Observable real-time injuries at the cellular level in recipients of the “safe and effective” COVID-19 injectables are documented here for the first time with the presentation of a comprehensive description and analysis of observed phenomena. The global administration of these often-mandated products from late 2020 triggered a plethora of independent research studies of the modified RNA injectable gene therapies, most notably those manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna. Analyses reported here consist of precise laboratory “bench science” aiming to understand why serious debilitating, prolonged injuries (and many deaths) occurred increasingly without any measurable protective effect from the aggressively, marketed products. The contents of COVID-19 injectables were examined under a stereomicroscope at up to 400X magnification. Carefully preserved specimens were cultured in a range of distinct media to observe immediate and long-term cause-and-effect relationships between the injectables and living cells under carefully controlled conditions. From such research, reasonable inferences can be drawn about observed injuries worldwide that have occurred since the injectables were pressed upon billions of individuals. In addition to cellular toxicity, our findings reveal numerous — on the order of 3~4 x 106 per milliliter of the injectable — visible artificial self-assembling entities ranging from about 1 to 100 µm, or greater, of many different shapes. There were animated worm-like entities, discs, chains, spirals, tubes, right-angle structures containing other artificial entities within them, and so forth. All these are exceedingly beyond any expected and acceptable levels of contamination of the COVID-19 injectables, and incubation studies revealed the progressive self-assembly of many artifactual structures. As time progressed during incubation, simple one- and two-dimensional structures over two or three weeks became more complex in shape and size developing into stereoscopically visible entities in three-dimensions. They resembled carbon nanotube filaments, ribbons, and tapes, some appearing as transparent, thin, flat membranes, and others as three-dimensional spirals, and beaded chains. Some of these seemed to appear and then disappear over time. Our observations suggest the presence of some kind of nanotechnology in the COVID-19 injectables.
{"title":"Real-Time Self-Assembly of Stereomicroscopically Visible Artificial Constructions in Incubated Specimens of mRNA Products Mainly from Pfizer and Moderna: A Comprehensive Longitudinal Study","authors":"Young Mi Lee, Daniel Broudy","doi":"10.56098/586k0043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/586k0043","url":null,"abstract":"Observable real-time injuries at the cellular level in recipients of the “safe and effective” COVID-19 injectables are documented here for the first time with the presentation of a comprehensive description and analysis of observed phenomena. The global administration of these often-mandated products from late 2020 triggered a plethora of independent research studies of the modified RNA injectable gene therapies, most notably those manufactured by Pfizer and Moderna. Analyses reported here consist of precise laboratory “bench science” aiming to understand why serious debilitating, prolonged injuries (and many deaths) occurred increasingly without any measurable protective effect from the aggressively, marketed products. The contents of COVID-19 injectables were examined under a stereomicroscope at up to 400X magnification. Carefully preserved specimens were cultured in a range of distinct media to observe immediate and long-term cause-and-effect relationships between the injectables and living cells under carefully controlled conditions. From such research, reasonable inferences can be drawn about observed injuries worldwide that have occurred since the injectables were pressed upon billions of individuals. In addition to cellular toxicity, our findings reveal numerous — on the order of 3~4 x 106 per milliliter of the injectable — visible artificial self-assembling entities ranging from about 1 to 100 µm, or greater, of many different shapes. There were animated worm-like entities, discs, chains, spirals, tubes, right-angle structures containing other artificial entities within them, and so forth. All these are exceedingly beyond any expected and acceptable levels of contamination of the COVID-19 injectables, and incubation studies revealed the progressive self-assembly of many artifactual structures. As time progressed during incubation, simple one- and two-dimensional structures over two or three weeks became more complex in shape and size developing into stereoscopically visible entities in three-dimensions. They resembled carbon nanotube filaments, ribbons, and tapes, some appearing as transparent, thin, flat membranes, and others as three-dimensional spirals, and beaded chains. Some of these seemed to appear and then disappear over time. Our observations suggest the presence of some kind of nanotechnology in the COVID-19 injectables.","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":" 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141827564","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The LNPs reportedly used as the platform by Pfizer/BioNTech for its SARS-CoV-2 “mRNA vaccines” allegedly consist of a mixture of phospholipids, cholesterol, PEGylated lipids, and an ionizable cationic lipid. This study reviews some of the main toxicological risks and immunostimulatory properties of such nanomaterials, with particular attention to the ionizable LNPs and their adjuvant properties, inflammatory responses, stimulation of immune cells, and formation of ROS inside transfected cells. The decision not to carry out safety pharmacology, carcinogenicity, and genotoxicity tests on these nanomaterials appears unjustifiable and in contradiction with the international policies provided for novel adjuvants. Important gaps are highlighted on the activities by the relevant regulatory bodies, related to the scientific evaluation, risk management, and pharmacovigilance for new medicinal products in the EU. Given the findings discussed here, it is strongly urged that the mRNA-LNP-based “vaccines” and their boosters should be removed from the worldwide market because of unacceptable and potentially fatal safety risks.
{"title":"Adjuvant Activity and Toxicological Risks of Lipid Nanoparticles Contained in the COVID‑19 “mRNA Vaccines”","authors":"Gabriele Segalla","doi":"10.56098/z1ydjm29","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/z1ydjm29","url":null,"abstract":"The LNPs reportedly used as the platform by Pfizer/BioNTech for its SARS-CoV-2 “mRNA vaccines” allegedly consist of a mixture of phospholipids, cholesterol, PEGylated lipids, and an ionizable cationic lipid. This study reviews some of the main toxicological risks and immunostimulatory properties of such nanomaterials, with particular attention to the ionizable LNPs and their adjuvant properties, inflammatory responses, stimulation of immune cells, and formation of ROS inside transfected cells. The decision not to carry out safety pharmacology, carcinogenicity, and genotoxicity tests on these nanomaterials appears unjustifiable and in contradiction with the international policies provided for novel adjuvants. Important gaps are highlighted on the activities by the relevant regulatory bodies, related to the scientific evaluation, risk management, and pharmacovigilance for new medicinal products in the EU. Given the findings discussed here, it is strongly urged that the mRNA-LNP-based “vaccines” and their boosters should be removed from the worldwide market because of unacceptable and potentially fatal safety risks.","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"32 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140267657","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
While the efficacies of the newly developed mRNA and vector vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been widely advertised, their harm-to-benefit ratio remains almost completely ignored, though reports of possible “side effects” (some of them lethal) keep piling up. The most severe of those adverse events is sudden death. Until now, to the best of our knowledge, in Germany at least reliable estimates of how many deaths may actually have been caused by SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are still missing. Here, we fill this void and provide such an estimate for Germany during the course of 2021. Thereto, the number of deaths reported by the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut to have occurred within the group of persons suspectedly affected by a vaccine-induced adverse event is scaled by the factor of under-reporting, based on health insurance reports, and finally corrected by known all-cause mortality. Our best estimate for the year 2021 is that 16,817 deaths were caused by SARS-CoV-2 vaccination within the short-term observation period of 50 days after the last injection of a vaccine. Taking independent autopsy reports into account, the estimate of 11,194 deaths is a lower bound. Our hope is that this report may serve as a pivot for further investigations of the questions addressed here.
{"title":"How Many Deaths Can Statistically Be Attributed to Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Injections? An Analysis of German Health Data from 2021","authors":"F. Mörl, M. Günther, R. Rockenfeller","doi":"10.56098/s9cjk650","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/s9cjk650","url":null,"abstract":"While the efficacies of the newly developed mRNA and vector vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been widely advertised, their harm-to-benefit ratio remains almost completely ignored, though reports of possible “side effects” (some of them lethal) keep piling up. The most severe of those adverse events is sudden death. Until now, to the best of our knowledge, in Germany at least reliable estimates of how many deaths may actually have been caused by SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are still missing. Here, we fill this void and provide such an estimate for Germany during the course of 2021. Thereto, the number of deaths reported by the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut to have occurred within the group of persons suspectedly affected by a vaccine-induced adverse event is scaled by the factor of under-reporting, based on health insurance reports, and finally corrected by known all-cause mortality. Our best estimate for the year 2021 is that 16,817 deaths were caused by SARS-CoV-2 vaccination within the short-term observation period of 50 days after the last injection of a vaccine. Taking independent autopsy reports into account, the estimate of 11,194 deaths is a lower bound. Our hope is that this report may serve as a pivot for further investigations of the questions addressed here.","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"16 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138591650","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Decades of sophisticated and detailed legislation created to safeguard humanity from exposure to genetically modified organisms was ignored or legislated away in an instant when SARS-CoV-2 arrived. It seems this banishment was done with intention and not for the good of humanity. The lipid nanoparticles containing modified RNAs, the so-called “vaccines”, from the beginning fulfilled the legal definitions for being categorized as genetically modified organisms. Pfizer, Moderna, and regulators all knew this. The claims by Pfizer and Moderna repeated by regulators and complicit politicians that modified RNAs do not enter the cell nucleus and reverse transcribe into the human genome were lies constructed knowingly. Over four decades of scientific knowledge marked with Nobel Prizes pointed to modified RNAs integrating into the human genome. The knowledge of retroposition preceded the use of modified RNAs in response to the pandemic, but the WHO and regulatory experts did not inform the global population about these facts. This article retraces the steps in what appears to be a sophisticated deception played out in legal language, technical scientific jargon, and by medical regulatory bodies acting as if they were serving public health.
{"title":"The Canaries in the Human DNA Mine","authors":"Julian Gillespie","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.83","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.83","url":null,"abstract":"Decades of sophisticated and detailed legislation created to safeguard humanity from exposure to genetically modified organisms was ignored or legislated away in an instant when SARS-CoV-2 arrived. It seems this banishment was done with intention and not for the good of humanity. The lipid nanoparticles containing modified RNAs, the so-called “vaccines”, from the beginning fulfilled the legal definitions for being categorized as genetically modified organisms. Pfizer, Moderna, and regulators all knew this. The claims by Pfizer and Moderna repeated by regulators and complicit politicians that modified RNAs do not enter the cell nucleus and reverse transcribe into the human genome were lies constructed knowingly. Over four decades of scientific knowledge marked with Nobel Prizes pointed to modified RNAs integrating into the human genome. The knowledge of retroposition preceded the use of modified RNAs in response to the pandemic, but the WHO and regulatory experts did not inform the global population about these facts. This article retraces the steps in what appears to be a sophisticated deception played out in legal language, technical scientific jargon, and by medical regulatory bodies acting as if they were serving public health.","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122199479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
U. Kämmerer, S. Pekova, R. Klement, Rogier Louwen, Peter Borger, Klaus Steger
Franchi and Tomsic (2023) correctly note that our review (Kämmerer et al., 2023) “has a clear focus on the technical aspect of RT-PCR, which is only one piece of the COVID-19 puzzle” and they ask for a more comprehensive discussion beyond our focus on the laboratory assay. They point to the lack of a specific definition of COVID-19 disease and conclude that, in order to test the first and the second of Koch’s postulates, there must be both a purified germ and a specified disease, neither of which was available for COVID-19. In reply, we address two questions they did not ask: 1. Are clinical symptoms induced by SARS-CoV-2 corroborated by RT-PCR? 2. Are Koch’s postulates valid for viruses? We assert that testing asymptomatic people is useless, whereas testing patients with clinical symptoms for a respiratory disease may enable a physician to confirm or reject a suspected diagnosis. Determining a diagnosis for any given patient is the physician’s challenge, while the researcher is responsible to show that the available tools are as near optimal as possible and to clarify the limitations of any such tools. Because there are no tools suitable for comprehensive and exclusive detection of infectious pathogens, we need to proceed carefully in applying the limited tools that do exist for tracing and tracking viral pathogens, to avoid under- or over-estimating a real or suspected pandemic.
{"title":"Response to Comments on Kämmerer, et al. (2023) regarding RT-PCR Testing","authors":"U. Kämmerer, S. Pekova, R. Klement, Rogier Louwen, Peter Borger, Klaus Steger","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.82","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.82","url":null,"abstract":"Franchi and Tomsic (2023) correctly note that our review (Kämmerer et al., 2023) “has a clear focus on the technical aspect of RT-PCR, which is only one piece of the COVID-19 puzzle” and they ask for a more comprehensive discussion beyond our focus on the laboratory assay. They point to the lack of a specific definition of COVID-19 disease and conclude that, in order to test the first and the second of Koch’s postulates, there must be both a purified germ and a specified disease, neither of which was available for COVID-19. In reply, we address two questions they did not ask: 1. Are clinical symptoms induced by SARS-CoV-2 corroborated by RT-PCR? 2. Are Koch’s postulates valid for viruses? We assert that testing asymptomatic people is useless, whereas testing patients with clinical symptoms for a respiratory disease may enable a physician to confirm or reject a suspected diagnosis. Determining a diagnosis for any given patient is the physician’s challenge, while the researcher is responsible to show that the available tools are as near optimal as possible and to clarify the limitations of any such tools. Because there are no tools suitable for comprehensive and exclusive detection of infectious pathogens, we need to proceed carefully in applying the limited tools that do exist for tracing and tracking viral pathogens, to avoid under- or over-estimating a real or suspected pandemic.","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123468152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The objective of this note is to analyse the safety assessment of Comirnaty vaccination of pregnant women in the manufacturer’s risk management plan (RMP) and in the European Medicines Agency (EMA) fact sheet, and to measure the impact on the recommendations that led to the mandatory vaccination of pregnant women caregivers and health-related professionals in France. The evaluation of this safety was carried out in two phases. In the first phase, which ran from late 2020 to early 2022, the safety profile of the vaccine was not known in pregnant women. In the second phase, which ran from early 2022, the RMP and the EMA report data that were considered reassuring for short-term safety, but were limited. Long-term safety remains still unknown. The RMP is cautious and suggests that intentional injection of pregnant women will remain limited. The detailed analysis of risk management by the manufacturer, the EMA and the French authorities reveals, to varying degrees, a lack of rigor. The EMA has disregarded certain elements of prudence maintained by the manufacturer, while the manufacturer has allowed the only real clinical trial that might determine any benefit-risk balance to lapse. What is more the only study was restricted to the third trimester of pregnancy. The French authorities recommended mandatory injection of pregnant women caregivers and health-related professionals at a time when the manufacturer and the EMA could provide no guarantees.
{"title":"Assessment of Comirnaty Injections of Pregnant Women in the Manufacturer’s Risk Management Plan and by the European Medicines Agency: Mandatory Injections for Caregivers in France","authors":"Jérôme Sainton","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.72","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.72","url":null,"abstract":"The objective of this note is to analyse the safety assessment of Comirnaty vaccination of pregnant women in the manufacturer’s risk management plan (RMP) and in the European Medicines Agency (EMA) fact sheet, and to measure the impact on the recommendations that led to the mandatory vaccination of pregnant women caregivers and health-related professionals in France.\u0000The evaluation of this safety was carried out in two phases. In the first phase, which ran from late 2020 to early 2022, the safety profile of the vaccine was not known in pregnant women. In the second phase, which ran from early 2022, the RMP and the EMA report data that were considered reassuring for short-term safety, but were limited. Long-term safety remains still unknown. The RMP is cautious and suggests that intentional injection of pregnant women will remain limited.\u0000The detailed analysis of risk management by the manufacturer, the EMA and the French authorities reveals, to varying degrees, a lack of rigor. The EMA has disregarded certain elements of prudence maintained by the manufacturer, while the manufacturer has allowed the only real clinical trial that might determine any benefit-risk balance to lapse. What is more the only study was restricted to the third trimester of pregnancy. The French authorities recommended mandatory injection of pregnant women caregivers and health-related professionals at a time when the manufacturer and the EMA could provide no guarantees.","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131308736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Two mRNA-based COVID vaccines were granted emergency use authorization in both children and adults in 2021 after a drastically accelerated approval process that allowed the manufacturers to essentially fast-track their vaccines. We analyzed data from regulatory surveillance and self-reporting systems like Defense Medical Epidemiology Database(DMED); EudraVigilance; Eurostat; German health insurers; the Israeli Minister of Health; the Natural Cycles app; Public Health Scotland; the United Kingdom’s (UK) Office for National Statistics (ONS); UK’s yellow card reporting system; the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS); and v-safe entries to look for long-term adverse events of these vaccines that cannot be captured in the expedited clinical safety trials. In this observational study, we analyzed non-foreign VAERS data for selected symptoms reported after COVID, influenza, and pertussis vaccines and calculated rates per vaccine dose administered as well as proportion of total reports received. We also looked at DMED data and compared annual incidence rates of selected conditions by taking into account the total number of military personnel for each study year. Our data show, among other trends, increases in adverse event reports if we compare COVID vaccines to influenza and pertussis vaccines and statistically significant higher numbers of hospital encounters in military personnel, as well as increases in incidences of thromboembolic conditions, such as menstrual abnormalities, myocarditis, and cerebrovascular events after the implementation of COVID vaccine mandates, compared to the five years prior. We verified these observations using data from EudraVigilance; the UK’s ONS; German health providers; and Eurostat. Our meta-analysis of both national and international vaccine adverse events emphasizes the importance of re-evaluating public health policies that promote universal mass vaccination and multiple boosters for all demographic groups. In combination with anecdotal evidence, limitations of the safety trials, and the decreased lethality of new strains our research demonstrates that the cost (both monetary and humanitarian) of vaccinating otherwise healthy people, and especially children, may outweigh the benefits.
{"title":"Safety of mRNA Vaccines Administered During the First Twenty-Four Months of the International COVID-19 Vaccination Program","authors":"E. Romero, Shawn Fry, B. Hooker","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.70","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.70","url":null,"abstract":"Two mRNA-based COVID vaccines were granted emergency use authorization in both children and adults in 2021 after a drastically accelerated approval process that allowed the manufacturers to essentially fast-track their vaccines. We analyzed data from regulatory surveillance and self-reporting systems like Defense Medical Epidemiology Database(DMED); EudraVigilance; Eurostat; German health insurers; the Israeli Minister of Health; the Natural Cycles app; Public Health Scotland; the United Kingdom’s (UK) Office for National Statistics (ONS); UK’s yellow card reporting system; the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS); and v-safe entries to look for long-term adverse events of these vaccines that cannot be captured in the expedited clinical safety trials. In this observational study, we analyzed non-foreign VAERS data for selected symptoms reported after COVID, influenza, and pertussis vaccines and calculated rates per vaccine dose administered as well as proportion of total reports received. We also looked at DMED data and compared annual incidence rates of selected conditions by taking into account the total number of military personnel for each study year. Our data show, among other trends, increases in adverse event reports if we compare COVID vaccines to influenza and pertussis vaccines and statistically significant higher numbers of hospital encounters in military personnel, as well as increases in incidences of thromboembolic conditions, such as menstrual abnormalities, myocarditis, and cerebrovascular events after the implementation of COVID vaccine mandates, compared to the five years prior. We verified these observations using data from EudraVigilance; the UK’s ONS; German health providers; and Eurostat. Our meta-analysis of both national and international vaccine adverse events emphasizes the importance of re-evaluating public health policies that promote universal mass vaccination and multiple boosters for all demographic groups. In combination with anecdotal evidence, limitations of the safety trials, and the decreased lethality of new strains our research demonstrates that the cost (both monetary and humanitarian) of vaccinating otherwise healthy people, and especially children, may outweigh the benefits.","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"01 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127246712","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nyström and Hammarström (2022) found 7 segments in the bio-active SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that can produce abnormal proteinaceous (fibrinaloid) clots according to the Waltz algorithm. In vitro results confirmed the Waltz predictions. If the spike coding sequence was captured in the BNT162b2, Moderna, and other injectables, as claimed by the manufacturers, the clot producing segments are present in them too. Mainstream medical publications claim that SARS-CoV-2 infection can cause abnormal clotting, especially in “long COVID”. Telling evidence from Medicare data shows a decreasing life expectancy with each dose of COVID-19 “vaccine” — 1 dose is worse than 0, and 2 worse than 1, etc. In Connecticut, 26,091 Medicare participants who died before December 31, 2022, but never took a COVID injection, on the average, survived 428 days after the middle of the pandemic period (July 27, 2020). By then nearly all of them must have been exposed to and/or infected by some SARS-CoV-2 variant — hence, the CDC urging to take the “vaccines”. By contrast, 108,156 Medicare patients across the US who died before January 1, 2023, after just 1 dose of COVID-19 “vaccine”, survived only 308 days — a loss of 119.9 days on the average. Connecticut participants, 23,248 of them, who received 2 to 5 doses, on the average, lost an additional 62 days of life-expectancy with each booster. It follows that 5 boosters times 62 days reduces the average remaining 308 days left-to-live after dose 1 by 310 days. So, nearly all the Medicare participants will have been dead for 2 days by booster 4 (dose 5). The upshot is that 5 doses, on the average, will kill all the Medicare participants who accept the advice of the CDC.[1] For 157,495 of the 65 and older Medicare population studied here — people supposedly most apt to benefit from COVID-19 injectables — days-left-to-live shrinks by 74 days, on the average, with each dose. It is also likely that the COVID-19 injectables are partly, maybe wholly, responsible for the unnatural clots found by treating physicians, pathologists, and embalmers in living and dead recipients of the experimental injectables. It is certain is that the injectables are increasing all-cause mortality across the globe. [1] In the dataset from Connecticut, only 7 of 57,261 Medicare participants (7/57261 = 0.000122), or about 1.22 persons in 10,000 survived 5 doses during the experimental pandemic in order to take a 6th dose. Those who did so died, on the average, in 34 days. Only 1 participant survived 6 doses to receive a 7th and died within 69 days at the age of 68.
{"title":"Abnormal Clots and All-Cause Mortality During the Pandemic Experiment: Five Doses of COVID-19 Vaccine Are Evidently Lethal to Nearly All Medicare Participants","authors":"Daniel Santiago, J. Oller","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.73","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.73","url":null,"abstract":"Nyström and Hammarström (2022) found 7 segments in the bio-active SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that can produce abnormal proteinaceous (fibrinaloid) clots according to the Waltz algorithm. In vitro results confirmed the Waltz predictions. If the spike coding sequence was captured in the BNT162b2, Moderna, and other injectables, as claimed by the manufacturers, the clot producing segments are present in them too. Mainstream medical publications claim that SARS-CoV-2 infection can cause abnormal clotting, especially in “long COVID”. Telling evidence from Medicare data shows a decreasing life expectancy with each dose of COVID-19 “vaccine” — 1 dose is worse than 0, and 2 worse than 1, etc. In Connecticut, 26,091 Medicare participants who died before December 31, 2022, but never took a COVID injection, on the average, survived 428 days after the middle of the pandemic period (July 27, 2020). By then nearly all of them must have been exposed to and/or infected by some SARS-CoV-2 variant — hence, the CDC urging to take the “vaccines”. By contrast, 108,156 Medicare patients across the US who died before January 1, 2023, after just 1 dose of COVID-19 “vaccine”, survived only 308 days — a loss of 119.9 days on the average. Connecticut participants, 23,248 of them, who received 2 to 5 doses, on the average, lost an additional 62 days of life-expectancy with each booster. It follows that 5 boosters times 62 days reduces the average remaining 308 days left-to-live after dose 1 by 310 days. So, nearly all the Medicare participants will have been dead for 2 days by booster 4 (dose 5). The upshot is that 5 doses, on the average, will kill all the Medicare participants who accept the advice of the CDC.[1] For 157,495 of the 65 and older Medicare population studied here — people supposedly most apt to benefit from COVID-19 injectables — days-left-to-live shrinks by 74 days, on the average, with each dose. It is also likely that the COVID-19 injectables are partly, maybe wholly, responsible for the unnatural clots found by treating physicians, pathologists, and embalmers in living and dead recipients of the experimental injectables. It is certain is that the injectables are increasing all-cause mortality across the globe. \u0000[1] In the dataset from Connecticut, only 7 of 57,261 Medicare participants (7/57261 = 0.000122), or about 1.22 persons in 10,000 survived 5 doses during the experimental pandemic in order to take a 6th dose. Those who did so died, on the average, in 34 days. Only 1 participant survived 6 doses to receive a 7th and died within 69 days at the age of 68. ","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"144 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122047330","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Excel file presented here contains the exact records used in computing the various statistical results reported in the paper by Santiago and Oller at DOI https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.73. They have not been changed in any way except to remove elements added to blank cells, evidently by Medicare authorities. Also, 37 antirely blank records had to be deleted in order to make the counting functions and ordinary scrolling and data sorting functions work as they normally do in Excel. The Medicare data for Connecticut showing up to 7 doses of COVID-19 injectable fluids were sorted and stacked in such a manner as to enable the counting and statistical comparisons across the various subsamples referred to in the Santiago and Oller paper. Those computational processes were applied only to make the normal Excel functions for ordinary scrolling, counting, creating tables, and charting results feasible. Again, Santiago and Oller express gratitude to Steve Kirsch and his anonymous source(s) for the Medicare data published here. All of the results reported by Santiago and Oller were obtained from these data and are easily replicable by anyone with the requisite statistical and algebraic skill set.
{"title":"Supplementary Files for Santiago & Oller","authors":"J. Oller, CDC and Medicare US and Connecticut","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.75","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.75","url":null,"abstract":"The Excel file presented here contains the exact records used in computing the various statistical results reported in the paper by Santiago and Oller at DOI https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.73. They have not been changed in any way except to remove elements added to blank cells, evidently by Medicare authorities. Also, 37 antirely blank records had to be deleted in order to make the counting functions and ordinary scrolling and data sorting functions work as they normally do in Excel. The Medicare data for Connecticut showing up to 7 doses of COVID-19 injectable fluids were sorted and stacked in such a manner as to enable the counting and statistical comparisons across the various subsamples referred to in the Santiago and Oller paper. Those computational processes were applied only to make the normal Excel functions for ordinary scrolling, counting, creating tables, and charting results feasible. Again, Santiago and Oller express gratitude to Steve Kirsch and his anonymous source(s) for the Medicare data published here. All of the results reported by Santiago and Oller were obtained from these data and are easily replicable by anyone with the requisite statistical and algebraic skill set.","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133591892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Emergency Response Technical Centre NIVD under China CDC
Laboratory testing for COVID-19, Emergency Response Technical Centre, NIVD under China CDC, March 15th, 2020
2020年3月15日，中国疾病预防控制中心新冠肺炎应急技术中心实验室检测
{"title":"Laboratory testing for COVID-19","authors":"Emergency Response Technical Centre NIVD under China CDC","doi":"10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.74","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.74","url":null,"abstract":"Laboratory testing for COVID-19, Emergency Response Technical Centre, NIVD under China CDC, March 15th, 2020","PeriodicalId":391540,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research","volume":"33 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113941367","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：