this.

The Pfizer documents just released show evidence of clinical trial enrollment at one site that appears to be quite fast.

Is it fraud or just really good execution by the site? In speaking with experts, it is quite possible that there is nothing to see here.

It’s a vaccine trial and it was done in the middle of a pandemic. So nearly everyone is a candidate. That fact makes fast recruitment possible.

This article from Sept 10, 2020 shows they have an impressive infrastructure in place.

There is no way to know for sure without more information. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely we’ll get it.

If it is fraud, it means Pfizer is liable for all the deaths and disabilities caused by their drug.

The Exposé has also just published an article about the Pfizer documents reporting that Pfizer knew during the trials that their COVID-19 vaccines “shed” and contaminated others who did not take the shot, and that a new study corroborates this.

New Study & Confidential Pfizer Docs. prove COVID “Vaccine Shedding” has been and still is occurring with dangerous consequences


A new study conducted by scientists at the University of Colorado confirms the vast majority of humanity have had absolutely no choice in the matter of whether they wish to get the Covid-19 injection or not because the vaccinated have been transmitting antibodies generated by the injections through aerosols.

The findings should however come as no surprise, because a confidential Pfizer document had already confirmed exposure to the mRNA injections was perfectly possible by skin-to-skin contact and breathing the same air as someone who had been given the Covid-19 jab.

They also unfortunately add weight to the claims made by Dr Phillipe van Welbergen, who demonstrated that graphene, an alleged undisclosed ingredient of the Covid-19 injections, is being transmitted from the vaccinated to the not-vaccinated and destroying red blood cells and causing dangerous blood clots.

Read the full article here.

Funeral Homes and Insurance Companies Continue to See Increased Deaths Following COVID-19 Vaccines

Ed Dowd, an equity investment executive, joined Steve Bannon on The War Room last week. Dowd was reporting on the First Quarter numbers from funeral homes and insurance companies. The overarching theme is excessive mortality remains elevated to the surprise of many executives…

…We have excess deaths running around 20% in Q1. We’ll see if that continues into Q2.


Brian Shilhavy - Editor, Health Impact News

Comment on this article at HealthImpactNews.com.

See Also:

Determining the VAERS Under-Reporting Multiplier

BOMBSHELL: Video Emerges Where Fauci and Others Planned for a “Universal mRNA Flu Vaccine” Which Became the “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine” Because People were not Afraid Enough of the Flu Virus



First published on BITCHUTE May 9th, 2022.

channel image

Tim Truth

Learn how to protect your life savings from inflation and an irresponsible government, with Gold and Silver http://TimLikesGold.com

Join the leading researchers on https://GroupDiscover.com to find the best videos from across the censorship-resistant internet platforms like Odysee, Rumble, LBRY, Bitchute & Brighteon.


PROLOGUE: These crazy veterinarians, who killed many animals up to tigers and giraffes with the COVID-19 bio-weapon shots, must be held responsible like their colleagues jabbing and killing humans.

Fully Jabbed Healthy Gorilla Dies “Unexpectedly” of Organ Failure – Zookeepers Baffled

By Sean Adl-Tabatabai - 08. May 2022
Fully jabbed gorilla dies unexpectedly

A previously healthy gorilla died “suddenly and unexpectedly” of multiple organ failure shortly after recieving the COVID-19 jab, leaving zookeepers “baffled”.

This was a very healthy gorilla, who recently gave birth.

Igorchudov.substack.com reports: What happened?

You know where it goes: the gorilla was recently vaccinated for COVID!

Mind you, gorillas live 50 years in zoos. So in human terms, Martha was about a 40-45 years old human.

How dangerous was Covid to animals in Gladys Porter zoo? Not very dangerous. No animal ever contracted COVID, according to the zoo.

So now we have a beautiful and thriving gorilla mommy dead for what exact reason? And her cubs are now orphans.

The zoo, of course, is not confessing. But everything is painfully obvious.

Same thing Happens to People

By the way, we should be sorry about dead and injured people as much as we are sorry about Martha.

Meet Martha’s human counterpart, Kassidi Kurill: she also died of multiple organ failure.

Of course, the newspaper said, Kassidi “did not die from the jab”. Yeah, she died from organ failure. Not the jab. Just as gorilla Martha, who also “suddenly died from multiple organ failure”. Right. It was unrelated.

Loving moms Martha (a gorilla) and Kassidi Kurill (a human) did NOT have to die. Whose lives did they save, exactly? Everyone is having Covid so it is not like Martha and Kassidi stopped anything.


Sean Adl-Tabatabai

Sean Adl-Tabatabai



First published on BITCHUTE May 8th, 2022.

channel image


The Sheep Are Easily Distracted As The Depopulation Agenda Continues

Watch on Odysee: https://odysee.com/@EyesIsWatchin:f/EyesIsWatchin-Podcast--46:a

Watch on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v13xzbp-eyesiswatchin-podcast-46-pfizer-data-dump-depopulation-confirmed-the-virus-.html

Watch on 3speak: https://3speak.tv/watch?v=eyesiswatchin%2Febvthgsu



First published on BITCHUTE May 8th, 2022. [CAVEAT: Dr. Malone still speaks of a 'virus'or 'viruses', presents meanwhile bebunked 'virus' pictures and mixes AIDS with VAIDS, which makes his presentation questionable.] 

channel image

🐯 Orion-XTZ 🐯

Interview from Epoch TV on 7th May 2022


PROLOGUE: To use the word ‘vaccine’ in this context is to validate the work of the BHI and it was handed down to us by the Behavioural Insights Team. The psychologists knew full well that if the jabs were called correctly Genetic Modification they’d have had very limited uptake. “Vaccine” is just one lie of many. PLEASE REPEAT AFTER ME: ‘THEY ARE NOT VACCINES’ AND ‘NOT ONE PERSON IN THE WORLD HAS BEEN VACCINATED’ AGAINST COVID-19 - THEN GO TO YOUR ROOM! Who now thinks “semantics”, must listen to lawyers, explaining why calling them vaccines allowed them to be mandated (referencing the fines issued for non compliance with smallpox vaccination). Allowing them to be called vaccines has facilitated a world of coercion that doesn’t exist for any other medical intervention. One can safely bet on the fact they wouldn’t have had the uptake had they called them something other than “vaccines”. And they *definitely* wouldn’t have had the uptake if it weren’t for the massive psyop the government embarked on. At least we are seeing a gradual decline in numbers partaking of subsequent injections offered. This is surely a heartening sign that people are wising up.

'Vaccinated' Hospitalised for Non-Covid Reasons at FIVE Times the Rate of the Unvaccinated, U.K. Government Data Show

By DS - 07. May 2022

Over the past 15 months we’ve had a barrage of statistics presented to us shouting about how great the vaccines are at preventing hospitalisation from (or with) Covid. However, these statistics have been light on detail on how they were calculated and we’ve not seen much sight at all of the raw data that the statistics were based upon.Until now. In April, a paper was published by the UKHSA (currently in pre-print, which means that it hasn’t yet undergone the usual peer-review process) on its statistical analysis of a selection of hospitalisation data by vaccination status.

The intent of this paper was to support its statements that the vaccines prevent hospitalisation. However, the paper also includes the raw data upon which the UKHSA statistics were derived, and these data tell a very different story to that presented by the UKHSA. The data show:

  • Far higher accident and emergency admission rates for reasons other than Covid in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated.
  • Much higher rates of hospitalisation due to non-Covid acute respiratory illness in the vaccinated.
  • Even higher A&E admissions and hospitalisations in the double-vaccinated (not boosted).
  • Even where the data suggest that the vaccines offer some protection (the risk of admission to intensive care resulting from Covid infection) the results look like they might be an artefact created by the assumptions used by the UKHSA.
Table 2 (numbers in brackets indicate the rates relative to the unvaccinated)

In addition, the data strongly suggest that the UKHSA is using an inappropriate method in its statistical analysis of vaccine effectiveness – the test-negative case-control (TNCC) method. It is likely that it has been significantly overestimating the effectiveness of the vaccines at preventing hospitalisation.

The data released by the UKHSA and expounded below aren’t proof that the vaccines have caused a great deal of harm and injury to the population, but they do raise a huge red-flag that something is amiss. Urgent investigations need to be undertaken to clarify the situation regarding the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines.

A note on the Test-Negative Case-Control (TNCC) method

The basic concept of measuring vaccine efficacy (in a trial) or effectiveness (based on real-world results) is relatively straightforward – simply calculate the ratio of the proportion of the vaccinated that get infected (or hospitalised) with the proportion of the unvaccinated that get infected (or hospitalised). However, while this simple method can work well, it can be affected by differences in the types of people vaccinated and unvaccinated and more powerful methods are preferred.

The ‘gold standard’ for measurement of vaccine efficacy/effectiveness (VE) is the prospective matched cohort design. This is quite simple in concept – you simply divide the study into a number of groups of individuals with similar characteristics, based on the vulnerability to the disease and the typical effectiveness of vaccines. Matched cohort studies nearly always split into groups of similar age and sex, and will usually include many other factors thought to be related to risk of disease. For example, for Covid these might include race, BMI and whether the individual has diabetes – all factors identified in early data as being relevant risk factors. 

The ‘prospective’ part means that the individuals are placed into their groups before they are given their doses of vaccine, but this isn’t the only way – it is possible to undertake a retrospective study where people are placed into their different groups after they are vaccinated (potentially some time after).

The problem with matched cohort trials is that they’re rather expensive and also require you to know what factors to control for when calculating vaccine efficacy/effectiveness. This led to the development of the test-negative case-control method. With this method you compare the ratio of positive (have the disease) to negative (don’t have the disease) tests results for a given condition (e.g. admission to hospital). This method, when applied correctly, automatically corrects for many biases, such as propensity to be tested or seek medical care, and is both accurate and removes much of the complexity and costs associated with matched-cohort studies. The important part is the ‘when applied correctly’ – if it is applied incorrectly then you end up with inaccurate and potentially misleading results.

The UKHSA data – Emergency admissions

Let’s apply the TNCC method to the data in the UKHSA paper on vaccine effectiveness at preventing hospitalisation. Fortunately, it offers raw data in its supplementary document. I’ll start with hospitalisations ‘with symptomatic Covid’ for those aged over 65 who presented to A&E for reasons other than accident/injury (Table S12 in the paper), and to keep things simple will look at ‘any vaccine’ (i.e., any number of doses) vs ‘no vaccine’ and only for the Omicron period (the data covers the period from 22nd November to 2nd February).

Table 1

To show the TNCC method in action we can use the figures in the table above to gain an estimate of VE using the TNCC methodology: 

VE = 100 × (1 – (873÷140,931) ÷ (103÷1,705) ) = 90%

Thus even with this simplified case where we only consider the protection offered by the vaccines to the ‘vaccinated group’ (with any number of doses, though most are boosted in the over-65 age group), we can see that TNCC estimates that the vaccines offer significant protection from hospitalisation, around 90%.

But wait – those raw numbers for A&E presentation by vaccination status look more than a little suspicious. We know that during the study period approximately 10 million individuals aged over 65 had been vaccinated with at least one dose of vaccine, and around 600,000 remained unvaccinated. Thus we can present the raw figures above as a ‘per 100,000’ to remove the effect of the size of the vaccinated vs unvaccinated groups.

Table 2

Wow.  According to the raw data the vaccinated are presenting to A&E without having Covid at around five times the rate of the unvaccinated. Sure, there are more hospitalisations with symptomatic Covid in the unvaccinated, but only by eight per 100,000.

In Table 2 above I have also included an estimate of vaccine effectiveness based on these raw data. Now, I’m being a bit naughty here as the data aren’t meant to be used this way – this is why I’ve used the UKHSA trick of greying out the text in the hope that no-one will notice. Nevertheless, for population-wide data this shouldn’t be too far out.

Now, I’m sure that epidemiologists up and down the land are shouting that the data shouldn’t be used in this way – and they’re right. It certainly doesn’t prove that the vaccinated are getting ill because of the vaccine. There are a number of reasons why this result might be found:

  • The vaccinated might be much more likely to be hypochondriacs/malingerers and thus be going to A&E even though they’re not ill at all. More realistically, the vaccinated might have a lower threshold for the severity of symptoms required to get medical assistance at A&E. If this was the case then there would be vaccinated individuals presenting themselves to A&E where the average unvaccinated person with similar symptoms wouldn’t. 
  • The vaccinated might be much more unhealthy in general than the unvaccinated. 

However, the sheer scale of the differences between the A&E visits not-for-Covid is huge, and given that these are population-wide figures I’d suggest that it couldn’t all be explained either by health seeking behaviours or because of general health – but I’d accept they they could certainly contribute. 

Nevertheless, the TNCC assumption would be that the vaccinated are simply the type of people that are five times more likely to go to A&E (whether because of differences in behaviour or health) and thus they’re also going to be five times more likely to attend A&E with symptomatic Covid. The researchers would therefore adjust the figures to allow for this difference between the groups, boosting VE. I’d suggest that this latter point isn’t necessarily the case – it is very often the case that behaviours aren’t proportional like this, for example, just because an individual chooses to drive at 40mph in a 60mph zone, doesn’t mean he or she will drive at 20mph in a 30mph zone.

The alternative explanation:

  • Some of the visits to A&E might be due to a reaction / side-effect / complication of the vaccines.
  • The vaccines might have an impact on the immune system for diseases other than Covid, resulting in increased illness and thus presentation to A&E.

Just to be clear – we don’t know whether the vaccinated are seeing much higher admissions rates to A&E due to a vaccine effect or simply because the vaccinated have different behaviours and general health to the unvaccinated. However, anecdotal data on pressures on A&E services and on the general health of the nation (‘worst cold ever’) suggest that the vaccines may be at least partially responsible.

More on the emergency admissions data

The UKHSA paper also includes incidence by vaccination status (Table S12 again). We have to be a bit careful here as we don’t know when the individuals were vaccinated, but we do know that the incidence of Covid varied substantially through the period. Without information on which individuals were vaccinated on which date we run the risk of introducing a bias. However, we do have information about some aspects of the vaccinated population:

  • Around 600,000 individuals over the age of 65 remain unvaccinated, and this hasn’t changed much for over six months (this is why it was safe to use this assumption in the prior analysis).
  • The vaccination data suggest that around 90,000 individuals over the age of 65 took the first dose of vaccine during spring 2021 but didn’t receive the second dose. 
  • The vaccination data suggest that around 440,000 individuals over the age of 65 took their first and second doses of vaccine according to the vaccination schedule (i.e., early/late spring 2021) but didn’t receive the booster/third dose.

Table S12 splits out hospitalisation data for those vaccinated with their first dose more than 28 days before their positive test, and vaccinated with their second dose more than 175 days before their positive test. Thus we can tentatively include these specific data in our analysis – individuals that had their first dose (only) or second dose (no booster) some time before the study period started.

Table 3 (numbers in brackets indicate the rates relative to the unvaccinated)

Two points immediately stand out.

First, the hospitalisation rate with symptomatic confirmed Covid in those that had a single dose of vaccine ‘some time before’ the study period is similar to the hospitalisation rate in the unvaccinated but their A&E presentation rate for ‘not Covid’ is 2.5 times the rate of the unvaccinated. The TNCC assumption would be that the similarity in the symptomatic Covid rate is a fluke and what’s important is that on average they’re simply the type of individuals that would go to A&E more often and if that group of individuals hadn’t been vaccinated they’d have had 2.5 times more hospitalisation rates ‘with Covid’. I suggest that it is far more likely that the single-dose individuals have no vaccine induced protection against hospitalisation but that they are very much more likely to attend A&E.

Second, the A&E attendance rate of the double-vaccinated (only) without Covid is very similar to the A&E attendance rate of the vaccinated (any dose). However, their hospitalisation rate ‘with Covid’ is 2.5 times greater than that of the vaccinated (any dose) – the double-dosed that didn’t take their booster appear to have the ‘worst of both worlds’: increased A&E attendance (non-Covid) and increased admission rates ‘with Covid’.

Summary so far:

  • The UKHSA has provided us with some raw data on hospitalisations by vaccination status.
  • Examination of the data suggests that ‘with Covid’ hospitalisation rates in the unvaccinated aren’t too far from those in the vaccinated (any dose). However, non-Covid admission rates for A&E are much much higher in the vaccinated (any dose) than the unvaccinated. 
  • The TNCC approach would suggest that the vaccinated are simply ‘the type of people’ more likely to attend A&E and that the vaccines really do offer substantial protection against hospitalisation ‘with Covid’. 
  • Examination of other data suggests that the single dosed have ‘with Covid’ rates similar to the unvaccinated but 2.5 greater A&E attendance (without Covid) and that the double dosed (only) appear to have the worst situation of all – much higher Covid hospitalisation and much higher non-Covid admission to A&E.

Admission rates for acute respiratory illness

Table S7 in the UKHSA paper presents data on hospitalisations after an A&E visit where the individual had symptomatic Covid (again, Omicron, over 65). This sounds like the condition for the previous table, but in that table the ‘Covid negative’ column counted all non-accident or injury A&E visits, whereas the data in Table S7 only consider those that had symptoms similar to Covid. 

I’ll present only the rates this time (feel free to look up the raw numbers yourself).

Table 4

That’s perhaps even more interesting. In terms of the overall ratios it is a similar situation to the previous table – approximately 40% lower hospitalisations with symptomatic Covid in the vaccinated compared with the unvaccinated, but around four-fold higher rates for admission with symptoms that look likeCovid, but aren’t Covid.  But the interesting part is in the detail:

  • Even though the absolute rates are very much lower, the unvaccinated still have the lowest admission rate to A&E. However, the difference for the data in the table above is that a doctor had assessed the individual and determined that he or she was ill enough to warrant hospitalisation. Thus the data in the table above are not influenced by the ‘symptom severity threshold’ that different individuals have before they’ll go to A&E. This is particularly of note because it suggests that the very high rates of presentation to A&E in the vaccinated in Table 1 and 2 are unlikely to be simply because of the vaccinated are more likely to go to A&E for ‘more trivial reasons’ than the unvaccinated – it looks like the vaccinated as a group really are more likely to be ill.
  • Over twice as many of the unvaccinated are hospitalised with symptomatic Covid than with a condition that looks like Covid but isn’t (17.5 vs 6.5 hospitalisations per 100,000). However, twice as many of the vaccinated are hospitalised with ‘looks like Covid but isn’t’ than ‘with Covid’ (23 vs 11 hospitalisations per 100,000). 

This latter point is important – one of the potential problems with vaccines (in general) is viral interference, that is, that a vaccine changes the immune response to other infectious diseases. Is it the case that the vaccines are significantly increasing the incidence of other respiratory infections? I note that last autumn/winter we had a mini-epidemic of what was popularly called ‘the worst cold ever’ – is this related? 

However, the hospitalisation rate for symptomatic Covid might be more complex than it looks. In the UKHSA paper it appeared to define hospitalisation ‘with’ Covid to 14 days after the first positive test; if the individual presented to A&E after this 14 day period his or her data was excluded. It is possible that vaccination delays (rather than prevents) disease progression, in which case some of the hospitalisations with a condition that ‘looks like Covid but isn’t’ might in fact be due to a Covid infection that took longer than 14 days to develop to the point where hospitalisation was necessary.  In addition, if the vaccinated were more likely to test themselves earlier in the progression of the disease then they might also be more likely to ‘run out of time’ and present themselves after the 14 day period has finished.

There’s another interesting aspect of these data – overall, the unvaccinated appeared to get around 24 hospitalisations per 100,000 of an illness that ‘looked like Covid’ (whether it was Covid or not) whereas the vaccinated appeared to get around 34 hospitalisations per 100,000. By this measure, vaccination is associated with an increased risk of a serious respiratory illness (whether Covid or not).

Again, the single-dosed appear to have the same risk of Covid as the unvaccinated, but increased attendance with looks like Covid but isn’t, and the double-dosed appear to have the ‘worst of both worlds’ – increased rates of attendance both with Covid and with looks like Covid but isn’t.

One more point – comparing Table 4 with Table 3, there appear to be far fewer admissions to A&E with Covid than without Covid. This indicates the current pressures on NHS A&E services are not related to Covid infections but ‘other things’.

The UKHSA data – Secondary uses data

The UKHSA paper also offers data using the NHS ‘secondary uses dataset’ (Table S10). This covers all hospitalisations and offers more granularity on the reasons for the hospitalisation and the level of treatment offered. The authors use a selection of the full dataset, where the admission was for an acute respiratory illness, and for several levels of seriousness.

First up are the data on hospitalisations for admissions for an acute respiratory illness where the individual was discharged the same day.

Table 5

Two aspects stand out:

  • The rate of serious Covid infection that warranted admission into hospital but that was not serious enough for an overnight stay was higher in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated. This suggests that the vaccines increase the risk of being ‘somewhat unwell from Covid’.  Note that this isn’t simply ‘infected’ – these individuals were deemed by experts to be sufficiently at risk of their illness to be admitted to hospital, even if they didn’t pass the threshold for an overnight observation/treatment.
  • The hospitalisation rate of ‘somewhat serious but not Covid’ acute respiratory illness in the vaccinated was around twice as great as that in the unvaccinated, and even higher in those having only one or two doses of vaccine

This time we see that overall the risk of ‘somewhat serious’ acute respiratory illness (whether due to Covid or not) appears to be similar in the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and that those having taken one or two doses of vaccine (only) appear worst off.

What about a more serious symptomatic infection – perhaps acute respiratory illness requiring several days of hospitalisation and supplementary oxygen?

Table 6

Here, at last, we appear to see some benefit from the vaccines – the unvaccinated appear to be rather more likely to be hospitalised for a few days following Covid infection (acute respiratory illness requiring supplementary oxygen), and even though they also appear to be less likely to be similarly hospitalised without Covid, this isn’t by so great a margin to remove the protective effect of vaccination. 

But yet, I keep returning to the matter of the 14 day limit after the positive test. Individuals typically get to the point where they require supplementary oxygen some time after infection. If the unvaccinated aren’t testing themselves at the point where symptoms start but the vaccinated are, then they’ll be relatively more likely to get to the stage where oxygen is required within that 14 day period. Any delay in symptomatic disease in the vaccinated would only make this effect worse. Is the supposed effectiveness of the vaccines at preventing severe disease simply an artefact arising due to the fact that it takes longer to get to the point where the symptoms are severe, or due to the unvaccinated being more test-averse?

The UKHSA doesn’t report on the basis for the use of a 14 day limit – I’d very much like to see supporting data, or a sensitivity analysis in its paper, comparing rates for 14, 21 and 28 days after the positive test.


The UKHSA has at long last published raw data on hospitalisation rates by vaccine status, for those infected with Covid as well as those that aren’t. The results are very concerning, showing significantly higher A&E admission rates in the vaccinated for reasons other than Covid, and much less difference in admission rates for symptomatic Covid in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated than suggested by the estimates of vaccine effectiveness published by the UKHSA. 

What I’ve shown here isn’t proof that the vaccines are causing harm – but it is a huge red-flag that strongly suggests that there might be a serious problem, and certainly indicates that a proper analysis of illness after vaccination needs to be undertaken urgently.  

Furthermore, the significant differences in the ‘negative test’ arm of the UKHSA data suggest that the test-negative case-control method is not appropriate, and that a full retrospective matched-cohort study into vaccine effectiveness and safety should be undertaken.

Amanuensis is an ex-academic and senior Government scientist. He blogs at Bartram’s Folly.



First published on BITCHUTE May 6th, 2022.



First published on BITCHUTE May 5th, 2022.

channel image

🐯 Orion-XTZ 🐯

The Nuremberg Code has not been officially accepted as law by any nation or as official ethics guidelines by any association. In fact, the Code's reference to Hippocratic duty to the individual patient and the need to provide information was not initially favored by the American Medical Association.



PROLOGUE: Especially science writers with a Ph.D. MUST STOP to call the genetic weapon shots a 'vaccine' !!!

New Peer-Reviewed Study: COVID-19 Vaccines Increase Risk of Cardiac Arrest in Young People by 25 Percent


You would think that the scientific community, public officials, and every media outlet in the world would be discussing a new peer-reviewed article entitled, “Increased emergency cardiovascular events among under 40 population in Israel during vaccine rollout and third COVID19 wave.” Why? Because the results of this study are nothing short of astounding.

By Kateryna Kon/Shutterstock

Picture Kateryna Kon/Shutterstock with the fake 'virus'

This data analysis was published on April 28, 2022 in the multidisciplinary British scientific journal Nature. Nature is one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world.

The research was co-authored by Drs. Christopher Sun, Ph.D, a postdoctoral fellow with Healthcare System Engineering at Massachusetts Generation Hospital and with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management; Eli Jaffe, Ph.D., who is affiliated with Israel’s National Emergency Medical Services, and one of Israel’s leading authority in the field of emergency medicine and medical management; and Retsef Levi, Ph.D., the J. Spencer Standish (1945) Professor of Operations Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management. 

Their team analyzed data collected by Israel’s National Emergency Medical Services between 2019 and 2021. They found that there was an over 25 percent increase in emergency calls about cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome—an umbrella term used for coronary problems associated with sudden-onset reduced blood flow to the heart, according to the Mayo Clinic– for young adults, ages 16 to 39 years old, compared to the same time period in both 2019 and 2020.

Furthermore, the researchers discovered that this increase in emergency heart issues was associated with COVID-19 vaccination but not with COVID-19 infections.

They explain: 

“An increase of over 25% was detected …compared with the years 2019–2020. [T]he weekly emergency call counts were significantly associated with the rates of 1st and 2nd vaccine doses administered to this age group [16 to 39] but were not with COVID‐19 infection rates. While not establishing causal relationships, the findings raise concerns regarding vaccine‐induced undetected severe cardiovascular side‐effects and underscore the already established causal relationship between vaccines and myocarditis, a frequent cause of unexpected cardiac arrest in young individuals.”

More Cause for Concern

As the three scientists themselves point out, this new peer-reviewed science dovetails with a growing body of scientific and clinical evidence that shows myriad side effects—some of which are extremely severe—from COVID-19 vaccines themselves. 

The scientific community has started to document the side effects. For instance, in June of 2021 an international team of sixteen scientists published a research letternoting the temporal relationship between the onset of acute myocarditis in eight adult men, between the ages of 21 and 56. 

These scientists, writing in the journal Circulation, underscored that “…the real incidence of acute myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination … appears to be extremely rare,” given the millions of people who had been vaccinated seemingly without incident. Still, they wrote, “providers should be vigilant for myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, and further research is required to understand the long-term cardiovascular risks.”

The link between inflammation of the heart (myocarditis) and inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart (pericarditis) was further explored in a detailed articlepublished in the British Medical Journal that same month: “Covid-19: Should we be worried about reports of myocarditis and pericarditis after mRNA vaccines?” 

That article quoted Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco, who expressed deep reservations about giving COVID-19 vaccines to young people, given the early reports of heart damage. 

“There is a clear and large safety signal in young men and a clear but small signal in young women as well,” Prasad said. Given the risk of cardiac damage, Prasad said, the safest way forward would be to suspend all vaccination in children under eighteen and give only one vaccine dose to men under 25.

More recently, in February 2022, three scientists (a researcher based in Germany, a physicist also based in Germany, and an independent data and pattern scientist based in the Netherlands) published a letter to the editor in the journal Clinical and Translational Discovery, “The risk-benefit ration of Covid-19 vaccines: Publication policy by reattraction does nothing to improve it.” 

This letter also analyzed data from Israel. The data is disturbing. These scientists concluded that “as we vaccinate 100 000 persons, we might save five lives but risk two to four deaths”.

Among other things, they pointed out that the CDC’s own passive reporting system, VAERS, which is now showing several very concerning signals—as of April 22, 2022, 27,532 deaths post-vaccination have been reported, as well as 14,096 heart attacks, and 39,639 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis—is known for underestimating both deaths and adverse effects from vaccines.

Who are the people behind these numbers? The young people who were eager to get vaccinated so they could theoretically be protected against COVID-19 and also theoretically protect others but instead lost their lives or had their health severely compromised as a result of vaccine-induced myocarditis?

Benjamin Goodman, 32, Dies 14 Hours After J&J Vaccine

One of those people is Benjamin Gordon Goodman, a successful and enterprising young man who was working in the television industry but had decided to go back to school to get an MBA. About a week after Goodman turned 32, he went to a Walgreens in Chelsea for his COVID-19 vaccine. He chose to get the Johnson & Johnson vaccine so he would only need one shot.

According to Goodman’s stepmother, Pamela Everett Goodman, a little after 4:00 p.m. that day Goodman texted them a photograph of his vaccination card. He also texted he had a horrible headache, which had come on almost instantly. He went back to his apartment, thinking he could sleep off the side effects. But that night, around 1:00 a.m., he spiked a very high fever. At 3:00 a.m. his fiancé woke up to him having a seizure. She called 911. 

Emergency Medical Technicians tried to restart his heart. They brought Goodman to Mount Sinai Hospital. He was pronounced dead at 6:05 a.m. on March 14, 2021. Goodman had been eager to buy a plane ticket to visit Vanderbilt, one of several prestigious graduate MBA programs that accepted him. His family thought they would soon be planning a wedding. Instead, they found themselves planning their son’s funeral. 

The immediate cause of death listed on his death certificate: “Dilated Cardiomyopathy.” Other significant conditions contributing to death: “Febrile Reaction Following Covid-19 Vaccination.”

CDC Stays Silent, Provides Inaccurate Information to the Public

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the nation’s “health protection agency.” According to their website, the CDC “saves lives and protects people from health threats.” To accomplish that mission, the CDC “conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise.”

However, when it comes to severe adverse events following the COVID-19 vaccines, however, the CDC has greatly downplayed the risks. 

When accessed by The Epoch Times, the public material on their website about vaccine-induced myocarditis had not been updated since November 12, 2021. That information, already six months out of date, mentions that cases of myocarditis reported to VAERS “have occurred,” especially in adolescent men and young adults. The CDC details that myocarditis has been seen “more often” with the second dose, and “usually within a week of vaccination.” 

At the same time, according to the CDC, “Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who received care responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly.”

Perhaps even more misleading, there is no mention of any kind of heart attacks, acute coronary syndrome, myocarditis or pericarditis by the CDC in their web article, “Possible Side Effects After Getting a COVID-19 Vaccine.” This article, too, is grossly out of date. 

Last updated on January 12, 2022, the side effects that the CDC mention include only pain, redness, and swelling “on the arm where you got the shot,” and tiredness, headache, muscle pain, chills, fever, and nausea “throughout the rest of your body.” Handouts available in PDF form that are shared with people considering the vaccine also make no mention of heart damage.

While the cardiac safety signals are worrisome, especially for adolescents and young adults, it is heartening that more and more scientists have started to carefully analyze the data, publish their findings, and voice concerns about possible side effects of these COVID-19 vaccines. It is only when people are armed with accurate medical information—both positive and negative—that trust in public health authorities and the vaccine schedules they recommend can be restored.

Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., is an award-winning science journalist and frequent contributor to The Epoch Times.

Joe Wang, Ph.D., was a lead scientist for Sanofi Pasteur’s SARS vaccine project in 2003. He’s now the president of New Tang Dynasty TV (Canada), a media partner of The Epoch Times.



[1] Sun, C.L.F., Jaffe, E. & Levi, R. Increased emergency cardiovascular events among under-40 population in Israel during vaccine rollout and third COVID-19 wave. Sci Rep12, 6978 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10928-z

[2] “Acute coronary syndrome,” Mayo Clinic, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/acute-coronary-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20352136. Accessed 5/4/2022.

[3] Larson KF, Ammirati E, Adler ED, Cooper LT Jr, Hong KN, Saponara G, Couri D, Cereda A, Procopio A, Cavalotti C, Oliva F, Sanna T, Ciconte VA, Onyango G, Holmes DR, Borgeson DD. Myocarditis After BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 Vaccination. Circulation. 2021 Aug 10;144(6):506-508. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATION AHA.121.055913. Epub 2021 Jun 16. PMID: 34133884; PMCID: PMC8340725.

[4] “Covid-19: Should we be worried about reports of myocarditis and pericarditis after mRNA vaccines?” BMJ 2021; 373: n1635 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1635 (Published 24 June 2021).

[5] “The risk-benefit ratio of Covid-19 vaccines: Publication policy by retraction does nothing to improve it,” Harald Walach, Rainer J. Klement, Wouter Aukema, 25 February 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/ctd2.35

[6] VAERS COVID Vaccine Adverse Event Reports, OpenVaers.comhttps://openvaers.com/covid-data. Accessed on 5/4/2022.

[7] Lazarus, R., Klompas, M., Campion, F. X., McNabb, S. J., Hou, X., Daniel, J., Haney, G., DeMaria, A., Lenert, L., & Platt, R. (2009). Electronic Support for Public Health: validated case finding and reporting for notifiable diseases using electronic medical data. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA16(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2848.

[8] https://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm. Accessed 5/4/2022.

[9] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html. Accessed 5/4/2022.

[10] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect/after.html. Accessed 5/4/2022.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.


Jennifer Margulis

Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., is an award-winning journalist and author of “Your Baby, Your Way: Taking Charge of Your Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Parenting Decisions for a Happier, Healthier Family.” A Fulbright awardee and mother of four, she has worked on a child survival campaign in West Africa, advocated for an end to child slavery in Pakistan on prime-time TV in France, and taught post-colonial literature to non-traditional students in inner-city Atlanta. Learn more about her at JenniferMargulis.net