U.S. Government ‘Saddled’ with COVID Vaccine Injury ‘Mess’ — While Vaccine Makers Avoid Liability
Largest Study of Its Kind Finds Excess Deaths During Pandemic Caused by Public Health Response, Not Virus
Spatiotemporal Variation of Excess All-cause Mortality in the World (125 countries) During the COVID Period 2020-2023 Regarding Socio-Economic Factors and Public Health and Medical Interventions
COVID Vaccines Linked to Increase in All-cause Mortality, Italian Study Shows
Dr. Charles Hoffe Denounces the Covid Vaccine: “Biggest Disaster in Medical History”. Confronts College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia Tribunal rules against blanket judicial notice of significant facts.
By Lee Turner, Dr. Charles Hoffe, Dr. Mark Trozzi, and Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, July 08, 2024
Dr Mark Trozzi
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research
Our thanks to Dr. Mark Trozzi for bringing this important issue to our attention.
***
Yesterday, during Wins of the Week, we reported that Dr. Charles Hoffe and his lawyer, Lee Turner, successfully opposed the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC’s application. The College sought an order from the panel to take judicial notice of their version of the facts concerning the safety and effectiveness of the COVID vaccine and SARS-CoV-2, but this application was defeated.
As promised, we’re publishing a detailed report on this matter. It begins with a letter from Lee Turner, JD, explaining the situation, followed by the complete collection of documents, starting with the CPSOBC’s explanation of the decision.
Dr. Mark Trozzi
Dr. Charles Hoffe: Hidden COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries: The Microscopic Blood Clots
Many people who are vaccinated will not be immediately aware of the injuries incurred. The latter in many cases of “adverse events” are not discernible nor are they recorded. While “big blood clots” resulting from the vaccine are revealed and reported by those vaccinated, an important study by Canada’s Dr. Charles Hoffe suggests that the mRNA vaccine generates “microscopic blood clots”.
“The blood clots we hear about which the media claim are very rare are the big blood clots which are the ones that cause strokes and show up on CT scans, MRI, etc.
The clots I’m talking about are microscopic and too small to find on any scan. They can thus only be detected using the D-dimer test.”
“These people have no idea they are even having these microscopic blood clots. The most alarming part of this is that there are some parts of the body like the brain, spinal cord, heart and lungs which cannot re-generate. When those tissues are damaged by blood clots they are permanently damaged.
“These shots are causing huge damage and the worst is yet to come.” (Charles Hoffe)
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 8, 2024
Excerpt and quotations from The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity.
Video Charles Hoffe. Microscopic Blood Clots
Watch below his interview with Laura Lynn Tylor Thompson (also available on Rumble channel).
Video: “Biggest Disaster in Medical History”. Dr. Charles Hoffe
Subject: Judicial Notice Decision for Dr. Charles Hoffe
Date: July 5, 2024 at 12:58:16 PM PDT
Hello everyone,
I wanted to let you all know that we were successful in defeating the application of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC where they sought an order from the panel taking judicial notice of their version of facts concerning the safety and effectiveness of the covid vaccine and SARS-CoV-2.
I am providing this to you (some who are lawyers and many who are not) so you are aware of this positive decision. In my opinion, this decision is a clear win for Dr. Hoffe and for anyone who is facing similar arguments by government or public health officials or institutions in a disciplinary context. While the panel made it very clear that they have not accepted or rejected our expert evidence at this stage, they have now seen it. This is the first decision of its kind in Canada that I am aware of in a disciplinary hearing context that provides such thorough and clear reasons as to why judicial notice should not be taken of these disputed facts. It should be of use to all other health professionals who are facing a similar situation and likely will be of assistance in other civil cases within the court system. Although this decision is not binding on a court, it is written in a manner that you would normally see in a court decision and the reasoning and the legal arguments made are sound and would be persuasive to a court in my opinion. One of our panel members is a retired BC Supreme Court and BC Court of Appeal judge. I would not be surprised if he wrote the decision or at least had some significant input.
I will highlight what I consider to be the key aspects of the decision, but I have attached the decision for your review. Please feel free to share this decision on your social media and with any lawyers or individuals that you think this may help. I have also attached the College’s application and my reply to the College’s application which shows the legal arguments. I have attached Dr. Hoffe’s affidavit but have not provided all of the exhibits due to its length but I can certainly do so if someone would like it. If you would like the attachments as well just let me know and I can send them to you through dropbox or secure docs. I have not attached the College’s reply where they attack the reliability and weight of our expert reports, but I could certainly do so if someone wants it.
In paragraph 4 of the decision, the panel details the 8 “Notice Facts” (which actually contain more than 8 facts) that the College was seeking judicial notice of. In paragraph 8 of the decision the panel sets out what they are prepared to take judicial notice of. I have no issue with the facts that they did take judicial notice of as I think they are facts. These facts do not help the College in proving their charges against Dr. Hoffe in any way. As a result of this decision, the College will be required to prove their case by presenting evidence that is subject to testing through cross-examination.
At paragraph 12 of the decision the panel reiterates their previous criticism of the College for bringing this judicial notice application approximately 2 weeks before the then scheduled start of the hearing which was to occur between March 1-14th 2024. It is also important to note that the panel began or opened the hearing on May 31, 2024. This is important because the College is not allowed to introduce new expert evidence or documentary evidence unless it is provided to us at least 14 days before the hearing commences. They have indicated that if they lost this application they were going to be getting 8 additional experts and potentially 2 or 3 additional lay witnesses. I will be opposing any such argument. The Health Professions Act contains these provisions regarding the exchange of evidence to be utilized at a hearing, and it also contains a loophole that allows the panel to ignore these rules if not doing so would unduly prejudice one of the parties (s.38(4.2)) However given the fact that the Colleges recognize that Dr. Hoffe is entitled to a very high level of procedural fairness, and that is the reason s.38 (4.1) is in the HPA, I am hopeful we will be able to persuade the panel that they should not exercise their right to use s.38(4.2) in this instance to allow the College to essentially have a do over in terms of providing evidence to justify the charges set out in the citation and in their letter of particulars.
At paragraph 14 the Panel confirms that the College intends to tender expert evidence from Dr. Trevor Corneil. Although the College tried to suggest in their application materials that Dr. Corneil was simply offering background facts, when his report was originally served on Dr. Hoffe’s former counsel, counsel for the College confirmed they were serving his report as an expert report. They have also previously made this commitment to the panel in other appearances. My belief is the reason they are doing this is so that they can try to bolster their argument that they need 8 additional experts as they have previously stated, if they were unsuccessful in their judicial notice application. It is also important to note that the panel recognized that the 8 expert reports that we have tendered in response to the judicial notice of application were tendered for the purpose of supporting the veracity of the various statements made by Dr. Hoffe that he is now being persecuted for.
The College has suggested some of the additional experts they intend to call will include a cellular biologist, a virologist, a cardiologist, a hematologist and a gynecologist. (Paragraph 17). The panel summarizes the College’s rationale for their application in paragraphs 15-22. The panel points out the inconsistent position taken by the College with respect to the reliability of your expert evidence (paragraph 29-30).
The Court explains why it was prepared to take judicial notice of the fact that there is a potential for the Covid virus to cause death or other serious effects but in doing so emphasized that the level of that risk is one of the central issues in dispute. The panel notes that some of the evidence provided by Dr. Hoffe’s experts confirm that the risk of severe disease and death is extremely skewed to those above 70 years of age, especially those with multiple comorbidities. The court noted our submission that the data shows that there is a very high survival rate for those under age 70. The panel also chose to highlight some of our other arguments at paragraph 47 which I think is a good sign that they are paying attention to the submissions and felt them worthy of mention. Paragraph 48 summarizes their conclusions on this issue.
The facts that the College sought judicial notice of that were dangerous to Dr. Hoffe’s defence were those in items 2-5. Thankfully the College declined to take judicial notice of any of those items (paragraph 49). The College agreed with our argument that these facts were too broad and imprecise to be the subject of judicial notice (paragraph 52), not to mention that they are not true. The panel was not about to draw that conclusion in the context of the judicial notice application however. That determination will be left to be determined after the hearing has concluded based upon the evidence presented at the hearing.
With respect to the suggestion that the virus does not discriminate, the panel accepted our argument that this was too vague to be a proper fact for judicial notice and made note of our argument that the virus does indeed discriminate in terms of who is more likely to be infected and the seriousness of the consequences to certain individuals if infected.
The panel endorsed important language in a decision rendered by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal where it held that the safety and efficacy of any drug is always relative and as a rule the safety and efficacy of a pharmaceutical product cannot be discussed in such a blunt fashion as to say that it “is” or “is not” safe and effective. The endorsement of this principle is important. (See paragraph 58).
The Panel concluded that it cannot reach an accurate and reliable conclusion on the issues raised by the College without hearing from Dr. Hoffe’s experts and permitting them to be cross-examined. (Paragraph 70).
The panel makes it very clear that they have not made any determinations about the reliability of our expert evidence but does point out on a number of occasions that the College admitted that the evidence we have presented contradicts their “Notice Facts” that they sought judicial notice of. This admission necessitated the College to make the arguments in their Reply about the reliability of, and weight to be given to, our expert opinions. (Paragraph 88).
Another conclusion of the panel that is important is where they state that appellate courts have shifted away from using judicial notice to resolve scientific questions about the safety and efficacy of pediatric Covid 19 vaccines and moved towards a presumption in favour of parental decision-making that is consistent with Health Canada recommendations in family law proceedings. These decisions conclude that parents and courts are entitled to rely on Health Canada’s recommendations as indicating the course of action presumed to be in the best interest of children, absent compelling evidence to the contrary. While I suspect we all agree that Health Canada has not earned the privilege to be granted such a presumption, I suspect we also agree that there is compelling evidence to the contrary. The key is making sure that the people with the right qualifications clearly present that evidence to the courts and these panels so that we can start to turn the jurisprudence around on this issue and demonstrate that Health Canada should not be entitled to such a presumption. Our expert opinion, and this case overall, presents an opportunity to begin this process.
While the panel quotes the troubling Court of Appeal decision out of Alberta in Holden v. Holden, at paragraph 93, which stands for the proposition that courts do not need to second-guess Health Canada for the purpose of deciding whether it’ s recommended vaccinations are in a child’s best interests, they do endorse a very useful quote from a Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in paragraph 95 which I believe is critically important. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in OMS v. EJS made it clear that the fact that Health Canada has granted approval of a new drug is such a broad and categorical statement that it has little meaning or utility. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal confirms that the fact that regulatory approval has occurred means only that Health Canada has determined, based on a risk-benefit analysis, that a drug is sufficiently safe, effective and of sufficient quality to be approved, if it is used in accordance with the approval, including the product monograph, together with any medical advice and monitoring that may be required. One of the key points stated by the Court of Appeal is that they noted the existence of easy-to-find case law or reports of instances where drug companies have been found to have brought on the market products that have passed a regulatory process and have been found to be associated with risks that are later determined to have been misdescribed or missed altogether in the product information that accompanies the distribution of the product. For those reasons, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal said that they found it impossible to arrive at a conclusion that the Pfizer vaccine is safe because it is government approved and is so notorious or generally accepted as not to be the subject of debate among reasonable persons or so capable of immediate and accurate demonstration by resort to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy. In other words, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is making it clear that despite Health Canada finding a variety of drugs safe and effective in the past, many of them have later been withdrawn from the market because this conclusion turned out to be false.
While I still find the decisions in a family law context troubling, the panel does point out that in Holden in the Alberta Court of Appeal and in OMS in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal that when considering whether or not a child should be vaccinated, it is not necessary to make a separate inquiry into the safety, effectiveness and desirability of vaccination unless there is sufficient evidence to put these issues into question. The example they give is evidence of child-specific medical concerns. I would suggest that general safety concerns of the product should be enough but the reality is that in family law cases often the litigants do not have access to experts like those we have been privileged to work with on this case.
The panel summarizes these cases in paragraph 100 where it makes a very important statement . The panel concludes that while in the family law context in most cases the presumption that a drug or vaccine approved by Health Canada is safe and effective will be sufficient to dispose of the issue, unless a party adduces such evidence to displace that presumption, which in such case the issues of safety or risk from vaccination should be resolved on the evidence.
The panel also accepted our argument that a disciplinary proceeding is starkly different from all of these family law cases. Based on the jurisprudence, it is a professional discipline matter that calls for a high degree of procedural fairness (although one would think that the safety of children would be at least as important) and that the citation squarely raises the question whether the statements made by Dr. Hoffe were true. The panel makes this important conclusion in paragraph 102 “The fact of regulatory approval does not provide a presumptive answer to this question in the same way that it does for the question of whether a child should receive a vaccine.” Again I disagree with the fact that children should be subject to some lower standard of procedural fairness but at the very least we have the panel saying here that just because Health Canada approved something does not necessarily mean that they are safe or effective. The panel has decided that the must review the evidence before making such a determination.
The panel made it clear that although they were prepared to take judicial notice of the fact that Health Canada had approved the covid vaccines, they declined to take judicial notice of the assertion that regulatory approval is a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness as has been done in a number of other cases. (Paragraph 107). The panel made a distinction that I am not sure I agree with at paragraph 108 where they distinguished the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in JN v. CG where the court found that judicial notice should be taken of regulatory approval, and that regulatory approval is a strong indicator of safety and effectiveness, on the basis that this pertained to pediatric covid 19 vaccines. Again I am not sure why the children are subject to a lower threshold of protection than a medical professional in a disciplinary proceeding. For our purposes with Dr. Hoffe’s matter, the panel went out of its way to distinguish this Court of Appeal decision to justify its refusal to take judicial notice of these facts sought by the College in the circumstances.
So this is one of those victories that we need to take a moment to celebrate but there are still many battles to be fought in this case. On Monday we are going back before the panel for a case planning conference and at this hearing we will likely discuss whether or not the College still intends to attempt to tender 8 additional expert reports and 2 or more additional lay witnesses, and if so, when I will be permitted to make written arguments objecting to same.
I hope you will find this encouraging and potentially helpful to others you know of that are involved in these types of situations with the professional body or health authority, or possibly in other contexts as well.
Regards,
Lee C. Turner
Partner, Professional Law Corporation
*
Click here for CPSBC: Reasons for Decision – Judicial Notice Application.
Click here for the complete Affidavit of Dr Charles Hoffe March 20,2024.
Excerpts below
This is the Ist affiduvit of Dr. Charles Hoffe in this case and was made on 2 March,2024
IN THE MATIER OF the CITATION to appear further amended and dated July 19, 2023 pursuant to Section 38 of the Health Professions Act, RSBC 1996, c 183
BETWEEN
COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (the
AND
“CoUege”)
DR. CHARLES HOFFE (“Dr. Roffe”)
AFFIDAVIT
APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
I, DR. CHARLES HOFFE, of 153 Loring Way East, PO Box 550, Lytton, British Columbia, VOK 1ZO, Physician, SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT:
I am the Respondent in this matter and as such, have personal knowledge of the facts and matters hereinafter deposed to, save and except where such facts and matters are stated to be made upon information and belief, and as to such facts and matters I verily believe them to be true.
I have reviewed the documents and videos attached as exhibits to my affidavit and provide a brief summary of some of the infonnation contained with them and some background infonnation.
In September 2021 a group called the Public Hea1th and Medical Professionals for Transparency filed a Freedom of Infom1ation Act (FOIA) request with the US Food and Drug Administration to obtain the documentation used to approve the Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine known as Comimaty, including safety and effectiveness data, adverse reaction reports and lists of active and inactive ingredients. When after a month, the FDA bad not responded to the request the PHMPT sued to compel production ofthe documents.
Pfizer and the FDA asked the Court to give them 75 years to release the documents, providingjust 500 pages per month, but the Court ruled that they had to release them at the rate of 50,000 plus pages per month. In the middle of November 2021 the FDA released the first 91 pages which included the Pfizer Adverse Events Report dated April 30, 2021 which included data from Pfizer’s post-market surveillance up to February 28, 2021 (the “Pfizer Feb 28, 2021 AESI Report”) .
A true copy of this document is attached as exhibit ..A” to this my affidavit.
In this report, Pfizer revealed that it received 42,086 adverse events reports that included 1223 deaths from people who had received the vaccine. See page 6, last paragraph, and Table 1 on page 7, 2nd last row for this information.
Attached as exhibit “B “ is a document that I created by taking the information contained within Appendix 1 to the Pfizer Feb 28, 2021 AESI Report, and numbering each of the adverse events of special interest reported to Pfizer following injection of their product, up to February 28, 2021. I have color coded those AESIs that are relevant to the Citation and provided a legend for ease of reference.
Click here for the complete Affidavit of Dr Charles Hoffe March 20,2024.
Click here for the Application Response to Affidavit of Dr Charles Hoffe.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Military Grade Propaganda Campaign Helped Sell Fraudulent Narrative About COVID-19
Global Research, July 09, 2024
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research
***
Like December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001, March 11, 2020 was a day that will live in infamy because it is when the the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the existence of the COVID-19 pandemic.
This declaration led governments around the world to adopt emergency measures, including forced lockdowns, school closures, mandatory masking and social distancing and later vaccine mandates.
Eventually the pandemic was said to have been contained and emergency measures were lifted, though the same authorities who spread fear about COVID-19 are continuously warning about lingering variants and the potential for new pandemic outbreaks.
David Hughes is a professor of international relations at the University of Lincoln in the UK with a Ph.D. from Oxford who published a deeply researched and scathing article on the failings of the International Relations profession when it comes to analyzing the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Hughes’ latest book, “Covid-19” Psychological Operations, and the War For Technocracy, Volume 1 (New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2024) examines how global elites used mind control techniques, previously experimented by the CIA, to induce mass hysteria over a virus equivalent to influenza. This hysteria led people to turn on friends and family who sustained critical thought, and to willingly throw away cherished personal liberties.
According to Hughes, COVID-19 hysteria was manufactured as part of a class war by global elites who feared the growing restiveness of the population as a result of the failure of neoliberal economic policies over the last 40 years.
Prior to the outbreak of the pandemic, there were large-scale protests in Western countries owing to stark social inequalities and policy failures. The international monetary and financial system was on the verge of collapse and propaganda system was beginning to break down as citizens no longer believed much of what government officials and the media told them.
Rather than rounding up dissenters and violently crushing protests—like in generations past—a creative new approach was used: scaring the public with military grade propaganda regarding an illusory pandemic in order to get them to acquiesce to totalitarian measures.
Under conditions of lockdown, people could not gather or meet publicly and organize politically. Many people became depressed as they could not work or pursue productive life pursuits, and substance abuse, alcoholism, suicide and domestic violence skyrocketed.
Anyone who questioned the dominant COVID-19 narrative was pathologized, with friends and comrades who had been involved in social struggles turning on each other.
After the vaccines were rolled out, anyone questioning them was labelled an “anti-vaxxer” and socially ostracized. This was the equivalent term of the label “communist” during the Cold War.
Hughes argues that the psychological warfare operation’s purpose was to “demoralize, disorient and debilitate” society and hence “weaken its resistance” to the intended transition from democracy to technocracy—a political-economic system in which a small managerial elite acting on behalf of the wealthiest classes runs and controls everything.
The Cold War and War on Terror had institutionalized an elite strategy of inducing fear in the public, sometimes through plotting false flag terrorist attacks, to advance and legitimize authoritarian measures, including Orwellian surveillance and wide-scale censorship.
Manufacturing a disease pandemic was the logical successor in sustaining an ongoing state of emergency, with the military grade psychological warfare operation serving potentially as a prelude to war.
Already we are in throes of a global dictatorship, which will be fortified if the WHO pandemic treaty is passed.
This treaty would legally cede national sovereignty for pandemic response to the WHO Director-General, who could sanction any country that does not adhere to lockdown measures, forced vaccination, and the introduction of a health data surveillance system that could be used for ever tightening social control.
Drawing on CIA Mind Control Techniques
According to Hughes, the COVID-19 psychological warfare operation drew on techniques cultivated in psychiatric labs such as the Rockefeller financed Tavistock Institute of Medical Psychology, which was involved with the CIA’s infamous Operation MK-ULTRA—a drug and mind testing program that ran from the mid 1950s through the 1970s.
Under the direction of John Rawlings Rees, the Tavistock Institute carried out experiments in hypnosis and brainwashing—some based on study of Chinese thought control techniques allegedly applied on U.S. POWs during the Korean War—and attempted to reprogram human behavior.[1]
Source: themilleniumreport.com
One of the key findings of CIA researchers was that people’s susceptibility to propaganda and group-based psychology increases markedly when they are forced into isolation—which may have been a key purpose behind the COVID-19 lockdowns.
Some of the techniques of the COVID-19 psy-war operations drew on the practices of totalitarian states like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
One formula was to repeat the same lies over and over. Another was to pathologize dissenters. Those who did not wear masks or take the vaccines were considered to be “spreaders of disease” and somehow contaminated—like the Jews in Nazi demonology.
Others were labeled as “crazy conspiracy theorists,” or “right-wing extremists.”
The primary intent of the COVID-19 psychological operation, according to Hughes, was to break people down on a societal wide level and try and program how they think and act.
The spectacular success was evident in the wide-scale conformity to irrational measures—mask-wearing, for example, does not stop the spread of illness; the lockdowns destroyed people’s lives, and vaccines caused serious and sometimes lethal side effects and killed more people than they allegedly saved.
Source: hourmatoday.com
Hughes writes that a delusional psychosis took over society like in a wartime climate in which people were “impervious to reason, to logic, and to education.”
COVID-19 true believers do not listen to counter-arguments or reason and resort to name calling and slander of those who seek to expose the dark truths of our socio-political reality.
These true believers have much in common with members of totalitarian societies and cults whose suspension of critical thinking has led them to behave viciously and irrationally.
Pseudopandemic
The societal psychosis Hughes describes was fueled in part by alarmist media stories replete with distorted imagery of mass deaths and diseased ICUs along with government spokesmen or scientific officials standing next to frightening looking graphs that provided ominous forecasts.
A mass burial site outside New York featured ubiquitously in the media as proof of the pandemic’s ravaging effects had actually been used for mass burials and unclaimed and unidentified bodies since 1869.
Source: aljazeera.com
According to Hughes, there is zero evidence that an actual viral pandemic broke out in 2020.
COVID-19 first emerged in 2019 and fatal infections were in decline by March, 2020, when there were only 4,291 reported COVID-19 deaths—0.000055% of the global population.
Until August 2020, anyone in England who died following a positive test result for COVID-19 was labeled a COVID-19 death on the death certificate, even if they died of other causes.
Public Health England later ruled that COVID-19 could still appear as the underlying cause of death if there had been a positive test within 28 and then 60 days of death.
The propaganda that hospitals were overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients is disproven by data Hughes cites that 40 percent of National Health Service (NHS) hospital beds in England lay unoccupied during the heart of the so-called pandemic. At the same time, only 2,150 of 30,000 ordered ventilators were dispatched.
A 2021 study by John Dee analyzing a large data set of electronic admissions records for an unnamed NHS Trust between January 1 and June 13, 2021, found that only 9.7% of declared COVID-19 cases exhibited the fundamental basis for symptomatic disease.
Kary Mulis (image on the right), the inventor of the PCR tests, which was used to tabulate positive cases, said that the test was never even developed for “diagnostic purposes.”
Hughes writes that under the guise of public health, the UK and other governments were engaged in an attack on the health of their own population as the lockdowns prevented people from getting the medical treatment they needed for illnesses besides COVID-19.
In a practice reminiscent of the Soviet Union, at least three prominent dissenters were placed in psychiatric facilities:
a) Beate Bahner, a German medical lawyer who on April 3, 2020 issued a press release condemning the lockdown measures as “flagrantly unconstitutional, infringing to an unprecedented extent many of the fundamental rights of citizens.”
b) Thomas Binder, a Swiss cardiologist who was arrested by an anti-terrorist squad in mid April 2020 after speaking out against the flawed PCR tests. And
c) Jean Bertrand Fourtillon, a retired French professor of Pharmacology who in December 2020 was forcibly placed in solitary confinement at the Uzes Psychiatric Hospital after being featured in a documentary called Hold Up stating that the manufactured COVID-19 crisis was being used to impose a dangerous vaccine on the world.
Does COVID-19 Exist and Is the Vaccine a Military Grade Weapon?
Hughes presents information to back up his impression that the COVID-19 virus does not actually exist—at least in the form it has been explained to the public.
He points out the strange fact that during the supposed pandemic, influenza cases and deaths were reduced to almost nothing. Hughes cites evidence from the CDC that the symptoms people experienced with COVID-19 were mostly reminiscent of the flu. The only difference in symptoms is that COVID-19 may result in loss of taste or smell, but so can ansomia.
In Hughes’ reading, the lab leak theory of COVID-19’s origins, which has become increasingly prevalent in the mainstream, is part of a cover up to mask the fact that there is no scientific proof that COVID-19 actually exists and that the entire pandemic was manufactured.
Hughes suggests that we should be open to the possibility that the vaccine was part of a military project, Operation Warp Speed, designed to test bioweapons and black technology on unwitting U.S. citizens.
Under Warp Speed, the U.S. military took charge of the production and distribution of the vaccines, with the White House’s Coronavirus Coordinator, Deborah Birx, coming from the military, and financing for Moderna’s vaccine coming from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which develops cutting edge military technology.
Hughes cites research by Whitney Webb and Sasha Latypova among others that contracts under Warp Speed were clandestinely awarded to vaccine companies via Advanced Technology International, which has close ties to the CIA.
Overall, Hughes is clearly on the mark in his assessment of COVID-19 as a “deep political event” that has helped alter the political landscape in the direction of authoritarianism, stifled the social and class solidarity that is needed for effective protest movements, and helped brainwash a portion of the public into acquiescence.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Too Hot For the Mainstream Media.
Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of five books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019), The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018), and Warmonger. How Clinton’s Malign Foreign Policy Launched the U.S. Trajectory From Bush II to Biden (Clarity Press, 2023). He can be reached at: jkuzmarov2@gmail.com and followed on substack here.
Note
[1] Under the direction of CIA-financed psychologists Ewen Cameron and William Sargent, the Tavistock institute carried out experiments involving psychotropic drugs and mind control and developed psychological torture techniques that were adopted by the CIA. Hughes suggests that the Tavistock Institute was a driving force behind the drugs counter-culture of the 1960s aimed at neutering youth resistance. He writes that “U.S. college students who had engaged in various forms of direct action against the system in the 1960s were by the end of the decade a collective of doped up zombies.”
By Dr. Brenda Baletti
Global Research, July 22, 2024
Children's Health Defense 19 July 2024
A study released today of excess mortality in 125 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic found the major causes of death globally stemmed from public health establishment’s response, including mandates and lockdowns that caused severe stress, harmful medical interventions and the COVID-19 vaccines.
“We conclude that nothing special would have occurred in terms of mortality had a pandemic not been declared and had the declaration not been acted upon,” the authors of the study wrote.
Researchers from the Canadian nonprofit Correlation Research in the Public Interest and the University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières analyzed excess all-cause mortality data prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic, beginning with the March 11, 2020, World Health Organization (WHO) pandemic declaration and ending on May 5, 2023, when the WHO declared the pandemic over.
The results, presented in a detailed 521-page analysis, establish baseline all-cause mortality rates across 125 countries and use those to determine the variations in excess deaths during the pandemic.
The researchers also used the baseline rates to investigate how the individual country variations in excess death rates correlated to different pandemic-related interventions, including vaccination and booster campaigns.
Not all of the results on a country-by-country basis were the same. For example, in some countries, mortality spikes occurred before the vaccines were rolled out, while in other places, the mortality spikes tracked closely with vaccine or booster campaigns.
In some places, excess mortality rates returned to baseline or close to baseline in 2022, while in others, the rates persisted well into 2023. Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., lead author of the study, told The Defender the disparities result from the complex nature of pandemic measures — and the data — in different areas.
Once Rancourt’s team was able to establish the baseline and excess mortality data for each place, they clustered and examined the data through different filters to interpret it, and drew several conclusions.
Data ‘Incompatible with a Pandemic Viral Respiratory Disease as a Primary Cause of Death’
The researchers established that there was significant excess mortality worldwide between March 11, 2020, and May 5, 2023.
Overall excess mortality during the three years in the 93 countries with sufficient data to make an estimate is approximately 0.392% of the 2021 population — or approximately 30.9 million excess deaths from all causes.
The conventional explanation for the excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic, Rancourt said, is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus caused virtually all deaths — and there would have been even more deaths if there hadn’t been a vaccine.
The variations in excess all-cause mortality rates across space and time, the authors wrote, “allow us to conclude that the Covid-period (2020-2023) excess all-cause mortality in the world is incompatible with a pandemic viral respiratory disease as a primary cause of death.”
They said the theory that the virus caused the deaths is propped up by mass virus-testing campaigns that should be abandoned.
‘Idea that Vaccines Saved Lives Is Ridiculous’
Rancourt and his team cited several factors they believe disprove the theory that the virus caused a spike in all-cause mortality.
For example, they wrote that excess mortality surged almost simultaneously across several continents when a pandemic was declared, while there were no comparable surges in areas that had not yet declared a pandemic.
This suggests that pandemic interventions like lockdowns, which were implemented synchronously across many countries, likely caused the surges.
The researchers also pointed out the significant variation in mortality rates during the pandemic in all time periods, even across different political jurisdictions directly adjacent to each other. If the virus caused the deaths, it would follow that the infection fatality rate would be the same, or at least similar across political boundaries.
The researchers also found a lot of variability in death rates within countries over time, which also would not be an expected outcome if those deaths were caused by a pathogen.
Rancourt said they found “the idea that the vaccine saved lives is ridiculous,” and based on flawed modeling as he and colleagues also showed in a previous paper.
Here again, they found no systematic or statistically significant trends showing that vaccination campaigns in 2020 and 2021 reduced all-cause mortality.
Instead, they found that in many places, there was no excess mortality until the vaccines were rolled out, and most countries showed temporal associations between vaccine rollouts and increases in all-cause mortality.
Medical Interventions — Including Denial of Treatment — Caused Premature Deaths
Rancourt said the excess deaths his team identified are strongly associated with the combination of two major factors — the proportion of elderly in a country’s population and the number of people living in poverty. Both factors increased peoples’ vulnerability to “sudden and profound structural societal changes” and “medical assaults.”
While the proximal cause of death may be classified on death certificates as a respiratory condition or infection, the researchers noted, they argue the true primary causes of death are actually biological stress, non-COVID-19-vaccine medical interventions and the COVID-19 vaccination rollouts.
The study provides an overview of plausible mechanisms for this hypothesis, including research showing that some people experienced severe biological stress from measures like mandates and lockdowns.
“If you structurally change the society by preventing people from moving, breathing, working, having their lives, having to stay at home, lock them in. If you do all these incredibly huge changes, structural changes in society, that is going to induce biological stress,” Rancourt told The Defender.
“There’s very compelling scientific evidence that biological stress is a massive killer,” he added.
Rancourt also pointed out that the stress of lockdowns affected poor people quite differently than it did people who could easily work from home, have food delivered and live relatively comfortably.
The authors also pointed to extensive evidence showing that medical interventions — including denial of treatment — caused premature deaths.
Such interventions included but were not limited to the denial of antibiotics and ivermectin against bacterial pneumonia, the systematic use of mechanical ventilators, experimental treatment protocols, new palliative medications and overdoses, isolation of vulnerable people and encouraged voluntary or involuntary suicide.
The March-April 2020 COVID-19 peak they identified in several countries is difficult to explain without such medical interventions, they wrote.
17 Million Excess Deaths Tied to COVID Vaccines
Finally, the researchers projected that 17 million of the excess deaths they identified were associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, confirming the findings of their previous research on a smaller sample of countries.
Those vaccine-related estimations were based on analyses of places that had large spikes immediately following vaccination or booster campaigns and also by examining the numbers of vaccine doses and their relation to deaths over time.
Thirty percent of the countries they analyzed had no excess deaths until either the vaccine rollouts or the booster campaigns. And there were significant correlations between COVID-19 vaccine rollouts and peaks or increases in excess all-cause mortality. Ninety-seven percent of countries showed a late-2021 or early-2022 peak in excess all-cause mortality temporally associated with booster rollouts.
It is highly unlikely, the researchers wrote, that the vaccine-mortality associations are coincidental.
Rancourt noticed that people critical of this idea point to the fact that in some places, there are sometimes campaigns or booster campaigns that aren’t associated with spikes in excess mortality.
However, he said vaccination campaigns don’t always lead to such spikes because vaccination was not related to death in the same way in every situation. Vulnerability factors like the age of those vaccinated, the health of the population and other sociological factors related to stressors on the immune system change how they are affected by vaccine toxicity or the vaccines’ effects on the immune system.
Based on their analysis and interpretations, they concluded,
“We are compelled to state that the public health establishment and its agents fundamentally caused all the excess mortality in the Covid period.”
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
Featured image is from CHD
Spatiotemporal Variation of Excess All-cause Mortality in the World (125 countries) During the COVID Period 2020-2023 Regarding Socio-Economic Factors and Public Health and Medical Interventions
Global Research, August 14, 2024
Correlation 19 July 2024
Summary
We studied all-cause mortality in 125 countries with available all-cause mortality data by time (week or month), starting several years prior to the declared pandemic, and for up to and more than three years of the Covid period (2020-2023). The studied countries are on six continents and comprise approximately 35 % of the global population (2.70 billion of 7.76 billion, in 2019).
The overall excess all-cause mortality rate in the 93 countries with sufficient data in the 3-year period 2020-2022 is 0.392 ± 0.002 % of 2021 population, which is comparable to the historic rate of approximately 0.97 % of population over the course of the 1918 “Spanish Flu” pandemic.
The overall excess all-cause mortality rate in the 93 countries with sufficient data in the 3-year period 2020-2022 is 0.392 ± 0.002 % of 2021 population, which is comparable to the historic rate of approximately 0.97 % of population over the course of the 1918 “Spanish Flu” pandemic.
By comparison, India (which is not included in the present study) had an April-July 2021 peak in excess all-cause mortality of 3.7 million deaths for its 2021 population of approximately 1.41 billion, which corresponds to an excess death rate of 0.26 % for 2021 alone (Rancourt, 2022).
Our calculated excess mortality rate (0.392 ± 0.002 %) corresponds to 30.9 ± 0.2 million excess deaths projected to have occurred globally for the 3-year period 2020-2022, from all causes of excess mortality during this period.
We also calculate the population-wide risk of death per injection (vDFR) by dose number (1st dose, 2nd dose, boosters) (actually, by time period), and by age (in a subset of European countries). Using the median value of all-ages vDFR for 2021-2022 for the 78 countries with sufficient data gives an estimated projected global all-ages excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 vaccine rollouts up to 30 December 2022: 16.9 million COVID-19-vaccine-associated deaths.
Large differences in excess all-cause mortality rate (by population) and in age-and-health-status-adjusted (P-score) mortality are incompatible with a viral pandemic spread hypothesis and are strongly associated with the combination (product) of share of population that is elderly (60+ years) and share of population living in poverty.
There are large North-South (Canada-USA-Mexico) differences in North America, and large East-West differences in Europe, which are due to large national jurisdictional differences, or discontinuities in socio-economic and institutional conditions. Such systematic differences in mortality and underlying structure are captured by hierarchical cluster analysis using a panel of (yearly) time series, including to some extent the likelihood of persistent excess all-cause mortality into 2023.
Excluding borderline cases, 28 countries (of 79 countries with sufficient data, 35 % of countries) have a high statistical certainty of persistent and significant excess all-cause mortality into 2023, compared to the extrapolated pre-Covid historic trend, excluding excess all-cause mortality from peak residuals extending out from 2022, and excluding accidentally large values: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, United Kingdom, and USA. More research is needed to elucidate this phenomenon.
The spatiotemporal variations in national excess all-cause mortality rates allow us to conclude that the Covid-period (2020-2023) excess all-cause mortality in the world is incompatible with a pandemic viral respiratory disease as a primary cause of death. This hypothesis, although believed to be supported by testing campaigns, should be abandoned.
Inconsistencies that disprove the hypothesis of a viral respiratory pandemic to explain excess all-cause mortality during the Covid period are seen on a global scale and include the following.
- Near-synchronicity of onset, across several continents, of surges in excess mortality occurring immediately when a pandemic is declared by the WHO (11 March 2020), and never prior to pandemic announcement in any country
- Excessively large country-to-country heterogeneity of the age-and-health-status-adjusted (P-score) mortality during the Covid period, including across shared borders between adjacent countries, and including in all time periods down to half years
- Highly time variable age-and-health-status-adjusted (P-score) mortality in individual countries during and after the Covid period, including more-than-year-long periods of zero excess mortality, long-duration plateaus or regimes of high excess mortality, single peaks versus many recurring peaks, and persistent high excess mortality after a pandemic is declared to have ended (5 May 2023)
- Strong correlations (all-country scatter plots) between excess all-cause mortality rates and socio-economic factors (esp. measures of poverty) change with time (by year and half year) during the Covid period, between diametrically opposite values (near-zero, large and positive, large and negative) of the Pearson correlation coefficient (e.g., Figure 29, first half of 2020 to first half of 2023)
One might tentatively add:
- No evidence of the large vaccine rollouts ever being associated with reductions in excess all-cause mortality, in any country (and see Rancourt and Hickey, 2023)
- Exponential increases with age in excess all-cause mortality rate (by population), consistent with age-dominant frailty rather than infection in the limit of high virulence
We describe plausible mechanisms and argue that the three primary causes of death associated with the excess all-cause mortality during (and after) the Covid period are:
- Biological (including psychological) stress from mandates such as lockdowns and associated socio-economic structural changes
- Non-COVID-19-vaccine medical interventions such as mechanical ventilators and drugs (including denial of treatment with antibiotics)
- COVID-19 vaccine injection rollouts, including repeated rollouts on the same populations
In all cases ― for all three identified primary causes of death ― a proximal or clinical cause of death associated (such as on death certificates) with the quantified excess all-cause mortality is respiratory condition or infection. Therefore, we distinguish (and define) true primary causes of death from the pervasive and accompanying proximal or clinical cause of death as respiratory.
We understand the Covid-period mortality catastrophe to be precisely what happens when governments cause global disruptions and assaults against populations. We emphasize the importance of biological stress from sudden and profound structural societal changes and of medical assaults (including denial of treatment for bacterial pneumonias, repeated vaccine injections, etc.). We estimate that such a campaign of disruptions and assaults in a modern world will produce a global all-ages mortality rate of >0.1 % of population per year, as was also the case in the 1918 mortality catastrophe.
Introduction
All-cause mortality by time and by administrative jurisdiction is arguably the most reliable data for detecting and epidemiologically characterizing events causing death, and for gauging the population-level impact of any surge or collapse in deaths from any cause. Such data can be collected by national or state jurisdiction or subdivision, by age, by sex, by location of death, and so on. It is not susceptible to reporting bias or to any bias in attributing causes of death in the mortality itself (see many references in Rancourt et al., 2023a).
Rancourt and collaborators have studied all-cause mortality for many jurisdictions, while developing the analytic approaches:
- several, esp. USA (Rancourt, 2020);
- France (Rancourt et al., 2020);
- India (Rancourt, 2022);
- USA (Rancourt et al., 2021a, 2022b);
- Canada (Rancourt et al., 2021b, 2022c);
- Australia (Rancourt et al., 2022a, 2023b);
- 17 countries in the Southern Hemisphere (Rancourt et al., 2023a);
- Israel (Rancourt et al., 2023b);
- world, with respect to COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (Rancourt and Hickey, 2023).
Researchers at CORRELATION and collaborators continue to be engaged in a broad research program of all-cause mortality and its associations with various factors.
Here we study all-cause mortality in 125 countries with available all-cause mortality data by time (week or month). The studied countries are on six continents and comprise approximately 35 % of the global population (2.70 billion of 7.76 billion, in 2019).
Large countries which are notably excluded for lack of available data include China (1.41 billion in 2019), India (1.38 billion in 2029), Indonesia, Pakistan, and most countries in Africa, although India has previously been studied (Rancourt, 2022; and references therein).
See the Summary for an overview.
Click here to read the full report.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research
Featured image is from NaturalNews.com
Global Research, July 17, 2024
Children's Health Defense 2 July 2024
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research
***
A team of Italian researchers verified what they called “the real impact of the vaccination campaign” by comparing the risk of all-cause death among vaccinated and unvaccinated residents of the Italian province of Pescara.
COVID-19 vaccines were linked to an increase in all-cause mortality in a new peer-reviewed study that analyzed data from the Italian National Healthcare System.
Based on their analysis, a team of Italian researchers verified what they called “the real impact of the vaccination campaign” by comparing the risk of all-cause death among vaccinated and unvaccinated residents of the Italian province of Pescara.
In their univariate analysis, the researchers found the risk of all-cause death to be over 20% higher for those vaccinated with two or more doses of the COVID-19 vaccine compared to the unvaccinated.
In contrast, prior research done in the same region suggested those with three or four doses had a lower risk of all-cause death.
“We also found a slight but statistically significant loss of life expectancy for those vaccinated with 2 or 3/4 doses,” they said in the report, which they published June 30 in Microorganisms.
Dr. Peter McCullough told The Defender,
“These findings call for an immediate halt of COVID-19 vaccination across the globe and a thorough investigation of what went wrong during the COVID-19 vaccine campaign.”
McCullough wrote on Substack that the paper’s main point is that
“COVID-19 vaccination did not ‘save lives’ as so many in Washington have proclaimed without evidence.”
Alberto Donzelli, one of the Italian study’s authors, told The Defender the study is “an important advance” because it looks at all-cause mortality broken down by vaccination status, and accounts for confounding variables that may have affected earlier reports on COVID-19 vaccination and all-cause mortality.
Very few studies in the world have successfully done that, he said.
McCullough also told The Defender the study’s findings are “cohesive” with those of a recent German study — currently available as a preprint — which found COVID-19 vaccination was linked to increased all-cause death in 16 German states.
Researchers Undertake Study to Correct for Bias
For their study, Donzelli and his co-authors used the same data analyzed by other researchers in an earlier Italian study on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.
The earlier study — which followed up with people two years after the start of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign — found that those who received one or two doses had a significantly higher risk of all-cause death, while those who received three or more vaccine doses had a lower risk of death.
However, these results were likely distorted due to “immortal time bias,” Donzelli and his co-authors said.
Immortal time bias is a common study design flaw that can throw off statistical estimations between an exposure (such as a COVID-19 shot) and an outcome (such as an increased risk of death), according to the University of Oxford’s Catalogue of Bias.
Donzelli said the bias “afflicts most observational studies on mortality from COVID-19.” So he and his co-authors took the necessary steps to correct for the bias and reanalyzed the same data.
They looked at vaccination records from Jan. 1, 2021, through Dec. 31, 2022, for people ages 10 and up.
They also looked at follow-up data collected from Jan. 1, 2021, through Feb. 15, 2023, for these people, as long as they hadn’t tested positive for COVID-19 on the date of the follow-up.
They also looked at other variables, such as pathologies other than COVID-19, that may have affected people’s health.
“The results are startling,” wrote McCullough, after doing calculations using the report’s data. “COVID-19 specific deaths were not reduced with vaccination, however there was a U-shaped trend of note when COVID-19 deaths were adjusted per 1000 population: unvaccinated 1.98/1000, one dose 0.27/1000, two doses 1.08/1000, and 3/4 doses 3.5/1000.”
Additionally, Donzelli and his co-authors in their multivariate analysis found that those who received one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine had a hazard risk ratio — which is a statistical estimate of risk — of 2.4 for all-cause mortality, meaning they were much more likely to die compared to the unvaccinated.
“Those vaccinated with two doses showed an almost double hazard ratio of death: 1.98,” Donzelli pointed out.
These numbers are significantly worse than what was reported in the original study that hadn’t corrected for the immortal time bias, he said. Correcting for that bias changed the results for those who were vaccinated with three or more doses, too.
The original study authors had claimed that being vaccinated three or more times reduced the risk of mortality more than four-fold. Based on his and his co-authors corrected analysis, Donzelli called the claim “implausible.”
He said of the multivariate analysis,
“Those vaccinated with three or more doses turned out to die at the same rate as the unvaccinated.”
However, taken together with univariate analyses and life expectancy estimates, all COVID-19 vaccine dosing regimens show an overall increase in all-cause mortality.
CDC: COVID Shots ‘Save Lives’
The Defender asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) if it planned to modify its statement that “COVID-19 vaccines save lives” in light of the study’s findings.
A CDC spokesperson told The Defender that the CDC “does not comment on findings or claims by individuals or organizations outside of CDC.” The spokesperson declined to provide studies or data supporting the agency’s claim that the vaccines save lives.
“CDC research has continuously found that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective,” the spokesperson said.
UPDATE: This article was updated to state the researchers found the risk of all-cause death to be over 20% higher for those vaccinated with two or more doses of the COVID-19 vaccine compared to the unvaccinated.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa.
Featured image is from CHD
U.S. Government ‘Saddled’ with COVID Vaccine Injury ‘Mess’ — While Vaccine Makers Avoid Liability
Global Research, July 19, 2024
Children's Health Defense 18 July 2024
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research
***
As early as January 2022, NIH researchers were aware of at least 850 peer-reviewed case reports and/or research articles about COVID-19 vaccine reactions, according to emails obtained by Children’s Health Defense.
As early as January 2022, National Institutes of Health (NIH) researchers were aware of at least 850 peer-reviewed case reports and/or research articles about COVID-19 vaccine reactions, according to emails obtained by Children’s Health Defense (CHD).
In one email (name and agency redacted), NIH researchers were told the federal government was “saddled” with the “mess” of dealing with those injured by the COVID-19 vaccines, due to the liability shield enjoyed by vaccine manufacturers.
The emails, part of a 309-page batch of documents released to CHD on June 21, originated from a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) request to NIH researchers for input on a report highlighting several injuries common among people who received the vaccines.
CHD requested the documents via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the NIH in November 2022. When the NIH hadn’t responded by April 2023, CHD sued the agency.
In an October 2023 settlement, the NIH agreed to produce up to 7,500 pages of documents at a rate of 300 pages per month.
The batch of documents released in June — which include emails to Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research — revealed that by fall 2021, key NIH researchers were aware of scientific studies on serious adverse events, including persistent neurological symptoms, following COVID-19 vaccines.
As with prior releases of the NIH documents, June’s tranche also included several emails from vaccine-injured individuals to NIH researchers, seeking help for their symptoms — with one person asking, “Why aren’t you studying vaccine injuries?”
‘Tinnitus … Was a Freight Train in My Head for the First Four Months’
On Jan. 10, 2022, NIH researcher Dr. Avindra Nath was forwarded an email from someone whose name is redacted, with the subject line: “Followup [sic] Jan 4th Meeting” (pages 281-289).
The original email, dated Jan. 9, 2022, was sent to FDA officials including Marks and Dr. Janet Woodcock, principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs, who apparently participated in a meeting on this topic on Jan. 4, 2022.
The Jan. 9, 2022 email included a list of “persistent symptoms following the Covid vaccines” and the names of researchers who were studying these conditions, which included dysautonomia, neuropathy, tinnitus, multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS), myocarditis, blood clots and parasthesias.
The email was accompanied by a spreadsheet listing approximately 850 “peer-reviewed case reports/research articles about Covid vaccine reactions.”
Regarding dysautonomia — a nervous system disorder that disrupts automatic bodily functions — the email stated that the condition is “grossly under diagnosed” and “is not diagnosed in ERs or ICUs” but in “autonomic specialty labs.”
The email noted that such labs are less likely than hospitals to file reports with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and added that there “likely are issues with identifying this syndrome if only looking through VAERS or similarly reported databases.”
As a result, the email suggested
“it would be reasonable to approach autonomic specialists / long covid specialists about their observations.”
A 2011 Harvard study found that less than 1% of all adverse events are reported to VAERS.
The Jan. 9, 2022, email also noted unusual trends regarding diagnoses of neuropathy — a set of neurological symptoms that includes numbness and tingling in the hands or feet, and a burning, stabbing or shooting pain in affected areas.
According to the email,
“Historically, neuropathy presents in the predominantly male population aged 59+. However as discussed previous [sic], neuropathy in our case is predominantly female, aged 29-40.”
As with dysautonomia, the email noted that neuropathy is “likely to be inadequately reported through the VAERS and BEST [Biologics Effectiveness and Safety] systems because of the circumstances previously mentioned for dysautonomia.”
The Jan. 9, 2022 email also acknowledged that tinnitus was a common post-vaccination injury, noting, “Our findings are that this is not just J&J [the Johnson & Johnson, or Janssen, COVID-19 vaccine] … not by a long shot.”
According to the email,
“This symptom is more proportionate to the general neuro symptoms by brand as previously reported in our patient led survey of 500 participants.”
The email’s author also noted that,
“in my case yes, I have tinnitus now and it was a freight train in my head for the first four months.”
‘Is It Reasonable to Dismiss … 20 New Symptoms … in a Single Person Post Vaccine?’
According to the email, myocarditis and blood clots were already “acknowledged by the FDA and CDC” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
“Every person in our groups that have one of these two conditions, also have accompanying neuro issues like those of us who are not currently acknowledged by the FDA and CDC,” the email said.
The conditions included postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), “brain fog/memory loss, and inflammation (MCAS)” — mast cell activation syndrome.
“Even the perfectly healthy very fit young males with the lasting myocarditis are struggling with the POTS and inflammation/brain fog/memory loss. Makes me suspect that somehow these all are a result of the same mechanism of action,” the email stated.
The Jan. 9, 2022, email also acknowledged parasthesia — a condition that causes a burning, prickling sensation — and MIS, a condition in which numerous organs become inflamed, as concerns.
The email openly questioned why more wasn’t being done to connect these conditions in the vaccinated, to the COVID-19 vaccines themselves, noting that vaccinated people were frequently demonstrating multiple rare symptoms:
“While we understand that correlation does not equal causation, we also find a strong correlation with the change in our blood that mirrors long-haul, and symptomology that mirrors long-haul.
“Because of this, I have to ask what is the process by which Covid PASC [post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or long COVID] symptoms have been so readily tied back to Covid, whereas the same symptoms due to the Covid vaccines have not?
“Also, while it may be coincidental to have one or maybe two strange symptoms pop up, is it reasonable to dismiss 10, 15, 20 new symptoms that occur in a single person post vaccine.”
‘Insanely Challenging for These People Suffering … to Walk This Path Alone’
In the Jan. 10, 2022, email to Nath an NIH researcher wrote,
“The FDA has asked once again for us to provide any input from those who have experience with this disease. Very prompt responses and more active engagement on their part lead me to believe they will now examine these problems with some effort.”
The author also asked Nath if he knew researchers “who could fill in the gaps” and asked him if he would “kindly be willing to discuss with Peter Marks?”
“The gov has conveniently absolved the drug companies of any liability, and the federal government is now saddled with the responsibility of figuring out this mess,” the email continued. “I am happy to orchestrate a meeting of the minds with NDR [non-disclosure] agreements if that would get the discussion started in a way that is similar to how previous new diseases have been investigated.”
The email also noted talks with public health officials in Germany and France.
“It has been insanely challenging for these people suffering to have to walk this path alone. They grow more and more desperate by the day. Knowing there is someone, somewhere looking into this makes a big difference for these people to just hang on.”
Even though public health agencies were aware of this information and were discussing vaccine injuries in early 2022, official government advice to the public continued to claim the COVID-19 vaccines were “safe and effective,” including statements by Dr. Anthony Fauci in November 2022.
And in testimony before Congress in February, Marks dismissed the COVID-19 vaccine injury reports filed with VAERS, stating that numerous false reports are submitted to the database — a claim some experts have disputed.
As of today, the CDC continues to recommend the COVID-19 vaccines “for everyone ages 6 months and older, including people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or might become pregnant in the future.”
NIH Researchers Aware of Vaccine Injury Studies in Fall of 2021
The June 2024 tranche of NIH documents also revealed that, at least as early as fall 2021, researchers with the agency were aware of scientific studies and surveys highlighting serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.
In a Sept. 2, 2021, email (pages 109-121), Farinaz Safavi, M.D., Ph.D., of the NIH Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurovirology was sent the results of the “Covid Vaccine Persistent Symptoms Survey” conducted by React19, a group advocating on behalf of COVID-19 vaccine injury victims.
The version of the survey included in the email was accurate as of Aug. 31, 2021, and contained the results of 382 questionnaires submitted by people “suffering persistent neurological symptoms after receiving the Sars-CoV2 Vaccine in the United States.”
According to those results, 71% of respondents said they had no preexisting health conditions prior to the symptoms they developed following their COVID-19 vaccination, and 94% said they had never previously experienced a reaction to other vaccines.
The most commonly reported symptoms included paresthesia, tinnitus, heart palpitations, tachycardia, chest pain, visual disturbance or loss, muscle twitching, joint pain, muscle aches, brain fog, fatigue and anxiety attacks.
Almost all respondents said these symptoms began less than two weeks following vaccination.
In a Nov. 15, 2021, email (pages 300-305), Nath was sent a scientific paper, “Neurological side effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations,” authored by Austrian researcher Josef Finsterer, M.D., Ph.D.
According to this paper,
“The most frequent neurological side effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are headache,” Guillain-Barré syndrome, venous sinus thrombosis and transverse myelitis.
“Safety concerns against SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are backed by an increasing number of studies reporting neurological side effects. … Healthcare professionals, particularly neurologists involved in the management of patients having undergone SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, should be aware of these side effects and should stay vigilant to recognize them early and treat them adequately,” the paper concluded.
Nath received a review copy of this paper, which has since been published in Acta Neurologica Scandinavica.
And in a May 17, 2021, email (pages 292-299), Nath was sent a preprint of “Sudden Onset of Myelitis after COVID-19 Vaccination: An Under-Recognized Severe Rare Adverse Event,” co-authored by William E. Fitzsimmons, doctor of pharmacy, and Dr. Christopher S. Nance.
According to the preprint,
“Myelitis has been reported as a complication of COVID-19 infection. However, it has rarely been reported as a complication of COVID-19 vaccination.”
The paper focused on the example of one of Fitzsimmons’ patients, a 63-year-old previously healthy male who developed myelitis after his second dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine — and treatment that was effective in his case.
Other emails apparently sent by Fitzsimmons highlighted the injuries and the progression of treatment of this 63-year-old man (pages 145-150).
‘A Blood Clot as a Cause of Your Paralysis Would Make the Most Sense’
In an email chain to Nath beginning Sept. 20, 2021, (pages 228-233) with the subject “Paralyzed after J&J Covid Vaccine,” the author (whose name is redacted) said that less than 24 hours following vaccination, the patient “lost bladder control.” He later developed a blood clot and erectile dysfunction, before becoming paralyzed.
In a response that day, Nath told the patient,
“The temporal association of the symptoms with the vaccine does make is [sic] suspect, but I do not know of any way how to sort it out.”
In a follow-up email that day, Nath said,
“A blood clot as a cause of your paralysis would make the most sense, however, proving cause and effect related to the vaccine in a single patient is virtually impossible.”
In a Dec. 13, 2021, email to Nath (pages 234-236), another vaccine injury victim, who “was healthy prior to vaccination,” described injuries following both doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, including paresthesia, tachycardia, severe tinnitus, intractable insomnia and “POTs-like symptoms.”
“I have been diligent and determined in seeking care near and far, but have continued to face skepticism, half-interest, and an inability to know how best to treat,” this person wrote.
And in a series of emails beginning Jan. 24, 2022, (pages 246-247), a “woman who was completely healthy before taking the Pfizer vaccines” told Nath about a series of neurological symptoms and inflammation she experienced following her second dose, in addition to symptoms like tinnitus, insomnia and brain fog.
“Why isn’t the NIH doing research on this?” she asked in a follow-up email on Jan. 25, 2022.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
Featured image is from CHD
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario