By  John-Michael Dumais

Federal investigators ordered Google to turn over personal information on viewers of specific YouTube videos, according to court documents obtained by Forbes. Privacy experts said the orders violate constitutional rights and turn innocent viewers into criminal suspects.

The orders, obtained by Forbes, require Google to turn over names, addresses, telephone numbers and user activity for account holders — and IP addresses, numeric identifiers of internet location, of non-account holders — who watched certain videos.

Critics said the demands threaten to turn innocent YouTube viewers into criminal suspects, violating their free speech rights under the First Amendment and privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment.

Unclear if Google complied with orders

In a Kentucky case reviewed by Forbes, undercover police sought to identify the person behind the online moniker “elonmuskwhm,” suspected of buying bitcoin for cash in potential violation of money laundering laws and rules governing the transmission of unlicensed money.

The police sent links to YouTube tutorials — that collectively garnered over 30,000 views — on drone mapping and augmented reality software and then asked Google for information on anyone who had accessed the videos from Jan. 1-8, 2023.

The court granted the order, but court records don’t reveal if Google complied.

In a separate New Hampshire case, Portsmouth police received a threat about an explosive placed in a public trash can, Forbes reported. After searching the area, police discovered they were being watched via a YouTube livestream associated with a local business.

Federal investigators believe events similar to the one in Portsmouth have occurred nationwide and requested that Google provide a list of accounts that “viewed and/or interacted with” eight YouTube livestreams, including one posted by Boston and Maine Live with 130,000 subscribers.

It remains unclear if Google provided the data in this case.

Google spokesperson Matt Bryant said the company has “a rigorous process designed to protect the privacy and constitutional rights of our users while supporting the important work of law enforcement,” according to Forbes.

Bryant said Google examines each demand for legal validity, pushes back against overbroad or inappropriate requests and sometimes objects to demands entirely.

Google recently announced an update that will make it technically impossible for the company to provide information in response to geofence orders — orders that seek data from all users within a certain distance from a crime.

This move comes after a California court ruled that a geofence warrant covering several densely populated areas in Los Angeles was unconstitutional, raising hopes that courts would stop police from seeking such data.

YouTube should not identify users ‘without a valid warrant’

According to attorney and digital privacy expert Greg Glaser, social media platforms like YouTube are often considered part of the public sphere, and law enforcement agencies typically do a good job handling such evidence.

However, Glaser emphasized that a user’s unpublished personal information, such as their name and address associated with their YouTube account, should remain private.

“Without a valid warrant, YouTube should not be revealing to authorities the unpublished personal account details of its users,” Glaser told The Defender.

Glaser suggested that when videos depict criminal activity, warrants will be readily issued against those directly involved.

He also noted that for specific offenses, like the pornographic exploitation of children, simply possessing or viewing such videos is rightfully considered a criminal act.

“The right to privacy does not create a right to engage in criminal activity or conspire with criminals,” he said.

Despite this, Glaser acknowledged the need to safeguard against excessive surveillance or “dragnet spying.”

“Some states have implemented variations of a ‘Fourth Amendment Protection Act’” to address this concern, Glaser said. “These laws respect good police work and also the need for a warrant even in the electronic surveillance age,” he said.

‘Unconstitutional’ and ‘terrifying’

Privacy experts who spoke with Forbes expressed grave concerns about the constitutionality of the court orders, arguing that they threaten to undo constitutional protections.

Albert Fox Cahn, executive director at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, called the orders “unconstitutional” and “terrifying,” likening them to controversial geofence warrants.

“No one should fear a knock at the door from police simply because of what the YouTube algorithm serves up,” Fox Cahn told Forbes. “I’m horrified that the courts are allowing this.”

John Davisson, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, echoed Fox Cahn’s concerns, emphasizing that online viewing habits can reveal “deeply sensitive information” about individuals, such as their political beliefs, passions and religious views.

“It’s fair to expect that law enforcement won’t have access to that information without probable cause,” Davisson told Forbes. “This order turns that assumption on its head.”

Numerous technology publications covered the Forbes article and weighed in on the controversy.

Engadget noted individuals don’t have to engage in illegal activities to have their data requested by law enforcement. Such privacy breaches often go unchallenged unless a victim engages in lengthy court battles — sometimes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote PCWorld.

Reclaim the Net characterized the government surveillance efforts as “extreme,” pointing out that unmasking everyone who watched a particular video “makes everyone a suspect” without probable cause.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/court-order-google-identify-youtube-viewers/

By  Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

More than 100 former world leaders and public figures are urging the World Health Organization (WHO) member states to finalize a new “pandemic accord” in time for the 77th World Health Assembly, set to take place in Geneva, Switzerland, May 27-June 1.

In an open letter, dated March 20, the leaders wrote:

“A pandemic accord is critical to safeguard our collective future. Only a strong global pact on pandemics can protect future generations from a repeat of the COVID-19 crisis, which led to millions of deaths and caused widespread social and economic devastation.”

Critics of the proposed pandemic accord told The Defender that the letter is deceiving because it addresses the proposed accord, or “Pandemic Treaty,” but doesn’t reference the amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR).

The IHR amendments, proposed in 2023, are being negotiated concurrently with the accord. Critics of the letter said it is meant to deflect attention from what they argue are the more onerous proposals contained in the IHR amendments.

Dr. David Bell, a public health physician, biotech consultant and former director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund, told The Defender the letter is “quite shameful” and “deceitful.”

Bell said:

“[The letter] follows the lead of the director general in misleading the public but claiming, rightly, that the pandemic agreement does not include provisions that hand over authority from countries to the WHO, when these are in the proposed amendments to the IHR that accompanies the pandemic accord.

“The proposed IHR amendments specifically mention border closures, mandated vaccination and other measures now associated with lockdowns. They specifically mention documentation being needed to cross borders and mention digital passports as one of the alternatives.”

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst told The Defender the open letter “only refers to the pandemic accord to confuse everybody.”

“The real meat is in the IHR amendments, because on the basis of the amendments, the director general of WHO is anticipated to get independent legislative and executive powers while any legal review is made impossible,” Terhorst said. “The secrecy surrounding the drafts suggest that we are dealing with a coup d’état.”

Are negotiations in trouble?

Some critics suggested the open letter may be a sign that negotiations for the pandemic accord are flailing.

“There is no member state consensus on either document,” said Shabnam Palesa Mohamed, executive director of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Africa and founder of Transformative Health Justice. “With eight weeks to go before the World Health Assembly, the WHO is evidently nervous about the accord being derailed.”

The BMJ reported that “little progress” has been made on the pandemic accord draft, and that the waiving of intellectual property “remains a sticking point for member nations at loggerheads in the discussions.”

“Proponents of the accord fear that the final draft could be watered down in negotiations and that weaker language might result in countries only being recommended to take certain actions rather than being compelled to by international law,” according to The BMJ.

Others noted growing global opposition to the proposed accord and IHR amendments. Iran, New Zealand, Slovakia and the Netherlands recently rejected IHR amendments proposed in 2022, while in South Africa, a “WHO Withdrawal Bill” has been proposed.

In the U.S., the Louisiana Senate voted unanimously on March 26 against allowing the WHO, United Nations and World Economic Forum to wield any influence over the state of Louisiana.

“The fact that all Democrats voted for it indicates how popular the sentiment is with their constituents,” said Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and founder of Door to Freedom, “I think it sends a message to politicians everywhere that favoring the WHO will be accompanied by great political cost.”

Pandemic accord doesn’t threaten sovereignty — but IHR amendments do

Independent journalist James Roguski told The Defender that the letter from world leaders to the WHO is “mostly correct” as the proposed pandemic accord is not an “attack on national sovereignty.”

However, he and Dr. Kat Lindley, president of the Global Health Project and director of the Global COVID Summit, Lindley pointed out that the IHR amendments do pose a threat to nations’ sovereignty.

Lindley said the IHR amendments will make the WHO the “global authority on health in the event of new pandemics, which they clearly feel will be happening over and over again” and may pave the way for “future vaccine mandates and the imposition of digital health passes.

Hundreds of cancer patients every year die excruciating deaths from overdoses of common chemotherapy drugs because doctors rarely order a simple gene test — required by European health agencies but not the FDA — that could identify those at risk.

By Arthur Allen

One January morning in 2021, Carol Rosen took a standard treatment for metastatic breast cancer. Three gruesome weeks later, she died in excruciating pain from the very drug meant to prolong her life.

Rosen, a 70-year-old retired schoolteacher, passed her final days in anguish, enduring severe diarrhea and nausea and terrible sores in her mouth that kept her from eating, drinking and eventually speaking. Skin peeled off her body. Her kidneys and liver failed.

“Your body burns from the inside out,” said Rosen’s daughter, Lindsay Murray, of Andover, Massachusetts.

Rosen was one of more than 275,000 cancer patients in the U.S. who are infused each year with fluorouracil, known as 5-FU, or, as in Rosen’s case, take a nearly identical drug in pill form called capecitabine.

These common types of chemotherapy are no picnic for anyone, but for patients who are deficient in an enzyme that metabolizes the drugs, they can be torturous or deadly.

Those patients essentially overdose because the drugs stay in the body for hours rather than being quickly metabolized and excreted.

The drugs kill an estimated 1 in 1,000 patients who take them — hundreds each year — and severely sicken or hospitalize 1 in 50.

Doctors can test for the deficiency and get results within a week — and then either switch drugs or lower the dosage if patients have a genetic variant that carries risk.

Yet a recent survey found that only 3% of U.S. oncologists routinely order the tests before dosing patients with 5-FU or capecitabine.

That’s because the most widely followed U.S. cancer treatment guidelines — issued by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network — don’t recommend preemptive testing.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) added new warnings about the lethal risks of 5-FU to the drug’s label on March 21 following queries from KFF Health News about its policy. However, it did not require doctors to administer the test before prescribing the chemotherapy.

The agency, whose plan to expand its oversight of laboratory testing was the subject of a U.S. House of Representatives hearing, also on March 21, has said it could not endorse the 5-FU toxicity tests because it’s never reviewed them.

But the FDA at present does not review most diagnostic tests, said Daniel Hertz, an associate professor at the University of Michigan College of Pharmacy.

For years, with other doctors and pharmacists, he has petitioned the FDA to put a black box warning on the drug’s label urging prescribers to test for the deficiency.

“FDA has responsibility to assure that drugs are used safely and effectively,” he said.

The failure to warn, he said, “is an abdication of their responsibility.”

The update is “a small step in the right direction, but not the sea change we need,” he said.

Europe ahead on safety

British and European Union drug authorities have recommended the testing since 2020.

A small but growing number of U.S. hospital systems, professional groups and health advocates, including the American Cancer Society, also endorse routine testing.

Most U.S. insurers, private and public, will cover the tests, which Medicare reimburses for $175, although tests may cost more depending on how many variants they screen for.

In its latest guidelines on colon cancer, the Cancer Network panel noted that not everyone with a risky gene variant gets sick from the drug and that lower dosing for patients carrying such a variant could rob them of a cure or remission.

Many doctors on the panel, including the University of Colorado oncologist Wells Messersmith, have said they have never witnessed a 5-FU death.

In European hospitals, the practice is to start patients with a half- or quarter-dose of 5-FU if tests show a patient is a poor metabolizer, then raise the dose if the patient responds well to the drug.

Advocates for the approach say American oncology leaders are dragging their feet unnecessarily, and harming people in the process.

“I think it’s the intransigence of people sitting on these panels, the mindset of ‘We are oncologists, drugs are our tools, we don’t want to go looking for reasons not to use our tools,’” said Gabriel Brooks, an oncologist and researcher at the Dartmouth Cancer Center.

Oncologists are accustomed to chemotherapy’s toxicity and tend to have a “no pain, no gain” attitude, he said. 5-FU has been in use since the 1950s.

Yet “anybody who’s had a patient die like this will want to test everyone,” said Robert Diasio of the Mayo Clinic, who helped carry out major studies of the genetic deficiency in 1988.

Oncologists often deploy genetic tests to match tumors in cancer patients with the expensive drugs used to shrink them. But the same can’t always be said for gene tests aimed at improving safety, said Mark Fleury, policy director at the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network.

When a test can show whether a new drug is appropriate, “there are a lot more forces aligned to ensure that testing is done,” he said. “The same stakeholders and forces are not involved” with a generic like 5-FU, first approved in 1962, and costing roughly $17 for a month’s treatment.

Oncology is not the only area in medicine in which scientific advances, many of them taxpayer-funded, lag in implementation.

For instance, few cardiologists test patients before they go on Plavix, a brand name for the anti-blood-clotting agent clopidogrel, although it doesn’t prevent blood clots as it’s supposed to in a quarter of the 4 million Americans prescribed it each year.

In 2021, the state of Hawaii won an $834 million judgment from drugmakers it accused of falsely advertising the drug as safe and effective for Native Hawaiians, more than half of whom lack the main enzyme to process clopidogrel.

The fluoropyrimidine enzyme deficiency numbers are smaller — and people with the deficiency aren’t at severe risk if they use topical cream forms of the drug for skin cancers.

Yet even a single miserable, medically caused death was meaningful to the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, where Carol Rosen was among more than 1,000 patients treated with fluoropyrimidine in 2021.

Her daughter was grief-stricken and furious after Rosen’s death.

“I wanted to sue the hospital. I wanted to sue the oncologist,” Murray said. “But I realized that wasn’t what my mom would want.”

Instead, she wrote Dana-Farber’s chief quality officer, Joe Jacobson, urging routine testing. He responded the same day, and the hospital quickly adopted a testing system that now covers more than 90% of prospective fluoropyrimidine patients.

About 50 patients with risky variants were detected in the first 10 months, Jacobson said.

Dana-Farber uses a Mayo Clinic test that searches for eight potentially dangerous variants of the relevant gene. Veterans Affairs hospitals use an 11-variant test, while most others check for only four variants.

Different tests may be needed for different ancestries

The more variants a test screens for, the better the chance of finding rarer gene forms in ethnically diverse populations.

For example, different variants are responsible for the worst deficiencies in people of African and European ancestry, respectively. There are tests that scan for hundreds of variants that might slow the metabolism of the drug, but they take longer and cost more.

These are bitter facts for Scott Kapoor, a Toronto-area emergency room physician whose brother, Anil Kapoor, died in February 2023 of 5-FU poisoning.

Anil Kapoor was a well-known urologist and surgeon, an outgoing speaker, researcher, clinician and irreverent friend whose funeral drew hundreds. His death at age 58, only weeks after he was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer, stunned and infuriated his family.

In Ontario, where Kapoor was treated, the health system had just begun testing for four gene variants discovered in studies of mostly European populations.

Anil Kapoor and his siblings, the Canadian-born children of Indian immigrants, carry a gene form that’s apparently associated with South Asian ancestry.

Scott Kapoor supports broader testing for the defect — only about half of Toronto’s inhabitants are of European descent — and argues that an antidote to fluoropyrimidine poisoning, approved by the FDA in 2015, should be on hand.

However, it works only for a few days after ingestion of the drug and definitive symptoms often take longer to emerge.

Most importantly, he said, patients must be aware of the risk.

“You tell them, ‘I am going to give you a drug with a 1 in 1,000 chance of killing you. You can take this test. Most patients would be, ‘I want to get that test and I’ll pay for it,’ or they’d just say, ‘Cut the dose in half.’”

Alan Venook, the University of California-San Francisco oncologist who co-chairs the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, has led resistance to mandatory testing because the answers provided by the test, in his view, are often murky and could lead to undertreatment.

“If one patient is not cured, then you giveth and you taketh away,” he said. “Maybe you took it away by not giving adequate treatment.”

Instead of testing and potentially cutting a first dose of curative therapy, “I err on the latter, acknowledging they will get sick,” he said.

About 25 years ago, one of his patients died of 5-FU toxicity and “I regret that dearly,” he said. “But unhelpful information may lead us in the wrong direction.”

In September 2023, seven months after his brother’s death, Kapoor was boarding a cruise ship on the Tyrrhenian Sea near Rome when he happened to meet a woman whose husband, Atlanta municipal judge Gary Markwell, had died the year before after taking a single 5-FU dose at age 77.

“I was like … that’s exactly what happened to my brother,” said Kapoor.

Murray senses momentum toward mandatory testing. In 2022, the Oregon Health & Science University paid $1 million to settle a suit after an overdose death.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/chemotherapy-overdoses-gene-test-kff/

By  John-Michael Dumais

The number of people on long-term sick leave in the U.K. has risen by 700,000 since the spring of 2021, coinciding with the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, according to healthcare commentator John Campbell, Ph.D. Campbell questioned the government’s transparency and handling of the data on disability and deaths.

Campbell highlighted the trend in a March 21 video, which focused on an exchange in the Houses of Parliament between members of Parliament Andrew Bridgen, who raised the issue, and Mel Stride, who dismissed Bridgen’s concerns.

During the exchange, Bridgen said the number of long-term sick individuals in the U.K. had risen from 2.1 million pre-pandemic to 2.8 million.

“The huge increase started in spring 2021, at the same time as the rollout of the experimental emergency use vaccines,” Bridgen said. “Or does the minister have an alternative explanation?”

Stride, the U.K.’s secretary of state for Work and Pensions, questioned the accuracy of Bridgen’s statement, suggesting that the upward trajectory in long-term sickness numbers predated the vaccination rollout and was related to “mental health issues, muscle and skeletal issues.”

“I certainly do not subscribe to the view that vaccination is in any way unsafe,” Stride said.

Campbell expressed disbelief at how senior politicians could still claim that COVID-19 vaccines are safe. He criticized the “doubling down” on this stance, saying he “can’t imagine what’s going to happen” when the truth about the level of adverse reactions is finally revealed.

‘Hard to fathom’ anything except vaccines behind increase in long-term illness

Campbell presented data from the U.K. Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART) to support Bridgen’s claims.

HART is comprised of U.K. “doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists and other academic experts” who came together over shared concerns about pandemic policies.

HART’s graphs, based on the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics data, showed a dramatic increase in the number of people economically inactive due to long-term sickness, starting in February to April 2021 for women and April to June 2021 for men.

Source: Combined graphs from HART based on U.K. Office for National Statistics data.

According to HART, “The timing doesn’t fit long covid,” and is “coincidental with the rollout of the covid vaccines to the working aged population. Other changes in public health that may have caused this rise are hard to fathom.”

Campbell acknowledged that mental health issues and musculoskeletal injuries are common causes of long-term sickness. However, he admitted the timing of the increase suggests a potential correlation with the vaccine rollout.

The HART document also referenced similar findings in U.S. disability trends.

‘Fair to say we have an epidemic of heart failure’

Campbell criticized a decision by the U.K.’s Office for Health Improvements and Disparities (OHID) to stop reporting causes of death in the country for 2024.

He also noted that the Office for National Statistics changed the way it monitors excess deaths, which dramatically reduced the apparent excess deaths throughout 2023 but “made no difference at all … to the amount of people that died and the grieving relatives,” Campbell said.

He noted, however, that under the new system, it “doesn’t look as bad on the government now, presumably.”

Campbell questioned the government’s lack of transparency and the reasons behind not wanting to monitor why people are dying.

He presented data from the OHID showing excess mortality in England across various age groups. The data revealed increased deaths in the 0-24 age group starting in 2021 and continuing through 2022 and 2023, with the vast majority of these deaths in the latter two years being unrelated to COVID-19.

Similar patterns of excess deaths were observed in the 25-49, 50-64, 65-74, 75-84 and 85+ age groups. Campbell expressed frustration at the lack of more detailed age group data, such as separate categories for ages 0-12 and 12-24.

Campbell presented data showing changes in the causes of death in England since 2021. The data revealed notable increases in deaths from ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and heart failure.

“I think it’s fair to say we have an epidemic of heart failure,” he said.

In contrast, deaths from other respiratory diseases decreased, which Campbell found “rather hard to explain.”

While deaths from Alzheimer’s disease were slightly down — likely due to the increased overall mortality — deaths from cirrhosis of the liver showed a “huge increase,” he said.

“It’s a scarred, fibrosed liver with fibrous scar tissue in it, and it’s the end result of any chronic inflammatory disease.”

‘Enough to make you suspicious’

Campbell expressed frustration with the government’s handling of the excess deaths and long-term sickness data.

“From this official government site [OHID], this time next year, we’re not going to know any more than we know at the end of December 2023,” Campbell said.

He also criticized Stride’s response to Bridgen’s questions in Parliament. “Ministers still completely denying there’s any problem, and … getting it wrong, or at least giving very incomplete answers, and it’s enough to make you suspicious.”

Campbell said the evidence presented in the video suggests there are “questions to be answered” and wondered, “How long can the government go on denying this problem?”

Watch John Campbell’s podcast:

By  Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.

Dr. Pierre Kory and journalist Mary Beth Pfeiffer on Tuesday published their fourth op-ed on excess deaths in young people. They called for an investigation of COVID-19 pandemic policies — including mRNA vaccination mandates and lockdowns — and their aftermath.

Kory and Pfeiffer addressed Princess Catherine’s diagnosis in an op-ed published Tuesday in The Washington Times, in which they said there’s evidence suggesting that the marked increase in cancers among young people may be linked to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and pandemic policies, such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

“We are facing an emerging toll of illness and death in the young,” they wrote. “We cannot shirk from asking what is causing it.”

Kory — president and chief medical officer of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance — told The Defender that early-onset cancer and excess deaths are “poised to become the next public health crises that our medical system is not equipped to manage.”

This latest op-ed is Kory and Pfeiffer’s fourth. Their three prior op-eds — which appeared in USA Today, Newsweek and The Hill — also called attention to excess mortality and disability rate spikes occurring after the global COVID-19 vaccine campaign.

“Our intention for writing the op-eds is to raise the profile of this important issue to prepare for a future crisis and advance the conversation on possible causes and treatments,” Kory said.

In their latest op-ed, Kory and Pfeiffer said an “unthinkable twist” in cancer rates is occurring and it has garnered the attention of the American Cancer Society, Yale Medicine and the Harvard Gazette.

According to the American Cancer Society’s 2024 report, about 2 million people in the U.S. will develop malignancies this year — and a larger share of the more than 600,000 who are estimated to die will be younger than before.

CDC data show ‘red flags’

Kory and Pfeiffer cited cancer death records through 2023 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that included data two years beyond what was in the American Cancer Society report.

“The later data, which is provisional,” they wrote, “shows a cancer pattern that appears to have gone from slow simmer to rapid boil in the heat of a pandemic.”

They found that cancer deaths across all ages rose by 2% from pre-pandemic 2019 to 2023 — and in people 15-44 years old, cancer-related mortality rose at double that rate.

“Why is this happening now?” Kory and Pfeiffer asked. “Moreover, what will be done to address it?”

They saw additional “red flags” in the CDC data including:

• Deaths from colorectal cancer rose 17% among people ages 15-44 in 2019-2023 — 4 times the population-wide increase.

• Uterine cancer deaths rose 37% among people ages 25-44 from 2019-2023, and 15% overall.

• There were much larger increases, from 2019-2022, in liver and pancreatic cancer mortality in young adults than in the overall population.

The U.S. Society of Actuaries also reported 76% and 101% increases in death claims among insured workers ages 25-34 and 35-44. “COVID-19 was ruled out as the cause,” Kory and Pfeiffer said.

The public needs to explore the role of lockdowns, top-down treatment protocols and vaccines that were often mandated as a condition of employment, they said.

“By top-down treatment protocols,” Kory told The Defender, “I’m referring to how the public health and medical authorities made edicts on treatments that had to be followed and could not be questioned without consequence.”

“These same authorities were not open to understanding the novel treatments showing promise on the frontlines and instead allowed information to flow only one way — from the top down,” he said.

‘Just a tragic coincidence?’

In a March 27 Substack post about the data exposed in the op-ed, Kory said he and Pfeiffer compiled and interpreted these and other data from government and professional society sources after “bearing witness to so much medical carnage.”

“Just a few weeks ago,” he said, “a 20-year-old patient of mine died of glioblastoma.”

He added:

“If that is not tragic enough, her parents told me that a 20 year-old man in her college friend group had died of the same a few weeks earlier. Unsurprisingly, their university had a vaccine mandate.

“Just a tragic coincidence right?”

But reviewing cancer facts and figures has convinced Kory that such cases aren’t just a coincidence.

“We believe that the data strongly if not definitively implicates the COVID mRNA vaccine as the most proximate cause.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/young-people-cancer-crisis-pierre-kory-mary-beth-pfeiffer/