Massive collection of online anecdotal examples of peoples reactions to novel GM "Vaccine"

vaccine
coronavirus

#406

Not just that, most took the vaccinations themselves, vaccinated their patients & vaccinated their children.

Subconsciously they are not going to want to consider the vaccine as a cause of harm. It would mean they actively harmed themselves, their patients & their own families. That… will be difficult for them to face and admit.


#407

Just another, “whoops sorry about that” story:


#408

So upward attack rate to continue/explode…:whistle:


#409

They’re doing a media blitz today on early-intervention awareness. On the radio, they said heart attack rates in Ireland were fairly constant and early response survival rates good - they only quoted figures from 2017 up to the end of 2020 :whistle:


#410

#411

#412

First part, UKHSA stats show boosters clearly making all 3 (infections, hospitalisations and deaths) worse.


#413

Walgreens vaccination and infection data. Have a look at page three.you can look at different age subgroups too.

https://www.walgreens.com/businesssolutions/covid-19-index.jsp



#414

Steyn above better as UKHSA clearly show approx three times more likely to be hospitalised and three times more likely to die, if boosted.


#415

#416

National Director of Vaccinations Damien McCallion

Education

University of Ulster

MastersInnovation/Change Management

2006 - 2008

Masters in Innovation and Change as part of a cross border programme between UUU and LIT.

The Open University

Certificate in Management

1995 - 1997

Certificate in Management through OU

Letterkenny Institute of Technology

Letterkenny Institute of Technology

Certificate Computer Software Engineering

1984 - 1986

Summerhill College

1977 - 1983


#417

#418

#419

Covid Vaccines Increase Risk of Severe Heart Inflammation Up to 120-Fold, Major Study Finds

Covid vaccination increases the risk of severe heart inflammation up to 120-fold, a major study from Scandinavia published in the Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA ) has found.


#420

" Times, however, have changed. The respected and conservative Wall Street Journal ( WSJ ) has aired concerns about poor regulatory decisions at the US Food and Drug Agency (FDA) over booster shots. It joins a growing international chorus of highly qualified and influential voices.

On April 3, in an opinion piece entitled ‘FDA Shuts Out Its Own Experts in Authorising Another Vaccine Booster’,Dr Marty Makary, a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, wrote: ‘The FDA last week authorised Americans over 50 to get a fourth Covid vaccine dose. Some of the FDA’s own experts disagreed, but the agency simply ignored them.’

Eric Rubin, editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (arguably the world’s most influential medical journal) and a member of the FDA advisory committee on vaccines told CNN last month: ‘I haven’t seen enough data to determine whether anyone needs a fourth dose.’

Dr Cody Meissner, also a member of the FDA vaccine advisory committee and chief of paediatric infectious diseases at Tufts Children’s Hospital in Boston, agreed: ‘The fourth dose is an unanswered question for people with a normal immune system.’

A third member of the committee, Dr Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, went further. He told the Atlantic magazine that he advised his 20-something son to forgo the first booster.

Two top FDA officials, Marion Gruber, Director of the FDA Office of Vaccine Research and Review and her deputy Paul Krause, quit the FDA in September last year complaining of undue pressure to authorise boosters and a lack of data to support their use.

Unbelievably, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) rubber-stamped the FDA decision to approve a second booster without even convening its panel of external independent vaccine experts.

The WSJ article described the effect of boosters as fleeting, mild and short-lived. It sounded a note of alarm saying that neither the CDC nor the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) had made a priority of studying vaccine complications. Moreover their VAERS data collection and analysis process is incomplete and inadequate. In other words, the safety investigation to date of adverse effects of mRNA vaccination is incomplete and potentially misleading.

The central question raised by the WSJ opinion piece is, why wouldn’t the US regulators wish to undertake accurate and complete investigation of adverse effects of mRNA vaccination? Have pharmaceutical interests been able to influence decision-making at the FDA to their own commercial advantage at the expense of safety considerations?

The British Medical Journal agrees. On March 16 it published an article which said: ‘Evidence-based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation and commercialisation of academia.’

The lessons are obvious. We have stifled debate and slavishly followed FDA advice. Now there is a need for revaluation and debate. We have travelled a long way down a one-way street, but it appears to be a dead end. The triumphant articles published about a survey of vaccine-resistant people born in Dunedin was a low point in uncritical mainstream media publishing. We have to regain an objective voice.

A paper published on April 5 in the New England Journal of Medicine found that any measurable protective effect of the fourth inoculation (which in any case, it found, is very small in absolute terms) disappeared after just eight weeks. Moreover a paper in the Lancet on April 8 admitted that boosters carry a risk of additional side-effects. Both these papers, however, skirted the obvious safety questions in favour of weak praise for vaccine orthodoxy.

In contrast the WSJ article asked the important question: ‘Who is actually getting serious about measuring the extent of adverse events, rather than continuing to urge uncritical acceptance of a largely ineffective vaccine?’


#421

That is probably the best single paper I’ve seen so far on digging through the data in a substantive way. A very good subject survey paper. None of the usual sloppiness. That goes in the pile of reference material for future litigation for public health professional malpractice. Legally the analytical v clinical accuracy for various tests is the kill shot but there are some good supplemental subjects covered in that paper.

By the time this is over public health officials will go to jail for what they did. In the US at least. Might take a decade or two but litigation like this has a relentless momentum of its own.


#422

#423

:thinking:


#424

#425

14 January, wow this stuff is really being kept quiet.

Doctors admitted that the man’s death was the result of vaccination. After that, the insurance company refused to pay the family money, because the insurance policy excludes the use of experimental drugs and treatments, including vaccination against coronavirus.

The escape hatch has been verified in law by the looks of it, no no will get redress for loved ones killed.