Retired child and adolescent psychiatrist and American expatriate in New Zealand. In 2002, I made the difficult decision to close my 25-year Seattle practice after 15 years of covert FBI harassment. I describe the unrelenting phone harassment, illegal break-ins and six attempts on my life in my 2010 book The Most Revolutionary Act: Memoir of an American Refugee.
Receiving blood transfusions from COVID-19-vaccinated individuals could pose a medical risk to unvaccinated recipientssince numerous adverse events are being reported among vaccinated people worldwide, according to a recent study from Japan.
The preprint review, published on March 15, examined whether receiving blood from COVID-19-vaccinated individuals is safe or poses a health risk. Many nations have reported that mRNA vaccine usage has resulted in “post-vaccination thrombosis and subsequent cardiovascular damage, as well as a wide variety of diseases involving all organs and systems, including the nervous system,” it said.
Repeated vaccinations can make people more vulnerable to COVID-19, it said. If the blood contains spike proteins, it becomes necessary to remove these proteins prior to administration, and there is no such technology currently available, the authors wrote.
Contrary to earlier expectations, genes and proteins from genetic vaccines have been found to persist in the blood of vaccine recipients for “prolonged periods of time.”
In addition, “a variety of adverse events resulting from genetic vaccines are now being reported worldwide.” This includes a wide range of diseases related to blood and blood vessels.
Some studies have reported that the spike protein in the mRNA vaccines is neurotoxic and capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier, the review stated. “Thus, there is no longer any doubt that the spike protein used as an antigen in genetic vaccines is itself toxic.”
Moreover, people who have taken multiple shots of mRNA vaccines can have several exposures to the same antigen within a small time frame, which may lead to them being “imprinted with a preferential immune response to that antigen.”
This has resulted in COVID-19 vaccine recipients becoming “more susceptible to contracting COVID-19.”
Given such concerns, medical professionals should be aware of the “various risks associated with blood transfusions using blood products derived from people who have suffered from long COVID and from genetic vaccine recipients, including those who have received mRNA vaccines.”
The impact of such genetic vaccines on blood products as well as the actual damage caused by them are currently unknown, the authors wrote.
“In order to avoid these risks and prevent further expansion of blood contamination and complication of the situation, we strongly request that the vaccination campaign using genetic vaccines be suspended and that a harm–benefit assessment be carried out as early as possible.”
Repeated vaccination of genetic vaccines can also end up causing “alterations in immune function” among recipients. This raises the risk of serious illnesses due to opportunistic infections or pathogenic viruses, which would not have been an issue if the immune system were normal, the review said.
“Therefore, from the perspective of traditional containment of infectious diseases, greater caution is required in the collection of blood from genetic vaccine recipients and the subsequent handling of blood products, as well as during solid organ transplantation and even surgical procedures in order to avoid the risk of accidental blood-borne infection,” it stated.
The review was funded by members of the Japanese Society for Vaccine-related Complications and the Volunteer Medical Association. Authors did not declare any conflict of interest.
Dangers With Blood Transfusions
The review pointed out that the genetic vaccination status of blood donors is not collected by organizations even though the use of such blood may pose risks to patients. As such, authors recommended that when blood products are derived from such people, “it is necessary to confirm the presence or absence of spike protein or modified mRNA as in other tests for pathogens.”
“If the blood product is found to contain the spike protein or a modified gene derived from the genetic vaccine, it is essential to remove them,” it stated. “However, there is currently no reliable way to do so.”
Since “there is no way to reliably remove the pathogenic protein or mRNA, we suggest that all such blood products be discarded until a definitive solution is found.”
The authors pointed out that cases of encephalitis among people who received blood from dengue vaccine recipients were reported as recently as last year. This suggests that the present system of tracking and managing blood products “is not adequate.”
Since genetic vaccines were implemented on a global scale for a massive population, “it is expected that the situation will already be complicated” compared to previous drug disasters.
As such, there is an “urgent need” for legislation and international treaties related to the management of blood products, the authors wrote.
The issue of blood transfusion from COVID-19 vaccine recipients has been highly controversial. In 2022, a court in New Zealand ruled against the parents of a sick infant son after they refused blood transfusions from vaccinated people.
The parents had asked the health system to allow blood transfusion from unvaccinated individuals, with donors who were already prepared to contribute. In its ruling, the court stripped the parents of medical custody of their son.
In Canada, doctors have also reported the trend of people’s resistance to vaccinated blood transfusions. Speaking to CBC in 2022, Dr. Dave Sidhu, the southern Alberta medical lead for transfusion and transplant medicine, said that parents of sick children were requesting unvaccinated blood.
“We’re seeing it about once or twice a month, at this stage. And the worry is of course that these requests might increase,” he said at the time.
In Wyoming, Rep. Sarah Penn (R-Wyo.) has sponsored a bill mandating that blood donated by people who have taken COVID-19 shots be labeled. Doing so will allow recipients who do not wish to accept such blood to reject them.
In an interview with Cowboy State Daily, Ms. Penn said, “For various reasons, many people have purposefully strived to keep the mRNA therapies out of their bodies, even to the point that some lost their livelihoods … Their concerns are warranted.”
Liverpool protestors against the Israeli offensive in Gaza, UK, March 25, 2024. | Photo: X/ @mygibbo
Newsletter
Fourteen members of the Security Council voted in favor. The U.S. abstained from voting.
On Monday, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted a resolution that demands an immediate cease-fire in Gaza for the holy month of Ramadan.
The resolution won 14 votes in favor among the 15 members of the UNSC. The United States abstained from voting.
“The Security Council just approved a long-awaited resolution on Gaza, demanding an immediate ceasefire, and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. This resolution must be implemented. Failure would be unforgivable,” the United Nations Secretary Antonio Guterres stated.
Introduced by the UNSC non-permanent members, the resolution calls for a ceasefire until April 9, when Ramadan ends. It also highlights the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance and strengthen the protection of civilians in the Gaza Strip.
The text reads, “A demonstration denouncing the Israeli genocide in Gaza took place in Majd Al-Krum, a city in the occupied territories.”
On four previous occasions, the United States – an unconditional ally of Israel – vetoed three UNSC resolutions arguing that a ceasefire would allow the rearmament of Hamas.
On Friday, Russia and China vetoed a resolution proposed by the United States because it did not contain clear and forceful language to demand a ceasefire.
Until today, however, Israel has ignored requests from various countries around the world to stop its offensive in Gaza. Among those countries are Canada, Japan, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom and other nations that were closest to Israel when the Zionist state began its attacks on Palestinians in Gaza in October 2023.
When Napoleon invaded Russia in May 1812, he was losing badly in Spain, despite deploying 200,000 troops to battle a Spain/Portugal/UK coalition and Spanish guerillas (see Napoleon Expand Empire to Include Poland, East Prussia and Spain). According to Desan, he made some weird miscalculation that a Russian victory would distract the French from how badly he was losing in Spain.
The entente between Napoleon and Alexander I broke down when the czar refused to participate in Napoleon’s economic blockade against Britain the emperor secretly allied with the Ottomans in a border dispute with Russia.
Napoleon’s advisors strongly advised him not to invade Russia due to the vast supply lines required. He crossed the Polish-Russian border with 650,000 troops (the majority from his conquered territories), 200,000 horses and 26 battalions transporting food and supplies. This included 25,000 transport wagons and ambulances, horse fodder and entire herds of cattle and oxen.
The Russian army, numbering 450,000, continuously withdrew further east as Napoleon’s forces advanced.
It was very difficult to feed 650,000,000 and foraging was very meager. Russian peasants fled to the forests ahead of Napoleon’s advancing troops, taking their food with them. Drinking was also extremely scarce.
In addition to hunger, the troops faced extreme heat (97 degrees F), driving rain and disease. Dysentery killed tens of thousands and thousands more deserted. By July Napoleon had lost more than a third of his forces. He himself also fell ill repeatedly.
Napoleon eventually led his men 300 miles to Smolensk before confronting Russsian forces. After two days, Napoleon breached the Russian front line to find most of the Russian army had retreated. By now he had 256,000 men.
On September 7, 130,000 French faced off against 121,000 Russians at Borodino. Technically the French won the battle, losing 33,000 men to the Russians 44,000.
On September 14, Napoleon marched into Moscow to find the city had evacuated and the city governors had burned the city no food, water or loot. Napoleon at in the Kremlin several days waiting for Alexander to surrender, but the czar was in the capitol St Petersburg rebuilding the Russian army.
By the time Napoleon left Moscow, he had 100,000 troops. On November 6, Russia had their first serious snowfall and temperatures dropped to -35 F at night. In addition to numerous men and horses freezing to death, those who survived were harried by random attacks by the Russian army, the Cossacks and peasants angered by the French troops raving their crops.
Napoleon and the Russian army had another skirmish at the Beraseno River, where the river had thawed, forcing Napoleon’s troops to tear down neighboring houses to build bridges.
By the time, Napoleon made it back to Paris, he had lost a half million men and began drafting young teenager to rebuild his army. Russian losses were also extremely high.
In March 1813, the Prussian king Frederick William III, who had 270,000 men under arms, entered into an alliance with Alexander I.
Film can be viewed free with a library card at Kanopy.
After years of criminalization and marginalization, scientists have begun looking at LSD’s medical benefits more closely, so much so that the Food and Drug Administration just issued a groundbreaking stamp of approval.
Biopharmaceutical company Mind Medicine announced March 7 that the FDA has awarded “breakthrough therapy” status to its trial of patients using MM120 (lysergide D-tartrate) to treat anxiety. MindMed chief medical officer Daniel Karlin explained what the trial approval means going forward. “A breakthrough designation is a recognition that a drug has demonstrated evidence of clinical efficacy in meeting an unmet medical need with morbidity and mortality associated with it,” he told CNN. The move allows the FDA to “engage more closely in drug development” and speeds up the road to final approval as the agency is involved throughout the process.
MM120 is the codename for MindMed’s lysergide D-tartrate compound, which resembles and delivers similar effects to lysergic acid diethylamide, known more commonly as LSD. In its ongoing trial, which kicked off in 2022, MindMed has so far found that a single dose of MM120 led to a 48-percent rate of remission from generalized anxiety disorder after 12 weeks following the drug’s administration. Scientists also noted significantly improved clinical signs of generalized anxiety disorder among 65 percent of patients within three months.
“The clinical improvement for many patients was more than double what we see with today’s standard of care,” Karlin said. “This occurred at all levels of anxiety, from moderate all the way up to severe.”
A controversial forecast by Deagel, a global intelligence and consulting firm controlled by the CIA & Rockefeller Foundation, gained attention in 2020 for its startling prediction of a significant depopulation event across the Western World by 2025.
This was a very bold claim to make.
‘Unfortunately, these bold claims are now backed up with a mountain of evidence, and most of that evidence can be found in the confidential Pfizer documents that the U.S. Food & Drug Administration has been forced to publish by court order.
And sadly, the evidence strongly suggests that Covid-19 vaccination is causing mass depopulation.
What is Deagel?
The Deagel corporation, founded by the CIA and Rockefeller Foundation, is a branch of US military intelligence, one of the many secretive organizations which collect data for high-level decision-making purposes and prepare confidential briefing documents for agencies like the National Security Agency, the United Nations, and the World Bank.
It is known to have contributed to a Stratfor report on North Korea. With this kind of pedigree, Deagel should be seen as a legitimate player in the intelligence community and not merely a disinformation asset.
This means its population predictions for 2025, as well as its industrial output predictions on a nation-by-nation basis, are not mere fantasy but instead based on strategic assumptions which are shared and well understood by other players in the intelligence community.
Deagel predicted in 2020 that the United States would see its population decline by 68.5 % by the year 2025.
Deagel predicted in 2020 that Germany would see its population decline by 65.1% by the year 2025.
Deagel predicted in 2020 that Australia would see its population decline by 34.6% by the year 2025.
While also predicting a huge decline among many other Western countries.
A full list of Deagel’s original apocalyptic depopulation predictions can be viewed here.
Sadly, the confidential Pfizer documents coupled with staggering deaths among children suggest Deagel’s depopulation figures were not just an estimation, but a target.
The Confidential Pfizer Documents
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to delay the release of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine safety data for 75 years despite approving the injection after only 108 days of safety review on December 11th, 2020.
But in early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered them to release 55,000 pages per month. They released 12,000 pages by the end of January.
Since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents on its website. The latest drop happened on 1st June 2022.
One of the documents contained in the data dump is ‘reissue_5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf’. Page 12 of the confidential document contains data on the use of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection in pregnancy and lactation.
Confidential Pfizer Documents reveal 90% of Covid Vaccinated Pregnant Women lost their Baby
Pfizer state in the document that by 28th February 2021 there were 270 known cases of exposure to the mRNA injection during pregnancy.
Forty-six-percent of the mothers (124) exposed to the Pfizer Covid-19 injection suffered an adverse reaction.
Of those 124 mothers suffering an adverse reaction, 49 were considered non-serious adverse reactions, whereas 75 were considered serious. This means 58% of the mothers who reported suffering adverse reactions suffered a serious adverse event ranging from uterine contraction to foetal death.
A total of 4 serious foetus/baby cases were reported due to exposure to the Pfizer injection.
But here’s where things get rather concerning. Pfizer state that of the 270 pregnancies they have absolutely no idea what happened in 238 of them.
But here are the known outcomes of the remaining pregnancies –
There were 34 outcomes altogether at the time of the report, but 5 of them were still pending. Pfizer note that only 1 of the 29 known outcomes were normal, whilst 28 of the 29 outcomes resulted in the loss/death of the baby. This equates to 97% of all known outcomes of Covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy resulting in the loss of the child.
When we include the 5 cases where the outcome was still pending it equates to 82% of all outcomes of Covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy resulting in the loss of the child. This equates to an average of around 90% between the 82% and 97% figure.
So here we have our first piece of evidence that something is amiss when it comes to administering the Pfizer Covid-19 injection during pregnancy.
Here’s the guidance taken from the UK Government’s ‘REG 174 INFORMATION FOR UK HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS’ document –
[…]
This is still the official guidance as of June 2022, and leads to several questions requiring urgent answers when we consider since early 2021 pregnant women have been told Covid-19 vaccination is perfectly safe.
You only have to look at the things women were told to avoid during pregnancy prior to being told it’s perfectly safe to take an experimental injection to realise something just isn’t right here –
Smoked fish,
Soft cheese,
Wet paint,
Coffee,
Herbal tea,
Vitamin supplements,
Processed Junk foods.
These are just to name a few, and the list is endless.
So let’s start with the ‘Pregnancy’ section of the official guidance. In December 2020 the guidance stated ‘Covid-19 vaccination is not recommended during pregnancy‘. Just a month or so later this guidance stated ‘Animal studies do not indicate harmful effects with respect to pregnancy etc.’
So let’s take a look at the animal studies in question.
But before we do it’s worth pointing out that the official guidance states, as of June 2022, that ‘administration of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in pregnancy should only be considered when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and foetus’. So why on earth has every single pregnant woman up and down the land been actively coerced into getting this injection?
Pfizer and Medicine Regulators hid dangers of Covid-19 Vaccination during Pregnancy due to Animal Study finding an increased risk of Birth Defects & Infertility
The limited animal study talked about in the official guidance actually uncovered the risk of significant harm to the developing foetus, but medicine regulators in the USA, UK and Australia actively chose to remove this information from public documents.
The study was performed on 42 female Wistar Han rats. Twenty-one were given the Pfizer Covid-19 injection, and 21 were not.
The results of the number of foetuses observed to have supernumerary lumbar ribs in the control group were 3/3 (2.1). But the results of the number of foetuses to have supernumerary lumbar ribs in the vaccinated group were 6/12 (8.3). Therefore on average, the rate of occurrence was 295% higher in the vaccinated group.
Supernumerary ribs also called accessory ribs are an uncommon variant of extra ribs arising most commonly from the cervical or lumbar vertebrae.
So what this study found is evidence of abnormal foetal formation and birth defects caused by the Pfizer Covid-19 injection.
But the abnormal findings of the study don’t end there. The ‘pre-implantation loss’ rate in the vaccinated group of rats was double that of the control group.
Pre-implantation loss refers to fertilised ova that fail to implant. Therefore, this study suggests that the Pfizer Covid-19 injection reduces the chances of a woman being able to get pregnant. So, therefore, increases the risk of infertility.
So with this being the case, how on earth have medicine regulators around the world managed to state in their official guidance that “Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy”? And how have they managed to state “It is unknown whether the Pfizer vaccine has an impact on fertility“?
The truth of the matter is that they actively chose to cover it up.
We know this thanks to a ‘Freedom of Information (FOI) request made to the Australian Government Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
A document titled ‘Delegate’s Overview and Request for ACV’s Advice‘ that was created on 11th January 2021 was published under the FOI request. Page 30 onwards of the document shows a ‘review of the product information’, and highlights changes that should be made to the ‘Non-clinical evaluation report’ prior to official publication.
The changes were requested to be made by Pfizer prior to the next product information update.
[…]
So not only do we have evidence that the Pfizer vaccine may cause between 82% and 97% of recipients to lose their babies, we also now have evidence that the Pfizer vaccine leads to an increased risk of suffering infertility or birth defects.
Both of these examples alone support the suggestion that Covid-19 vaccination is going to lead to depopulation. But unfortunately, the evidence doesn’t end there.
.That concludes our third piece of evidence. So now we know –
Confidential Pfizer documents show a miscarriage rate between 82 and 97%,
The only animal study performed to prove the safety of administering the Pfizer vaccine during pregnancy indicated an increased risk of infertility and birth defects,
and further confidential Pfizer documents reveal the vaccine accumulates in the ovaries.
Unfortunately, we also have evidence that Covid-19 vaccination increases the risk of newborn babies sadly losing their lives, and it also comes from the Public Health Scotland ‘Covid-19 Wider Impacts’ dashboard.
Newborn Baby Deaths hit critical levels for 2nd time in 7 Months in March 2022
Official figures reveal that the rate of neonatal deaths increased to 4.6 per 1000 live births in March 2022, a 119% increase on the expected rate of deaths. This means the neonatal mortality rate breached an upper warning threshold known as the ‘control limit’ for the second time in at least four years.
The last time it breached was in September 2021, when neonatal deaths per 1000 live births climbed to 5.1. Although the rate fluctuates month to month, the figure for both September 2021 and March 2022 is on a par with levels that were last typically seen in the late 1980s.
Public Health Scotland (PHS) did not formally announce they had launched an investigation, but this is what they are supposed to do when the upper warning threshold is reached, and they did so back in 2021.
At the time, PHS said the fact that the upper control limit has been exceeded “indicates there is a higher likelihood that there are factors beyond random variation that may have contributed to the number of deaths that occurred”.
Our final piece of evidence to support the claim that Covid-19 vaccination is going to lead to depopulation comes in the form of more real-world data, but this time from the USA.
Covid-19 Vaccination increases risk of suffering Miscarriage by at least 1,517%
According to the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC)) Vaccine Adverse Event Database (VAERS), as of April 2022, a total of 4,113 foetal deaths had been reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 injections, 3,209 of which were reported against the Pfizer injection.
The CDC has admitted that just 1 to 10% of adverse reactions are actually reported to VAERS therefore the true figure could be many times worse. But to put these numbers into perspective, there were only 2,239 reported foetal deaths to VAERS in the 30 years prior to the emergency use authorisation of the Covid-19 injections in December of 2020. (Source)
And a further study which can be viewed here, found that the risk of suffering a miscarriage following Covid-19 vaccination is 1,517% higher than the risk of suffering a miscarriage following flu vaccination.
The true risk could however actually be much higher because pregnant women are a target group for Flu vaccination, whereas they are only a small demographic in terms of Covid-19 vaccination so far.
63,060% increase in Child Excess Deaths across Europe
In the scorching summer of 2021, a momentous decision swept across Europe, sparking a whirlwind of emotions among parents, who had fallen for the 24/7 propaganda, eagerly awaiting a ray of hope for their children.
SAO PAULO (AP) — Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro was formally accused Tuesday of falsifying his COVID-19 vaccination status, marking the first indictment for the embattled far-right leader, with more allegations potentially in store.
The federal police indictment released by the Supreme Court alleged that Bolsonaro and 16 others inserted false information into a public health database to make it appear as though the then-president, his 12-year-old daughter and several others in his circle had received the COVID-19 vaccine.
Police detective Fábio Alvarez Shor, who signed the indictment, said in his report that Bolsonaro and his aides changed their vaccination records in order to “issue their respective (vaccination) certificates and use them to cheat current health restrictions.”
“The investigation found several false insertions between November 2021 and December 2022, and also many actions of using fraudulent documents,” Shor added.
The detective said in the indictment that Bolsonaro’s aide-de-camp, Mauro Cid, told investigators the former president asked him to insert the false data into the system for both himself and his daughter. Cid also said he delivered the vaccination certificates to Bolsonaro personally.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been engaged in a legal struggle in the UK against being extradited to the US, where he faces 17 counts of espionage and one charge of computer misuse, possibly resulting in a prison term of up to 175 years. However, there apparently may be a way to cut short this protracted London court case.
The US government, according to The Wall Street Journal, is exploring the option of offering WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a plea deal.
The US government, according to The Wall Street Journal, is exploring the option of offering WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange a plea deal. The Justice Department is contemplating the possibility of dropping the 17 current charges against him under the Espionage Act. This would be in exchange for Assange pleading guilty to a lesser offense of mishandling classified information, which is categorized as a misdemeanor.
Assange would be able to enter such a plea deal remotely from London’s HM Prison Belmarsh, where he has been incarcerated since April 2019. By accepting this plea bargain, the whistleblower would effectively end his prolonged legal battle against being extradited to the US on espionage charges. Additionally, the publication noted that since Assange has already spent five years in custody in the UK, it is likely that he would be released shortly after the deal is finalized.
In response to the report, one of Assange’s defense attorneys, Barry Pollack, said in a statement:
“It is inappropriate for Mr. Assange’s lawyers to comment while his case is before the UK High Court other than to say we have been given no indication that the Department of Justice intends to resolve the case and the United States is continuing with as much determination as ever to seek his extradition on all 18 charges, exposing him to 175 years in prison.”
Back in January 2021, a British judge ruled it would be ‘oppressive’ to extradite the WikiLeaks founder to the US.
“The overall impression is of a depressed and sometimes despairing man, who is genuinely fearful about his future. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America,” judge Vanessa Baraitser had concluded.
Should Julian Assange exhaust all of his legal options in the UK, his wife, Stella, said earlier that they would apply to the European Court of Human Rights for an order under Rule 39 to stop the extradition while it considers his case.
Comparing vaccination rates in 34 developed nations revealed a significant correlation between infant mortality rates and the number of vaccine doses infants receive. The U.S. requires the most vaccines and has the highest infant mortality
Research shows the more vaccines an infant receives simultaneously, the greater their risk of being hospitalized or dying compared to those receiving fewer vaccines
The earlier in infancy a child is vaccinated, the greater their risk of being hospitalized or dying compared to children receiving the same vaccines at a later time
Vaccines: Are they safe? Are they effective? To help answer those questions is Neil Z. Miller,1 a medical research journalist and director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute.
Miller has investigated vaccines for three decades and written several books on the subject, including “Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?,” “Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families and Health Practitioners” and “Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers.”
“Miller’s Review,” published in 2016, is a magnificent piece of work. In it, he reviews the concern about vaccine safety and efficacy raised by 400 peer-reviewed published studies. The book doesn’t review studies that support vaccination (almost all of which are funded by the industry and the government, by the way) as those studies are available on the CDC website.
[…]
Don’t Believe the ‘There’s No Evidence’ Argument
“Miller’s Review” was created in response to the common refrain that “there are no studies showing vaccines are unsafe or ineffective.”
“I hear this often,” Miller says. “Parents come to me all the time, saying, ‘My doctor told me that vaccines are safe and there are no studies that prove [otherwise].’ I’ve been doing the research for 30 years. I know of literally thousands of studies that document [concerns]. My books all document [those] studies.”
“Miller’s Review” is unique in that it summarizes 400 studies in bullet points with direct quotes from the study — with one study per page — plus citations so that you can find and read the study in full should you decide to do so. All of the studies are published in peer-reviewed journals and indexed by the National Library of Medicine.
“These are valid studies by valid researchers in many journals that people have heard about — The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, all the mainstream journals (and some of the smaller journals, but they’re still valid peer-reviewed studies) that show there are problems with vaccines: There are safety problems, there are efficacy problems.
They’re all in one place so that people, like doctors, can get this information all in one convenient place. This book has been very effective with medical doctors. When medical doctors who are on the fence, or who are pro-vaccine, get this book and read it, I hear back from parents that their doctor is no longer pressuring them to get the vaccines.
Their doctor is now respecting their decisions to not vaccinate or to go to some sort of alternative vaccine schedule if that’s the choice these parents make …
I am all about having uncensored, unfettered access to all of the available information out there about vaccines. Not just what your medical doctor wants you to know. Not just what the pharmaceutical companies want you to know and not just what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is telling doctors to share with their patients.
I want [parents] to be absolutely free to make a decision whether or not they want to vaccinate their children … It’s really a human rights issue. It’s really about the mandatory aspect of vaccines. I think all vaccines are problematic. I think this not just based on my own feelings, but based on the evidence I’ve researched over the years.”
Uninformed Decision-Making Is Part of the Problem
Ultimately, every parent will make a decision about whether or not to vaccinate. The problem is, most of the time, it’s an uninformed decision. An issue brought up in some of his earlier books is that there’s been a deliberate misinformation campaign aimed at making you believe vaccines are far more effective than they actually are.
For example, disease incidence data is used to suggest vaccines have dramatically reduced the incidence of a given disease, when in fact the disease rate had already declined by 90%, or more in some cases, before a vaccine was ever available.
Measles has been problematic in developing nations, mostly because of malnutrition, vitamin A deficiency, lack of clean water, sanitation and quick access to medical care. As these measures are addressed, the mortality from measles declines on its own.
Vitamin A appears particularly important, and studies sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) have confirmed that high doses of vitamin A supplementation protect children against complications and death associated with the disease.
“By the time the measles vaccine was introduced in the United States in 1963, by the late 1950s, the mortality rate from measles had drastically dropped. This was due to the [fact] that the population had gained protection against the more dangerous ravages of the disease. This happens with a lot of different diseases.
In my book, I’ve got many different types of graphs and illustrations to help the reader understand the main points I’m making … [M]any of these graphs show that these diseases were declining significantly on their own, well before vaccines were introduced.
For example, scarlet fever. Where did scarlet fever go? Why don’t we see cases of scarlet fever when we didn’t have mass vaccinations with a scarlet fever vaccine? That’s an important point to be made.”
Many Childhood Diseases Are Protective Against Cancer
Another significant point is there are dozens of studies demonstrating that contracting certain childhood diseases actually protects you against various types of cancer later in life — everything from melanoma to leukemia.
It’s important to realize that when you have a naturally acquired infection, you’re really exercising your immune system quite profoundly, developing authentic, lifelong immunity in the process, which is radically different from the type of artificial and temporary immunity you get from a vaccine.
One of the reasons for this is because vaccines stimulate a completely different part of your immune system than does fighting off a naturally acquired infection. There’s even evidence suggesting childhood diseases help protect against future heart disease.
[…]
Vaccines Create Problematic Mutations
Another vaccine-related problem that many are completely unaware of is the fact that vaccines cause mutations in the disease-bearing microorganisms, much in the same way antibiotics cause bacteria to mutate. The diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine (DTaP), for example, has caused the pertussis microorganism, Bordetella pertussis, to mutate and evade the vaccine. The same thing happened with the pneumococcal vaccine and the Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine.
[…]
Tragically, parents are being blamed and harassed for many of these vaccine failures. Parents are being told that if you don’t vaccinate your kids, you are responsible for spreading the disease. That’s the idea the CDC, the medical industry and the pharmaceutical industry are promoting. However, if you actually read the studies, you’ll find what the scientists know — the real problem is evolutionary adaptation.
[…]
Studies Show Vaccinations Increase Infant Mortality
One of the tenets of conventional medicine is that if you vaccinate a population, everyone is going to be healthier. There will be less disease. But when you compare vaccination rates and health statistics, you find the converse is actually true. This is some of the most compelling information Miller shares in his book.
For example, when comparing vaccination rates in 34 developed nations, they found a significant correlation between infant mortality rates and the number of vaccine doses infants received. Developed nations like the United States that require the most vaccines tend to have the highest infant mortality. You can read this study here.2
[…]
The greatest, most serious problem we currently face is the concerted push to mandate vaccines and eliminate personal belief exemptions. For example, to go to school in California, you now have to be fully vaccinated. No exemptions are allowed, which is really a violation of human rights.
Giving Multiple Simultaneous Vaccines Is Extremely Risky, Study Shows
The second study3 Miller and Goldman published analyzed nearly 40,000 reports of infants who suffered adverse reactions after vaccines. Here, they found that infants given the most vaccines were significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die compared to those who received fewer vaccines.
It’s worth noting that this data was obtained from the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) database, a passive reporting system, and that research has confirmed passive reporting systems underreport by 50 to 1.
What this means is that when you find one report in VAERS, you have to multiply that by 50 to get closer to reality because, on average, only 1 in 50 adverse events are ever reported. Doctors have a legal obligation to report side effects to VAERS, but they don’t, and there are no ramifications for failure to make a report. Parents can also make a report to the database, and I encourage all parents to do so, should your child experience a vaccine reaction.
At present, VAERS has over 500,000 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines, and every year, more than 30,000 new reports are added to it. Miller and Goldman downloaded this database and created a program to extract all the reports involving infants. In all, they extracted the reports of 38,000 infants who experienced an adverse reaction following the receipt of one or more vaccines.
They then created a program that was able to determine the number of vaccines each infant had received before suffering an adverse reaction, and stratified the reports by the number of vaccines (anywhere from one to eight) the infants had received simultaneously before the reaction took place. They specifically honed in on serious adverse reactions requiring hospitalization or that led to death. Here’s what they found:
Infants who received three vaccines simultaneously were statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die after receiving their vaccines than children who received two vaccines at the same time
Infants who received four vaccines simultaneously were statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who received three or two vaccines, and so on all the way up to eight vaccines
Children who received eight vaccines simultaneously were “off-the-charts” statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die after receiving those vaccines
Children who received vaccines at an earlier age were significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who receive those vaccines at a later age
The FDA, which denied any wrongdoing, said it will remove content warning people not to use ivermectin to treat COVID-19 within 21 days. Plaintiffs called the settlement a big win for patients and the patient-physician relationship.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agreed to take down its website and social media posts warning people not to use ivermectin to treat COVID-19 under terms of a settlement reached Thursday in a lawsuit alleging the agency exceeded its authority when it directed health professionals and patients not to use the drug.
Within 21 days, the agency will remove the consumer update, “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19,” which pictures a doctor and a horse. The FDA posted the update on March 5, 2021.
The FDA webpage, still live, states repeatedly that the FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for treating COVID-19 and warns the drug can be “unsafe.” The page also includes language warning people not to use ivermectin “intended for livestock.”
The FDA will also delete social media posts from Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram posted in 2021 and 2022 with messages such as “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”
The posts suggest ivermectin is not “authorized” for treating COVID-19. The agency also will remove all posts that link to the webpage about the drug.
It has already taken down its Frequently Asked Questions page about ivermectin.
In exchange for removing the internet content, plaintiffs in the lawsuit — Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, Dr. Paul Marik and Dr. Robert Apter — will dismiss their claims against the FDA.
“This is a landmark case and one of the most important wins in the whole COVID era,” said Marik, chief scientific officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and former chief of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School.
“It goes beyond ivermectin. It goes to the authority of the FDA, what they can and they can’t do. It’s really about the patient-physician relationship, doctors being allowed to be doctors and prescribe medicine. And so hopefully going forward this will limit the interference by the regulatory agencies to control medicine.”
Bowden, a physician with 40-plus years of experience in emergency medicine, tweeted this:
🚨BREAKING: FDA loses its war on ivermectin and agrees to remove all social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and COVID, including its most popular tweet in FDA history.
This landmark case sets an important precedent in limiting FDA overreach into the… pic.twitter.com/HWYkkZLpoJ
Apter also celebrated the news. “This victory in Apter et al v. HHS is wonderful news and one more step towards putting the government back in its place from its COVID-era overreach,” he told The Defender.
“While this resolution is long in coming — the case was filed almost two years ago — it is one more building block in the edifice to stop future encroachments on the doctor-patient relationship, free expression and the FDA’s unlawful practice of medicine,” he added.
An FDA spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that the agency “has chosen to resolve this lawsuit rather than continuing to litigate over statements that are between two and nearly four years old.”
“FDA has not admitted any violation of law or any wrongdoing, disagrees with the plaintiffs’ allegation that the agency exceeded its authority in issuing the statements challenged in the lawsuit, and stands by its authority to communicate with the public regarding the products it regulates,” the spokesperson said.
“FDA has not changed its position that currently available clinical trial data do not demonstrate that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. The agency has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19.”
‘FDA has blood on its hands’
Ivermectin is an effective antiparasitic drug that’s been given to billions of people worldwide. It was discovered in the 1970s by Japanese microbiologist Satoshi Ōmura, Ph.D., and American parasitic biologist William C. Campbell, Ph.D., who won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology for their discovery.
After many doctors across the country began prescribing ivermectin for COVID-19 early in the pandemic, the FDA launched a campaign against the drug, despite numerous studies — including studies posted on its own website — showing ivermectin could be effective as an early intervention against COVID-19, and the drug’s strong safety profile.
The drug was also administered widely in several countries, including India, Mexico and Argentina.
“The FDA demonized ivermectin, which is a highly effective drug for the early treatment of COVID. The consequences of this, and what has to be clear is that this led directly to the death of millions of people,” Marik said. “So the FDA has blood on its hands.”
Marik said if the drug had been widely used early in the course of the pandemic, it would have significantly reduced the risk of death. Instead, the FDA interfered with the practice of medicine, demonizing the drug, which led to doctors being prohibited from using it and pharmacists being prohibited from dispensing it.
In the U.S., it’s common and legal for doctors to prescribe drugs off-label, or for a different purpose than it is approved for. Marik said 40-60% of medications are used off-label.
“It’s standard of care,” he said, which is the benchmark that determines whether professional obligations to fully and effectively care for patients have been met.
“The FDA was actually caught out in a big lie,” he said, because the agency allows and promotes the use of off-label drugs “as long as it doesn’t interfere with their EUA [emergency use authorization].”
Drugs that were granted emergency use authorization for use during the COVID-19 pandemic, including Remdesivir, Paxlovid and the vaccines, were authorized on the basis that no other effective treatments were available.
Dr. Pierre Kory was one of the first doctors to make a public case for the effectiveness of ivermectin as an early intervention against COVID-19. He is co-author of a metanalysis concluding the drug is effective against the illness and author of “The War on Ivermectin: the Medicine that Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the Pandemic.”
In a statement, Kory said, “I couldn’t be prouder of Paul and our colleagues for taking a stand for all of us against a government health agency that overstepped its authority.”
“The FDA knew exactly what it was doing when it tweeted that ivermectin was for horses and that people should ‘stop it.’ I hope this case will serve as precedent the next time a federal health agency steps out of its authority and tries to practice medicine,” he added.
Earlier this week, Kory addressed the issue of censoring doctors who promoted ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients in a speech he gave during a rally, hosted by Children’s Health Defense, outside the U.S. Supreme Court.
The lawsuit
In their lawsuit, Drs. Bowden, Marik and Apter alleged the FDA acted outside of its authority by directing the public, including health professionals and patients, not to use ivermectin — even though the drug is fully approved by the FDA for human use.
They alleged the FDA was carrying out a “crusade” against ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that “unlawfully interfered” with the doctors’ ability to practice medicine.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, also named the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and Dr. Robert Califf, acting FDA commissioner.
The complaint alleged the FDA cannot ban off-label use of particular drugs or advise whether patients should take approved drugs. Doing so, they said, is intervening in the doctor-patient relationship.
The plaintiffs said their lawsuit wasn’t about whether ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. It was about who determines the appropriate treatment for each unique patient and whether the FDA can interfere with that process.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown dismissed the case in 2022, ruling the FDA has “sovereign immunity” and granting it protection against most civil lawsuits. Brown also said the plaintiffs had not proven they were directly harmed by any FDA action.
But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans overturned the dismissal in September 2023, ruling the agency did exceed its authority under federal law.
According to the ruling, the agency is “not a physician” and “FDA can inform, but has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers ‘stop’ taking medicine.”
The court’s finding that the FDA exceeded its regulatory authority, Marik said, “is a major win because it’s saying that the FDA can approve drugs, but they can’t interfere with the patient-physician relationship.”
“They can’t determine … what drugs physicians can and cannot prescribe,” he added.
Marik said Thursday’s settlement that followed this appellate court ruling was also important because in addition to the tweets, the FDA had communicated with state medical boards about ivermectin — and as a consequence, many doctors had lost their licenses for prescribing the drug.
“Patients didn’t get treatment and doctors lost their licenses … and pharmacies didn’t dispense ivermectin because of the FDA,” he added.
The Customs and Border Protection Agency has blocked the media from accessing the area where hordes of illegal immigrants overran the National Guard in El Paso earlier this week, leaving reporters asking how they are supposed to do their jobs.
Footage emerged Thursday of illegal immigrants literally tearing down barriers near El Paso, Texas and storming the border, braying to be let into the US.
This is the moment when TX National Guard became overrun by migrants rioting to get across the border here in El Paso today
Now, two days later, this sign has been put up instructing the media to basically stay away.
Media now being blocked from the scene where we captured a breach by hundreds of migrants in El Paso yesterday, how do we do our jobs now? pic.twitter.com/0AnJ9K8VxT
Newsletter
Chris Malone Mendez
The Most Revolutionary Act 