Connect with us

General

The Two Scientists Who Failed With Agent Orange Now Hold Top Positions Governing Vaccine Safety

Avatar

Published

on

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

By James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D.  (Picture source: More on the CDC “Spider” here) Via The World Mercury Project

advertisement - learn more

When historians write about the Vaccine Decades (1976–2020), there are two names that will live in infamy: Dr. Frank DeStefano, and Dr. Coleen Boyle.

--> Our Journalism Is Moving - Our investigative journalism and reporting is moving to our new brand called The Pulse. Click here to stay informed.

Why Are the Same People Who Failed at Science on Agent Orange in Charge of Vaccine Safety and Developmental Disorders at the CDC?

In the 1980s, Congress mandated Agent Orange studies. Frank and Coleen ended the studies two years early, insuring that “no link” would be found between illnesses being reported by injured veterans and dioxin. The early termination of the study allowed the US Department of Veterans Affairs to deny any connection between Agent Orange and medical problems, preventing veterans and their families from qualifying for compensations. Here’s your hurt, what’s your hurry. The Boyle/Destefano team bamboozle was outed by Admiral Zumwalt who went to the President and laid out the science in a classified report (now declassified):

Without exception, the experts who reviewed the work of the Advisory Committee disagreed with its findings and further questioned the validity of the Advisory Committee’s review of studies on non — Hodgkin’s lymphomas .

a decision which should have been based on scientific data was reduced to vague impressions”

advertisement - learn more

[One impartial review team’s results were] “a stunning indictment of the Advisory Committee’s scientific interpretation and policy judgments”

“1987 Followup Examination Results,” described statistically significant increases in health problems among Ranch Handers including all cancers

The work of the Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards, as documented in their November 2, 1989 transcript, has little or no scientific merit, and should not serve as a basis for compensation or regulatory decisions of any sort.

the Air Force could just as easily have concluded that the health problems associated with the Ranch Handers were not necessarily related to eating beer nuts.

Shamefully, the deception, fraud and political interference that has characterized government sponsored studies on the health effects of exposure to Agent Orange and/or dioxin has not escaped studies ostensibly conducted by independent reviewers, a factor that has only further compounded the erroneous conclusions reached by the government.

The Zumwalt report concluded:

It can, in my judgment, be concluded, with a very high degree of confidence, that it is at least as likely as not that the following are caused in humans by exposure to TCDD: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chloracne and other skin disorders, lip cancer, bone cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, birth defects, skin cancer, lung cancer, porphyria cutanea tarda and other liver disorders, Hodgkin’s disease, hematopoietic diseases, multiple myeloma, neurological defects and auto-immune diseases and disorders.

In addition, I am most comfortable in concluding that it is at least as likely as not that liver cancer, nasal/pharyngeal/esophageal cancers, leukemia, malignant melanoma, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, brain cancer, psychosocial effects, and gastrointestinal disease are service– connected..

President Clinton called Admiral Zumwalt “the conscience of the US Navy”. In fact, Zumwalt’s report is used by veterans seeking compensation. Zumwalt’s son was exposed to Agent Orange and died of lymphoma in 1988.

Boyle and Destefano’s Role in Agent Orange Pseudoscience

The CDC study (which lists no authors) that was published did not study any specific mechanism by which Agent Orange might have caused health issues in veterans. Instead, it studied dioxin levels in Vietnam veterans compared to non-Vietnam veterans. The 646 Vietnam veterans studied by CDC who all served in units that were most likely exposed, did not have elevated levels of dioxin as compared to non-Vietnam veterans. This retrospective study seeking differences of levels of dioxin nearly two decades after exposure is a type of epidemiologic study with only a long shot at success. The aims of the study were to determine whether military records could be “used to identify US Army Vietnam veterans who were likely to be exposed to the herbicide Agent Orange”.

Dioxin is stored in fat. The study measured dioxin levels in serum. Given the CDC’s failure to detect evidence for increased exposed in the 1980s, the ill-posed study was initially used as justification for no further science on the possible effects of exposure.

The analysis and conclusions were also blasted by a Congressional Report:

Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee, US House of Representatives: The Agent Orange Cover-up: A Case of Flawed Science and Political Manipulation. 101st Congress, 2d Session, House Report №101–672. Washington, DC: Govt Printing Office, 1990.

What else has the Destefano/Boyle team failed to detect?

Under their watch, studies conducted ostensibly to test the hypothesis of a link between vaccines and autism have consistently failed to detect any association. Are they competent enough, given the debacle of their failed study in 1988, to run the hopefully entitled “Immunization Safety Office” (which ignores the differences between Vaccination and Immunization) and the “National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities”?

It is my professional opinion that no, neither of these individuals is sufficiently competent to be involved in vaccine safety science and interpretation of studies.

Further, it is my professional opinion that both are guilty of intentional and scientific fraud, perpetuated repeatedly and consistently, to hide the association between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders.

(1) Boyle informed Congress that no studies have been conducted that compares the rates of autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated Americans. Yet the CDC website clearly reads “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”. How could any competent scientist make such as stunning conclusion when the science required to answer the question has not been conducted?

Dr. Coleen Boyle testified to Congress that no science exists that shows vaccines do not cause autism, yet the CDC website still proclaims that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”.

(2) Destefano removed results showing increased risk of autism from on-time MMR prior to presenting to the Institutes of Medicine, and prior to publishing the fraudulent study known as “Destefano et al., 2004”. Two subgroups are missing: African American boys, and isolated autism. The latter group had increased risk, included boys and girls from any race, who had no other conditions other than autism. That means “anyone”.

Dr. William Thompson confessed his role in allowing false reports to be published both in audio recordings to Dr. Brian Hooker, and in statements from his lawyers. He was put on leave after reporting his concerns to then CDC Director Julie Gerberding, who put him on suspension for breaking rank. Dr. Walter Orenstein is also implicated in the cover-ups. See vaxxedthemovie.com and youtube.com/watch?v=hlxdWfTLHH0

(3) Boyle personally attempted to reconfigure the study design of that same study in an attempt to make the association of on-time MMR and autism go away. The team played with study design after knowing the increased risk of autism had been found, which is not allowed in objective research. They worked very hard to attempt to make the association go away. They play games with birth certificates, and age-group definitions. Nothing worked. So they simply removed the results:


(4) DeStefano admitted to journalist Sharyl Attkisson that (a) they removed the results because they did not believe them, and (b) that vaccines may be responsible for autism in susceptible individuals (See Sharyl Attkisson’s capture and hear the confession to her here).

Dr. Frank DeStefano’s career exemplifies a list of failures to detect anything wrong with vaccines.

“I guess, that, that is a possibility,” said DeStefano. “It’s hard to predict who those children might be, but certainly, individual cases can be studied to look at those possibilities.”

(5) DeStefano has participated in other publications in which he outlines how association studies should be conducted. He says that covariates must be “corrected for”, and that finding covariates that cause associations between vaccination and adverse events to disappear after the association is first found and then lost due to such corrections somehow exonerates vaccines. This is poppycock. If birthweight, mother’s age, mother’s income, gestational age, etc. cause a loss of significance of vaccination status, the correct model selection procedure is to look for interactions between vaccines and the covariates — especially because they can be functionally related to adverse events from vaccines. If the interaction terms are significant (which could easily be, given that mother’s income, age, gestational age and birthweight may all correlate to nutritional status), the result is pointing to covariates that make vaccination an increased risk. This is elementary linear modeling, and any studies that “correct for” covariates without also studying, and reporting, the interaction terms is hiding the effects of vaccines interacting with other variables.

Besides Autism, what else has the CDC Destefano/Boyle team failed to detect? It is outlined in this 1990 Congressional Report: The Agent Orange Cover-up: A Case of Flawed Science and Political Manipulation.

Given these realities, and the fact that this and other equally damning information has been available for at least three years, it simply is unconscionable that Destefano and Boyle remain in their positions at the CDC. We cannot have incompetent individuals unable to conduct and properly interpret science standing in the way of helping America deal with the explosion of neurodevelopmental disorders — and the full suite of consequences currently being experienced in schools and homes all around the country.

Cowardice at CDC is Not Leadership with Accountability

These people are not only incompetent. They are cowards. Here, we learn from Dr. Thompson that Coleen Boyle refused to ever testify to Congress again. CDC abdicated its responsibility to accountability for their policies:

(recorded May 24, 2014) Page 25 —

Dr. Thompson: Well let me tell you something really interesting I learned about this week so in the midst of this. Ya know, I was yelling at Marshalyn this week, I mean, Marshalyn and I were . . . WHOOOO! I was, it was suggested I resign, and um it’s like that type of stuff going on right now. The whole place is a big pressure cooker . . . So I don’t know if you know this. The CDC was invited to testify (before Congress) and they declined, so this is . . .

Dr. Hooker: Really?

Dr. Thompson: Yeah, and Marshalyn said she’s been offered to testify and said she won’t. Coleen (Boyle) said she’s been offered to testify and Coleen said that she would never go and testify again.

May 20, 2014 — the hearing which Thompson is talking about and Boyle and CDC declined to attend:

Examining the Federal Response to Autism Spectrum Disorders (5/20/2014)

The rate of ASDs is now 1 in 36. Frank, Coleen, you can stop the denialism. It’s over. And you can help America. How? Please resign, and in your letters of resignation, provide a full confession, like Dr. William Thompson has, and let someone capable try to clean up the mess you’ve made.

Vaccines can cause autism in some people, and, from the looks of things, in many people, and you know it. You failed to adjust the schedule, or offer meaningful public health advice in terms of vaccine safety. Your deeds are having profound effects on society, which are difficult to grasp:

  • Half of children have a mental illness in the US.
  • Teachers cannot teach children due to behavioral anomalies.
  • Violence in schools are causing special education teachers to quit in schools across the country.
  • Property taxes are going up as special education costs skyrocket.
  • Calm rooms are being built in schools, and wobble chairs to allow fidgeting.
  • Rates of schizophrenia are increasing among 20–30 year olds.
  • High levels of amyloid are found in the brains of kids with severe autism.
  • High levels of aluminum are found in people with autism.
  • Artificial immunization programs are failing as parents abandon them due to first-hand experience with neurological and immunological adverse events.
  • Exemptions to vaccine mandates are increasingly under fire.

There are desperate attempts ongoing now to convince the increasingly vaccine injured public that vaccine injuries are rare, to blame ASD on stress in the home, and most recently on alcohol use during pregnancy. Why now, all of sudden, can such association be detected? Where were these studies of environmental exposures conducted by CDC after 1988?

There were none. CDC (i.e., Boyle, Destefano) had a suspicious lack of curiosity of what DID cause autism. CDC convinced IOM to say that no more studies were needed.

Sound familiar?

CDC failed to detect association, and called for no more science. Just like Agent Orange.

Studies of genetics have revealed 850 genes associated with autism, but no single gene explains more than 1% of ASD. No studies have looked for genetic/vaccine interactions — and they must be conducted to fill in the gap. “No studies” does not mean “negative evidence.” It means “we need more science.”

The future is now. Vaccines can no longer be said to be “safe” and effective. Other science has progressed, independent of CDC, and the cat is out of the bag.

History will recall the names Destefano, Boyle, Orenstein, Gerberding — and Thompson. There are others. History has shown us that propaganda has never been successful in propping up a regime founded on fraud.

It’s time for Vaccine Safety Science Reform at the CDC, and across the United States.

First we need competence.

About the author: James Lyons-Weiler is the president and CEO of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, an advocacy group that pushes for accuracy and integrity in science and for biomedical researchers to put people’s health before profits. An established academic and researcher, he has a bachelor’s degree in biology, a master’s degree in zoology, a PhD in ecology, evolution, and conservation biology, and a postdoctoral in computational molecular biology; and he’s the author of Ebola: An Evolving Story and Cures vs. Profits.

Sign up (at top of the page) for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

General

Abductions & Car Vandalism – Startling Australian UFO Report Unclassified

Gautam Peddada

Published

on

By

2 minute read

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

An uncovered Australian report performed by their Department of Defence. “Scientific Intelligence — General — Unidentified Flying Objects” is trending again. Those who have done extensive research on UFOs will find the Australian version of disclosure to be far more intellectually honest than the American version. Albeit it was conducted decades ago.

According to ex-US intelligence official Luis Elizondo, the Defense Department’s Inspector General is presently conducting three reviews. The inquiries vary from the Department of Defense’s handling of UFO claims to Elizondo’s alleged whistleblower retribution. The open IG cases are crucial to Australia’s report because they establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US Department of Defense is being dishonest and shady when it comes to the UFO subject. For decades, Australia has been a loyal friend of the United States. Within Australia’s boundaries, they share a military installation (Pine Gap). When a close defense ally’s intelligence agencies determined that the US was not being intellectually honest in its approach, perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that there is more to the tale than the 144 incidents studied since 2004 by the UAPTF.

The CIA became alarmed at the overloading of military communications during the mass sightings of 1952 and considered the possibility that the USSR may take advantage of such a situation.

Australian UFO study.

According to the summary, OSI, acting through the Robertson-Panel, encouraged the USAF to use Project Blue Book to publicly “debunk” UFOs. In a tragic twist of fate, when Australian authorities sought explanations from the US Air Force, the allegation was debunked. The authors of the study were depicted as conspiratorial and even crazy by the US Air Force. Ross Coulthart reported this, and it may be heard in a recent Project Unity interview. Courthart is an award-winning investigative journalist who is drawn to forbidden subjects. He also stated on the same podcast that a senior US Navy official identified as Nat Kobitz told him that the US had been in the midst of reverse-engineering numerous non-human craft. According to his obituary, Mr. Kobitz was a former Director of Research and Development at Naval Sea Systems Command.

Continue reading the entire article at The Pulse. 

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

General

PGA Tour To End COVID Testing For Both Vaccinated & Non-Vaccinated Players

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 4 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The PGA Tour has announced that it will stop testing players every week, regardless of whether they have been vaccinated or not.

  • Reflect On:

    Are PCR tests appropriate to identify infectious people? Should people who are healthy and not sick be tested at all, anywhere?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The picture you see above is of John Rahm, a professional golfer on the PGA tour being carted off the golf course after tournament officials told him he had COVID. He was healthy and had no symptoms, yet was forced to withdraw from the tournament. He was told in front of the camera’s, and a big scene was made out of the event. You would think something like that, especially when you are a big time sports figure, would be done behind closed doors with some privacy.

Earlier on in June a spokesperson for the PGA Tour said that more than 50 percent of players on the PGA tour have been vaccinated. Although it seems that the majority of players on the tour will be fully vaccinated judging by this statement, it does leave a fairly large minority who won’t be, and that’s something we’re seeing across the globe as COVID vaccine hesitancy remains high for multiple reasons.

We are pleased to announce, after consultation with PGA Tour medical advisors, that due to the high rate of vaccination among all constituents on the PGA Tour, as well as other positively trending factors across the country, testing for COVID-19 will no longer be required as a condition of competition beginning with the 3M Open. – PGA tour Senior VP Tyler Dennis

The tour recently announced that the testing of players every week will stop starting in July for both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. This was an unexpected announcement given the fact that, at least it seems in some countries, vaccinated individuals will enjoy previous rights and freedoms that everyone did before the pandemic. Travelling without need to quarantine and possibly in the future not having to be tested could be a few of those privileges. Others may include attending concerts, sporting events, or perhaps even keeping their job depending on whether or not their employer deems it to be mandatory, if that’s even legally possible. We will see what happens.

Luckily for professional golfers, regardless of their vaccination status they won’t have to worry about testing positive for COVID, especially if they’re not sick. This is the appropriate move by the PGA tour, who is represented by their players and it’s a move that the players themselves may have had a say in. It’s important because PCR tests are not designed nor are they appropriate for identifying infectious people. A number of scientists have been emphasizing this since the beginning of the pandemic. More recently, a letter to the editor published in the Journal of infection explain why more than half of al “positive” PCR tests are likely to have been people who are not infectious, otherwise known as “false positives.”

This is why the Swedish Public Health agency has a notice on their website explaining how and why polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are not useful for determining if someone is infected with COVID or if someone can transmit it to others, and it’s better to use someone who is actually showing symptoms as a judgement call of whether or not they could be infected or free from infection.

PCR tests using a high cycle threshold are extremely sensitive. An article published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that among positive PCR samples with a cycle count over 35, only 3 percent of the samples showed viral replication. This can be interpreted as, if someone tests positive via PCR when a Ct of 35 or higher is used, the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97 percent. This begs the question, why has Manitoba, Canada, for example, using cycle thresholds of up to 45 to identify “positive” people?

When it comes to golf, the fact that spread occurring in an outdoor setting is highly unlikely could have been a factor, but it’s also important to mention that asymptomatic spread within one’s own household is also considerably rare. It really makes you wonder what’s going on here, doesn’t it?

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

General

New Study Questions The Safety of COVID Vaccinations & Urges Governments To Take Notice

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 9 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A new study published in the journal Vaccines has called into question the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are people hesitant to take the vaccine? Why are scientists and journalists who explain why hesitancy may exist censored?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

A new study published in the journal Vaccines by three scientists and medical professionals from Europe has raised concerns about the safety of COVID vaccines, and it’s not the first to do so. The study found that there is a “lack of clear benefit” of the vaccines and this study should be a catalyst for “governments to rethink their vaccination policy.”

The study calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) in order to prevent one death, and to do so they used a large Israeli Field study. Using the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl), the researchers were able to assess the number of cases reporting severe side effects as well as the cases with fatal side effects as a result of a COVID vaccine.

They point out the following:

The NNTV is between 200-700 to prevent on case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95 % confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.

The researchers estimates suggest that we have to exchange 4 fatal and 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2-11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations. This puts the risk vs. benefit of COVID vaccination on the same order of magnitude.

We need to accept that around 16 cases will develop severe adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines per 100,000 vaccinations delivered, and approximately four people will die from the consequences of being vaccinated per 100,000 vaccinations delivered. Adopting the point estimate of NNTV = 16,000 (95% CI, 9000–50,000) to prevent one COVID-19-related death, for every six (95% CI, 2–11) deaths prevented by vaccination, we may incur four deaths as a consequence of or associated with the vaccination. Simply put: As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two deaths.

The study does point out that COVID-19 vaccines are effective and can, according to the publication, prevent infections, morbidity and mortality associated with COVID, but the costs must be weighted. For example, many people have been asking themselves, what are the chances I will get severely ill and die from a COVID infection?

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine recently shared that the survival rate for people under 70 years of age is about 99.95 percent. He also said that COVID is less dangerous than the flu for children.  This comes based on approximately 50 studies that have been published, and information showing that more children in the U.S. have died from the flu than COVID. Here’s a meta analysis published by the WHO that gives this number. The number comes based on the idea that many more people than we have the capacity to test have most likely been infected.

How dangerous COVID is for healthy individuals has been a controversial discussion throughout this pandemic, with viewpoints differing.

Furthermore, as the study points out, one has to be mindful of a “positive” case determined by a PCR test. A PCR test cannot determine whether someone is infectious or not, and a recent study found that it’s highly likely that at least 50 percent of “positive” cases have been “false positives.”

This is the issue with testing asymptomatic healthy people, especially at a high cycle threshold. It’s the reason why many scientists and doctors have been urging government health authorities to determine cases and freedom from infections based on symptoms rather than a PCR test. You can read more in-depth about PCR testing and the issues with it here if you’re interested.

When it comes to the documented 4 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations and whether or not it’s a significant number, the researchers state,

This is difficult to say, and the answer is dependant on one’s view of how severe the pandemic is and whether the common assumption that there is hardly any innate immunological defense or cross-reactional immunity is true. Some argue that we can assume cross-reactivity of antibodies to conventional coronaviruses in 30–50% of the population [13,14,15,16]. This might explain why children and younger people are rarely afflicted by SARS-CoV2 [17,18,19].

Natural immunity is another interesting topic I’ve written in-depth about. There’s a possibility that more than a billion people have been infected, does this mean they have protection? What happens if previously infected individuals take the vaccine? What does this do to their natural immunity? The research suggesting natural immunity may last decades, or even a lifetime, is quite strong in my opinion.

There are also other health concerns that have been raised that go beyond deaths and adverse reactions as a result of the vaccine.

As the study points out,

A recent experimental study has shown that SARS-CoV2 spike protein is sufficient to produce endothelial damage. [23]. This provides a potential causal rationale for the most serious and most frequent side effects, namely, vascular problems such as thrombotic events. The vector-based COVID-19 vaccines can produce soluble spike proteins, which multiply the potential damage sites [24]. The spike protein also contains domains that may bind to cholinergic receptors, thereby compromising the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathways, enhancing inflammatory processes [25]. A recent review listed several other potential side effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that may also emerge later than in the observation periods covered here [26]…Given this fact and the higher number of serious side effects already reported, the current political trend to vaccinate children who are at very low risk of suffering from COVID-19 in the first place must be reconsidered.

Concerns regarding the distribution of the spike protein our cells manufacture after injection have been recently raised by Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist from the University of Guelph who recently released a detailed in depth report regarding safety concerns about the COVID vaccines.

The report was released to act as a guide for parents when it comes to deciding whether or not their child should be vaccinated against COVID-19. Bridle published the paper on behalf of one hundred other scientists and doctors who part of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, but who are afraid to ‘come out’ publicly and share their concerns. Byram, as many others, have received a lot of criticism and have been subjected to fact checking via Facebook third party fact-checkers.

A recent article published in the British Medical Journal by journalist Laurie Clarke has highlighted the fact that Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform and added warnings to approximately 167 million others. YouTube has removed nearly 1 million videos related to, according to them, “dangerous or misleading covid-19 medical information.”

It’s also important to note that only a small fraction of side effects are even reported to adverse events databases. The authors cite multiple sources showing this, and that the median underreporting can be as high as 95 percent. This begs the question, how many deaths and adverse reactions from COVID vaccines have not been reported? Furthermore, if there are long term concerns, will deaths resulting from an adverse reaction, perhaps a year later, even be considered as connected to to the vaccine? Probably not.

This isn’t the only study to bring awareness to the lack of injuries most likely not reported. For example, an HHS pilot study conducted by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research found that 1 in every 39 vaccines in the United States caused some type of injury, which is a shocking comparison to the 1 in every million claim. It’s also unsettling that those who are injured by the COVID-19 vaccine won’t be eligible for compensation from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) while COVID is still an “emergency”, at least in the United States.

Below is the most recent data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Keep in mind that VAERS is not without its criticism. One common criticism we’ve seen from Facebook fact-checkers, for example, is there is no proof that the vaccine was actually the cause of these events.

A few other papers have raised concerns, for example. A study published in October of 2020 in the International Journal of Clinical Practice states:

COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”

For decades, Classen has published papers exploring how vaccination can give rise to chronic conditions such as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes — not right away, but three or four years down the road. In this latest paper, Classen warns that the RNA-based vaccine technology could create “new potential mechanisms” of vaccine adverse events that may take years to come to light.

There are a plethora of reasons why COVID vaccine hesitancy has been quite high. I wrote an in-depth article about this in April if you’re interested in learning about the other reasons.

Conversations like this are incredibly important in today’s climate of mass censorship. Who is right or wrong is not important, what’s important is that discussion about the vaccine and all other topics remain open and transparent. The amount of experts in the field who have been censored for sharing their views on this topic has been unprecedented. For example, in March, Harvard epidemiologist and vaccine expert Dr. Martin Kulldorff was subjected to censorship by Twitter for sharing his opinion that not everybody needed to take the COVID vaccine.

It’s good to see this recent study point out that the benefits of the vaccine, for some people, may not outweigh the potential costs.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!