More Than 217,000 Americans Killed by the COVID Jab: Survey Estimate
You’ll never guess how many have been killed or seriously injured in just the first year. Yet, the FDA and CDC keep pushing the shots, despite their own trial data showing they have no benefit in terms of reducing your risk of hospitalization or death.
- According to a December 2021 survey of 2,840 Americans, between 217,330 and 332,608 people died from the COVID jabs in 2021.
- Survey results also show that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed.
- Of the respondents, 34 percent knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22 percent knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot.
- Fifty-one percent of the survey respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 13 percent reported experiencing a “serious” health problem post-jab. Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis, which claimed only 1.2 percent of trial participants experienced a serious adverse event.
- In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll, 34 percent reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and seven percent reported major side effects.
While it’s clear that the experimental COVID shots have killed a considerable number of people, the total death toll remains elusive, thanks to U.S. health agencies obfuscating, hiding, and manipulating data.
That said, the most recent survey1,2—published in the peer-reviewed journal BMC Infectious Diseases—puts the death toll from the COVID jabs somewhere between 217,330 and 332,608 in 2021 alone. As noted by Steve Kirsch:3
“[We’ve] killed at least 217,000 Americans and seriously injured 33 million … in just the first year, and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] want to give you more shots … Since deaths from the vaccine were higher in 2022, most experts would estimate the all-cause mortality death toll from the COVID vaccines to be in the range of 500K to 600K.
“So the global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people … These [data] are consistent with the numbers I’ve been saying for a long time. It’s not a coincidence.”
Survey: Why People Did or Did Not Get the Jab
Now, the slant of this paper is kind of interesting. The primary aim of it was to “identify the factors associated by American citizens with the decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19.”
The author was curious about why 31 percent of the U.S. population had declined the jab or not completed the primary series by November 2022, nearly two years into a massively advertised “vaccination” campaign.
Calculating the proportion of fatal events from the jab was secondary. As explained by the author, Mark Skidmore,4 Ph.D., an economics professor at Michigan State University:5
“A largely unexplored factor is the degree to which serious health problems arising from the COVID-19 illness or the COVID-19 vaccines among family and friends influences the decision to be vaccinated.
“Serious illness due to COVID-19 would make vaccination more likely; the perceived benefits of avoiding COVID-19 through inoculation would be higher.
“On the other hand, observing major health issues following COVID-19 inoculation within one’s social network would heighten the perceived risks of vaccination. Previous studies have not evaluated the degree to which experiences with the disease and vaccine injury influence vaccine status.
“The main aim of this online survey of COVID-19 health experiences is to investigate the degree to which the COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 vaccine adverse events among friends and family, whether perceived or real, influenced inoculation decisions. The second aim of this work is to estimate the total number of COVID-19 vaccine-induced fatalities nationwide from the survey.”
Here’s an excerpt describing the methodology:6
“An online survey of COVID-19 health experiences was conducted. Information was collected regarding reasons for and against COVID-19 inoculations, experiences with COVID-19 illness, and COVID-19 inoculations by survey respondents and their social circles. Logit regression analyses were carried out to identify factors influencing the likelihood of being vaccinated.”
A total of 2,840 people completed the survey between Dec. 18 and Dec. 23, 2021. The mean age was 47, and the gender ratio was 51 percent women, 49 percent men. Just over half, 51 percent, had received one or more COVID jabs.
As Skidmore suspected, results showed that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed.
Of the respondents, 34 percent knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22 percent knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot. So, as noted by to the author:7
“Knowing someone who reported serious health issues either from COVID-19 or from COVID-19 vaccination are important factors for the decision to get vaccinated.”
As for the types of side effects experienced by people within the respondents’ social circles, they included (but were not limited to) the “usual suspects,” such as:
- Heart and cardiovascular problems.
- Severe COVID infection or other respiratory illness.
- Feeling generally unwell, weak, fatigued, and out of breath for weeks.
- Blood clots and stroke.
Hundreds of Thousands Killed for No Reason
“… the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 278,000 (95 percent CI 217,330-332,608) when fatalities that may have occurred regardless of inoculation are removed.”
Were COVID-19 an infection with an extremely high mortality rate, perhaps high rates of death from a vaccine would be acceptable. But COVID-19 has an exceptionally low mortality rate, on par with or lower than influenza, hence the risk associated with the COVID jabs ought to be equally low.
The global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people.
As it stands, the risks of the shots are very high, while Pfizer’s own trial data, with more than 40,000 participants, show they offer no benefit in terms of your risk of hospitalization and/or death. The absolute risk reduction is so minute as to be inconsequential.8
High Rates of Side Effects
The death toll from the jabs isn’t the only disturbing part of this paper, though. Skidmore’s findings also suggest side effects from the jab may be more common than previously suspected.
As mentioned, 51 percent of the respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 15 percent reported experiencing a new health problem post-jab and 13 percent deemed it “serious.” Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis,9 which claimed only 1.2 percent of trial participants reported a serious adverse event.
Now, as suggested by Kirsch,10 “we need to discount that by a factor of two because people report less severe adverse events as adverse events.” Still, that means serious adverse events from the jab are five times higher than what Pfizer reported.
“This is why the FDA never does after-market surveys on the drugs it approves. Because reality hurts,” Kirsch writes.11 “It is the FDA that should have discovered this before Mark Skidmore. The FDA is asleep at the wheel and they just believe everything the drug companies tell them, hook, line, and sinker. This is a major miss. Why aren’t they doing surveys like this to see if the reality matches the study?”
More Side Effect Rate Comparisons
For additional comparison, here are the findings of several other investigations:
- Rasmussen Reports12: In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll—taken one year after Skidmore’s survey—34 percent reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and seven percent reported major side effects.
- CDC’s V-Safe data13: In October 2022, ICAN [Informed Consent Action Network] obtained the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe data. This is a voluntary program to monitor adverse vaccine reactions. Of the 10.1 million COVID jab recipients who used the app, 7.7 percent had to seek medical care post-jab.
- Kirsch-funded survey14: A June 2022 U.S. survey by the market research company Pollfish found that 16.3 percent of COVID jabbed respondents experienced an injury, and 9.7 percent required medical care.
The graphic below, which visually compares Skidmore’s findings to the findings of the Rasmussen, V-Safe, and Pollfish surveys, was created by InfoGame on Substack.15 As noted by InfoGame:
“Skidmore’s article serves as another sign that the rate of COVID-19 side effects is extremely high and that the COVID-19 vaccines are an unprecedently risky medical product.”
Menstrual Irregularities Are Common Post-Jab
While we’re on the topic of reported side effects, several surveys have also focused on the frequency of abnormal menses in women who got the jab, which could be indicative of reproductive harm. For example:
- A British survey published in early December 2021 found 20 percent of women experienced menstrual disturbances following their jab.16
- A study published in Science Advances in mid-July 2022 found 66 percent of “fully vaccinated” postmenopausal women experienced abnormal breakthrough bleeding. In total, 42.1 percent reported heavier menstrual flow post-jab (this included women of all ages, as well as transgenders on hormone treatments).17
- An Italian peer-reviewed study published in March 2022 found that “50-60 percent of reproductive-age women who received the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine reported menstrual cycle irregularities, regardless of the type of administered vaccine.” After the second dose, abnormal menses were reported by 60 percent to 70 percent.18
People in High Places Seek Retraction
Not surprisingly, people in high places are already trying to force a retraction of the paper. A special notice from the editor, dated just two days post-publication, states:
“Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by editors. Specifically, that the claims are unsubstantiated and that there are questions about the quality of the peer review.”
As noted by Kirsch:19
“They are actively trying to get the paper retracted because it destroys the narrative. I’m certain they will succeed because journals are under intense pressure to censor any anti-narrative paper. The problem is that Mark’s survey was entirely consistent with my surveys.
“If they want to have the paper retracted they need to show us THEIR surveys. But of course, they don’t have any surveys because they are too afraid of the results.
“So they will use hand-waving arguments like “I don’t like the methodology” or some nonsense like that instead of gathering their own data. They will NEVER show us survey data that supports their narrative because it isn’t there.
“That’s why there are no success anecdotes. NOBODY can give me the name of a U.S. geriatric practice where all-cause deaths plummeted after the vaccines rolled out. In every case, they went the wrong way. The narrative is unraveling at an accelerated pace but the medical community is still fighting the truth.”
Originally published Feb. 07, 2023, on Mercola.com
◇ Sources and References
- 1, 5, 6, 7 BMC Infectious Diseases 2023; 23 article number 51
- 2 Jean Marc Benoit MD Substack Jan. 24, 2023
- 3, 10, 11, 19 Steve Kirsch Substack Jan. 25, 2023
- 4 Michigan State University Mark Skidmore
- 8 Steve Kirsch Substack Jan. 24, 2023
- 9 NEJM Nov. 4, 2021; 385: 1761-1773
- 12 Rasmussen Reports Dec. 7, 2022
- 13 ICANdecide.org Oct. 3, 2022
- 14 SKirsch.com July 1, 2022
- 15 Infogame Substack Jan. 25, 2023
- 16 MedRxiv Dec. 6, 2021
- 17 Science Advances July 15, 2022; 8(28)
- 18 Open Med March 9, 2022; 17(1): 475-484
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
Nature Is Free Medicine for Many Chronic Diseases, 1 Way Enhances Healing Effects
If you don’t know where to go on vacation, there is no harm in getting in touch with nature. Not only does it relieve stress, but it may also help reduce the need for prescription medications for conditions like high blood pressure and asthma. It’s best to take off your shoes and step on the grass with your bare feet—you may gain some unexpected benefits.
Green Space Is Free Medicine, Can Improve Many Chronic Diseases
Do you like green spaces? The British Medical Journal published a two-year study in Finland that revealed that frequent visits to green spaces such as forests, gardens, parks, and meadows can help people reduce the use of prescription medication for depression, insomnia, high blood pressure, and asthma. These medicines are mainly used to treat common and potentially serious health problems.
The study analyzed about 7,300 people, and the results found that compared with those who visited green spaces less than once a week, those who visited green spaces three to four times a week were 33 percent less likely to use psychotropic medication, 36 percent less likely to use antihypertensive medication, and 26 percent less likely to use asthma medication.
Exposure to natural environments is widely believed to be beneficial for human health, and this study actually provides another piece of evidence. Dr. Gyaltsen Lobsang, a preventive medicine expert and director of Dr. Lobsang Preventive Medicare Clinic, said that he often encourages people to go into the forest; this advice is even included in his “prescription” because nature has so many health benefits to offer.
1. Reduce chronic inflammation
Plants release a lot of oxygen and produce a lot of bioactive substances during photosynthesis, which helps you resist oxidation and reduce chronic inflammation.
Many people suffer from chronic inflammatory conditions. When the cells in the body do not get enough oxygen, the hypoxic cells will emit “reactive oxygen species,” which can damage cells and organs, resulting in body oxidation and chronic inflammation. Chronic inflammation will then lead to weakened immunity, making it difficult for the body to fight against foreign viruses and bacteria.
Hypoxemia (insufficient oxygen in the body) can be caused by environmental, physiological, and pathological factors. Lobsang pointed out that symptoms such as muscle stiffness, poor sleep, and dizziness may indicate a lack of oxygen in the body.
2. Boost immunity and prevent cancer
People can also breathe in phytoncides when they are in green spaces, especially forests. Phytoncides, also known as “exterminators of the plant,” are chemicals that plants release into the air with antimicrobial properties to protect themselves from insects.
A study found that the activity of natural killer (NK) cells in the body increased by about 50 percent after people breathed in phytoncides while walking in nature. These cells can kill tumor cells and virus-infected cells in the body.
Lobsang believes that the air in the forest can help cleanse the lungs. Therefore, he will ask patients, especially lung cancer patients, to get in touch with nature, preferably in areas with forests, at least two to three times a month.
4. Relieve stress, improve mood, and regulate autonomic nervous system
A natural environment filled with plants promotes the relaxation of the body and mind. The director of Lohasiinfra Clinic in Taiwan, Shih-Heng Chang pointed out that there are more sounds in the forest than at the seaside, such as the chirping of insects and birds, and the sound of the wind. These sounds are called white noise, and they can block out real noise, helping to relieve stress, and are more relaxing than total silence.
Studies have also found that forest landscapes can reduce psychological stress and mental fatigue, and induce positive emotions, thereby improving anxiety, depression, and anger. This has preventive and therapeutic effects on depression. At the same time, forest bathing also helps to reduce stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, thus relieving people’s stress.
Stress is also closely related to autonomic nervous system disorders; forest bathing can increase the activity of the parasympathetic nerves and reduce the activity of the sympathetic nerves, allowing the autonomic nervous system to return to a stable and balanced state. Consequently, sleep quality can also be improved.
5. Lower blood pressure and manage diabetes
Studies have found that the forest environment can effectively lower blood pressure, reduce pulse rate, and improve cardiac-pulmonary and metabolic functions, which can help improve the quality of life of pre-hypertensive or hypertensive patients.
Speculated reasons why forests may reduce blood pressure include the positive effects of phytoncides on the body, and the modulating effect of the forest environment on the autonomic nervous system.
Walking in a forest environment increases adiponectin, which helps lower blood glucose levels in diabetic patients. High levels of adiponectin have been linked to resistance to diabetes, weight loss, and the prevention of atherosclerosis.
5. Manage ADHD and improve concentration
In addition to improving concentration in the general population, natural environments can also enhance attention in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A walk in the park is sufficient to elevate concentration in children with ADHD.
Lobsang also found in his clinical treatment that the symptoms of 80 to 90 percent of children with ADHD or autism can be gradually improved when the children are exposed to nature.
6. Manage asthma and improve lung function
Asthma has been linked to exposure to air pollution. For children with allergic diseases such as asthma, exposure to a forest environment can help improve symptoms. A study published in the European Respiratory Journal showed that children who grew up with increased exposure to green spaces had improved respiratory health and often had better lung function.
Lobsang believes that plants are very effective in purifying the air, saying that “plants are the best air purifiers.” He pointed out that many studies have found that simply having a lot of plants (such as sansevieria) indoors can help clean the air.
7. Improve eye health
Looking at a green environment after intense eye use can relax the eyes. Chang explained that green light’s wavelength can relax the eye muscles. The eyes will directly affect the brain, and the discomfort of the eyes will cause pain in the head. Computer vision syndrome refers to the discomfort in the eyes caused by prolonged viewing of the computer, which will extend to the brain, resulting in symptoms such as headache and nausea.
Take off Your Shoes and Perform ‘Earthing’ to Increase Natural Healing Power
When walking into green spaces, it is best to take off your shoes if possible, and step barefoot on grass, dirt, and sand to perform “earthing,” as doing so allows you to receive nature’s medicine—electrons from the Earth’s surface.
Scientist Clint Ober discovered the health benefits of earthing by accident. In his book “Earthing,” co-authored with Dr. Stephen Sinatra and others, it is stated that people live on an electrified planet and live an electrified life—the heart, brain, muscles, nervous system, and immune system are all dynamic electric circuits. The purpose of earthing is to connect the weak current on the surface of the earth with the physiological current of the human botos to restore the body’s electrical balance.
Numerous studies have now documented the many benefits of going barefoot on the ground, including reduced chronic inflammation, pain and stress, improved blood flow, vitality and sleep, enhanced wound healing, and the prevention and treatment of autoimmune diseases.
A case study (pdf) by the International Academy of Clinical Thermography mentioned that an 85-year-old man with severe inflammation and chronic pain woke up stiff and sore every day, and his pain completely disappeared after four weeks of earthing therapy.
Earthing can also speed up the healing of difficult-to-heal wounds in diabetic patients and relieve wound pain.
To maximize the benefits of performing earthing to the body, going barefoot for as little as 30 or 40 minutes daily can significantly reduce pain and stress.
Lobsang said that the body is the structure of energy, and earthing can not only release bad energy from the body, but also massage the soles of the feet at the same time. There are many acupoints on the soles of the feet, such as the Yong Quan acupoint, which is an excellent acupoint for relieving stress, stabilizing emotions, and improving sleep. Additionally, the stimulation of the sole muscles can promote microcirculation.
Lobstang brings his patients to places with clean grass for earthing. In particular, grass that has been exposed to the sun is best. However, people with wounds on the soles of the feet, especially diabetics, have to be careful; they should avoid earthing when there are wounds on the soles of the feet.
In addition, traditional Chinese medicine believes in the concept of the unity of man and nature, and earthing is in line with the concept. Wu Kuo-pin, superintendent of Taiwan Xinyitang Heart Clinic, said that the ground is a part of the Earth (in the Five Elements); the Earth element is associated with the spleen and stomach, and the spleen and stomach are part of the digestive system in traditional Chinese medicine. People can strengthen their spleen and stomach by performing earthing and absorbing the qi of the Earth element. The immune system will improve as the function of the spleen and stomach improves.
Kuo-pin once heard of a case in which a cancer patient recovered from cancer by walking barefoot in the mountains. He emphasized that the energies of the human body, the Earth, and the universe are inherently interconnected. Stepping on the ground with bare feet can adjust the energy of the body, which is beneficial to overall well-being.
This case could change the course of our country and the world. Loy Brunson explaining the power of the people.
Loy Brunson’s Website: https://7discoveries.com
Brunson Brothers Website: https://brunsonbrothers.com
Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@OfficialBrunsonBrothersSCOTUS
What MSM wants to hide from the Masses
ROBERT KENNEDY – I need your help. Watching from the side is already becoming risky for all of us, I do not allow this anymore. Great injustices are happening before my eyes. Share this with everyone you know! Everyone needs to hear what I have to say.
War criminal and globalist Tony Blair talking about digital surveillance for the unvaccinated and talks about “multiple shots down the line”
Footage from within a in a recently liberated city in the Donbas. This is clear evidence of western multinational big pharma conducting inhumane experiments which are crimes against humanity and also highlights why the west is throwing billions at the Kiev regime.
Kari Lake continues the fight again election fraud. The election fraud is for all to see. Now we will see how corrupt the justice system is. Time to wake up
Pfizer CEO refuses to answer questions.
China has self destruct helmet for their soldiers.
The west likes to claim Russia is a totalitarian dictatorship when in fact it is the west that suppresses free speech.
US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin says the US will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” Top DOD officials are part of the swamp and it is time to for the people to wake up.
The Maniacal push for a new world order by Laura Ingraham
Clots and Fetal demises
Political Theater and we were the guinea pigs. DOD Documents reveal the truth.
Part of the satanic NWO agenda is to create mass infertility around the world which in part has been achieved thanks to the Covid vaccines, GMO’s, fluoridated water and microplastics.
This company EctoLife is helping accelerate the transhumanist agenda by creating artificial womb pods which is promoted through the WEF and other NGO’s under the guise of sustainability and depopulation
Vaccinated at Higher Risk of COVID-19 Infection: Studies
People who have received COVID-19 vaccines are more likely to get infected than those who are unvaccinated, according to two new studies.
In one paper (pdf), from Cleveland Clinic researchers, each successive dose heightened the incidence of infection. The lowest incidence was among the unvaccinated.
In the other study, researchers in Indiana found that vaccinated people had a higher incidence of infection when compared to unvaccinated people who have natural immunity, or protection from surviving an initial infection.
The studies are the latest to find low or even negative effectiveness against infection among the vaccinated. A growing number of experts are pointing to immune imprinting, or suggesting it could be a cause. The term refers to how an immune system can be locked in by exposure to an early version of a virus, thus hindering its response to mutated versions. The COVID-19 vaccines target only the original virus strain apart from the updated boosters, which target both that strain and the BA.4/BA.5 subvariants of the Omicron variant.
Old vaccines “may have trained the immune response to expect a specific narrow pre-omicron challenge; thus, the response was inferior when the actual challenge was an immune-evasive omicron subvariant,” Qatari researchers wrote in a recent paper (pdf), which found a booster dose lowered the protection against infection.
Cleveland Clinic Paper
In their paper, a preprint published by medRxiv, Cleveland Clinic researchers analyzed data from clinic employees to arrive at estimates of vaccine effectiveness. The retrospective cohort study looked at data from Sept. 12, when the new boosters became available, through Dec. 12.
Researchers not only found the updated vaccines provide poor protection, but the “unexpected” result that people who received more doses of either version of the shots had an increased risk of infection.
“A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of subjects in this study were generally young individuals and all were eligible to have received at least 3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, and which they had every opportunity to do,” wrote the researchers, including Dr. Nabin Shrestha.
“Therefore, those who received fewer than 3 doses (>45% of individuals in the study) were not those ineligible to receive the vaccine, but those who chose not to follow the CDC’s recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to have exhibited higher risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than those who received a larger number of prior vaccine doses.”
The researchers noted that multiple other studies, including the Qatari paper, have offered similar results.
“We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed,” they said.
Researchers did not look at the effectiveness against severe illness or hospitalization.
No funding sources for the study were listed. Under “funding,” researchers listed, “none.”
“It’s important to note that the study was done in a younger, relatively healthy, healthcare employee population. It included no children, very few elderly individuals and likely few immunocompromised individuals. Therefore, we urge caution in generalizing the findings to the public, which can include different populations than was in this study,” a spokesperson for the clinic told The Epoch Times via email.
“The study found that the longer it has been since last exposure to the virus by infection or vaccination, the higher the risk of acquiring COVID-19. It also found that the higher the number of vaccine doses an individual previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19. It is unclear at this time why this was observed and how it should be interpreted, and more research is needed to either confirm or refute this finding. It’s important to note that this paper has not yet been peer reviewed.”
The Indiana researchers, including Dr. Shaun Grannis of the Regenstrief Institute, combed statewide testing and vaccination data as well as medical records to match individuals to compare incidence of infection, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths. The observational study, which only included people aged 12 and older with at least one previously recorded health care encounter with the Indiana Network for Patient Care between Jan. 1, 2016, and early 2022, crunched data from between Nov. 29, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2022.
The researchers estimated the incidence of COVID-19 was higher among the vaccinated when compared with the unvaccinated but naturally immune. Six months after the index date—30 days after an initial infection or 30 days after a vaccination—the cumulative infection rate was 6.7 percent among the vaccinated and just 2.9 percent among the previously infected. The rate remained higher among the vaccinated in all age groups when the results were stratified by age.
“Interestingly, at least in the study population and at [the] time of this analysis, natural immunity appears more effective in preventing new infections, a finding that is also reported in an earlier observational study,” the researchers said, pointing to an April paper from Israeli researchers. They theorized that vaccinated people may be more likely to get tested for COVID-19, which would lead to vaccine effectiveness being underestimated.
The study also concluded that the vaccinated were better protected than the naturally immune against emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and mortality.
“The findings highlight the real-world benefits of vaccination and allude to the health consequences of SARS-CoV-2 after the initial exposure,” Grannis and his co-authors wrote.
The paper was published by the American Journal of Public Health, which is the publication of the American Public Health Association. No funding sources were listed.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated with a comment from the Cleveland Clinic.
The Video Hillary Clinton Does Not Want You to See
DAVOS ELITE REVEAL ORWELLIAN PLAN TO DECODE YOUR BRAIN & READ YOUR MIND
Davos Elite Reveal Orwellian Plan to Decode Your Brain
Reiner Fuellmich engages in a tough but critical discussion with obstetrician and fetal medicine specialist James A. Thorp, criminal defense attorney Yiannis Zografos, and pediatric surgeon Vasilia Souleimanova about the disastrous effects of covid injections, particularly on women and children. They also share their concerns regarding the inglorious role of the judiciary worldwide.
The statistics and testimonials from medical professionals are alarming, and the experts agree: for the sake of children – both born and unborn – and for the future of humanity, it is now more important than ever to stand up and unite. We must (continue to) speak the Truth loud and clear to give voice to all those who need us most.