Autistic Children Have Been Vaccinated; Garlic for COVID; RFK Jr Censored; and Why They Want Him Censored

 

 

Our Next Soul Level; Doctor Admits  99% Intubates Patients Died; MHRA Report Card; Mammogram Risks

Doctor Admits  99% Intubates Patients Died

It’s never been about health or a cure…its about big pharma and hospitals scheming for profit. This doctor calls it “politics.”

If a hospital admits a COVID-19 patient, they get paid $13k.

If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, the hospital gets paid $39k—three times as much.

While HCQ is better known, has fewer side-effects, and costs about $20 a dose for out-patients, Remdesivir is a therapeutic course that costs $2,340/patient that has been proven to cause liver damage. Being intravenous, Remdesivir requires expensive hospital care (hospital receives an additional $13k from Medicare.)

There have been many accounts of hospitals placing non covid patients on covid floors…increasing exposure and the hospital’s chance of cashing in more. This is why some hospitals refuse to allow family in. It’s not a “safety” protocol.


MHRA YELLOW CARD REPORTING SUMMARY UP TO 23rd NOVEMBER 2022 (Data published 1st Dec 2022)
Adult & Child – Primary, Third Dose & Boosters (mono/bivalent)

People in UK who have received one or more vaccine = 53,813,491
(Up to 11th Sept 2022)

Yellow Card Adverse Event Reports – 177,925 (Pfizer) + 246,866 (AZ) + 47,045 (Moderna) + 52 (Novavax = N) + 2130 (Unknown) = 474,018 people impacted incl. bivalent vaccines (increase of 3995 in 4 weeks)

Overall 1-in-114 people injected experiences a Yellow Card Adverse Event, which may be less than 10% of actual figures according to MHRA.

TOTAL DOSES administered – 94.4million (Pfizer) + 49.16m (AZ) + 25.3m (Moderna) = 168,859,700 doses incl. all booster programmes

All boosters = 64,259,700
• Pfizer – 32.5m (mono) & 9.7m (bivalent)
• Astrazeneca – 59,700
• Moderna – 13.1m (mono) & 8.9m (bivalent)

Adverse event report figures below INCLUDE both mono- and bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

Booster Yellow Card Reports – 35,028 (Pfizer) + 655 (AZ) + 21,956 (Moderna) + 280 (Unknown) = 57,919

Reactions – 511,776 (Pfizer) + 874,912 (AZ) + 151,628 (Moderna) + 106 (Novavax = N) + 6508 (Unknown) = 1,544,930

Fatal – 857 (Pfizer) + 1334 (AZ) + 111 (Moderna) + 60 (Unknown) = 2362

Blood Disorders – 17,677 (Pfizer) + 7938 (AZ) + 2862 (Moderna) + 75 (Unknown) = 28,552

Anaphylaxis – 687 (Pfizer) + 888 (AZ) + 102 (Moderna) + 2 (N) + 3 (Unknown) = 1682

Acute Cardiac – 14,375 (Pfizer) + 11,813 (AZ) + 4177 (Moderna) + 5 (N) + 161 (Unknown) = 30,531

Eye Disorders – 8461 (Pfizer) + 15,107 (AZ) + 1939 (Moderna) + 105 (Unknown) = 25,612

Blindness – 180 (Pfizer) + 330 (AZ) + 46 (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 561

Deafness – 331 (Pfizer) + 447 (AZ) + 70 (Moderna) + 6 (Unknown) = 854

Infections – 13,600 (Pfizer) + 20,951 (AZ) + 3160 (Moderna) + 5 (N) + 263 (Unknown) = 37,979

Herpes – 2341 (Pfizer) + 2725 (AZ) + 363 (Moderna) + 2 (N) + 30 (Unknown) = 5461

Spontaneous Abortions – 505 + 19 stillbirths/foetal deaths (Pfizer) + 240 + 6 stillbirths/foetal deaths (AZ) + 74 + 1 stillbirth (Moderna) +11 (Unknown) = 830 miscarriages

Gastrointestinal Disorders – 44,248 (Pfizer) + 81,396 (AZ) + 13,828 (Moderna) + 6 (N) + 506 (Unknown) = 139,984

Strokes and CNS hemorrhages – 878 (Pfizer) + 2429 (AZ) + 108 (Moderna) + 1 (N) + 27 (Unknown) = 3443

Nervous System Disorders – 84,728 (Pfizer) + 184,225 (AZ) + 24,827 (Moderna) + 16 (N) + 1088 (Unknown) = 294,884

Seizures – 1201 (Pfizer) + 2113 (AZ) + 340 (Moderna) + 34 (Unknown) = 3688

Paralysis – 553 (Pfizer) + 916 (AZ) + 148 (Moderna) + 15 (Unknown) = 1632

Vertigo & Tinnitus – 4426 (Pfizer) + 6935 (AZ) + 925 (Moderna) + 56 (Unknown) = 12,342

Respiratory Disorders – 23,064 (Pfizer) + 30,230 (AZ) + 5592 (Moderna) + 3 (N) + 279 (Unknown) = 59,168

Epistaxis (nosebleeds) – 1148 (Pfizer) + 2307 (AZ) + 240 (Moderna) + 12 (Unknown) = 3707

Psychiatric Disorders – 10,798 (Pfizer) + 18,699 (AZ) + 3025 (Moderna) + 1 (N) + 158 (Unknown) = 32,681

Skin Disorders – 35,879 (Pfizer) + 53,819 (AZ) + 15,036 (Moderna) + 7 (N) + 464 (Unknown) = 105,205

Reproductive/Breast Disorders – 31,789 (Pfizer) + 20,983 (AZ) + 5438 (Moderna) + 1 (N) + 271 (Unknown) = 58,482

Bell’s Palsy – 677 (Pfizer) + 646 (AZ) + 127 (Moderna) + 1 (N) + 3 (Unknown) = 1454

CHILDREN & YOUNG PEOPLE SPECIAL REPORT
Suspected side effects reported in individuals under 18yrs old

• Pfizer – 4,200,000 children (1st doses) + 2,900,000 (2nd doses) + 400,000(mono)/52,500(bivalent) boosters resulting in 4205 Yellow Cards

• AZ – 11,400 children (1st doses) + 8.500 (2nd doses) + ‘extremely limited boosters’ resulting in 267 Yellow Cards (reporting rate 1-in-43)

• Moderna – 2100 children (1st doses) + 2000 (2nd doses) + 32,400(mono)/1000(bivalent) boosters resulting in 39 Yellow cards

• Brand Unspecified – 37 Yellow Cards

Total = 4,213,700 children injected (under 18s)
Total doses (1st, 2nd & boosters) = 7,609,900
Total Yellow Cards Under 18s = 4548

For full reports including 387 pages of specific reaction listings – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions


 

The Business of Breast Cancer: Mammogram Risks

An epidemic of low-value screenings is driving millions of women to get unnecessary tests and treatments
Jan 14 2023

 

Getting older is a complicated business. As we age, trips to the doctor increasingly conclude with requisitions for different screenings—tests meant to help diagnose potential problems and keep us healthy for the long haul.

Although many tests used to detect cancer have been hailed as life-saving miracles of modern medicine, some have a dark side. Concerns over the prolific use of mammograms for detecting breast cancer have been growing in the scientific community as journals publish research revealing these tests come with their own risks. With roughly seventy percent of women in the U.S. over forty having mammograms at least every two years, it raises questions about their safety, if information about potential dangers is being obscured, and who might really be benefitting from this widespread testing.

What if millions of women are fueling a billion-dollar industry with ever-increasing profits by using screening that not only hasn’t improved outcomes, but may be harming the women it is supposed to save?

Cancer in Our Society

Cancer is pervasive and widely feared due to its relentlessness, brutality, and the grueling nature of many cancer treatments. The National Cancer Institute spends billions on cancer research each year and cancer fundraisers are a perennial activity in our communities. Virtually every cancer has a month dedicated to its awarenessOctober is breast cancer awareness month, which it politely shares with liver cancer awareness in the United States.

As we get older, cancer is something we think about more and our doctors push us to get tests and screenings to make sure cancer cells haven’t been seeded in our bodies.

Breast Cancer

Breast cancer deeply frightens many women (and yes, men can get it too). If you happen to be considered high-risk, screenings may start as early as your twenties. In the United States, mammograms are considered the gold standard of testing for breast cancer and there are now both 2D and 3D varieties for women to choose from.

Mammograms use x-rays (a form of ionizing radiation) to take pictures of the breast. A machine is used where a woman places her breast between two plates or paddles where it is then compressed and x-ray images are captured.

In a 2D mammogram, two images are taken, one from the top and one from the side, creating a 2D picture.

3D, or tomosynthesis, is largely the same process, using slightly more radiation and capturing additional images, creating a three-dimensional picture of the breast.

Radiologists use the images to look for abnormalities, with breast cancer usually appearing as a white mass. If abnormalities are found, the patient is asked to come back for more tests, often an MRI, or to have a biopsy. Mammograms do not diagnose breast cancer. They look for abnormalities in the breast and can give the patient more information about their breast tissue, if masses are present, and if further investigation is needed. The only way to diagnose breast cancer after an abnormality is seen is to do a biopsy.

Mammography: What You Should Know

Mammography does, however, have risks that all women should be aware of. The two main concerns of mammography are radiation exposure and overdiagnosis.

Because mammography uses a type of ionizing radiation, it comes with inherent risk. We are all exposed to radiation every day. Some of that radiation, like the ultraviolet and infrared rays of the sun, is essential to our health (in appropriate doses). But we are well adapted to these natural, low levels of radiation. The same is not true of man-made radiation.

The ionizing radiation used in mammograms is much stronger than natural sources.  At high levels, ionizing radiation can harm our tissues, organs, and lead to cancer. According to the American Cancer Society (ACS) the dose of radiation people receive from a mammogram is about the same amount of radiation people get from their natural surroundings in a three-month period.

This is of concern because there are parts of the body that are particularly sensitive to radiation, and we should limit our exposure whenever possible. In fact, Cornell University’s Program on Breast Cancer Environmental Risk Factors states that “The female breast is known to be highly susceptible to the cancer-causing effects of radiation when exposure occurs before menopause.” A mammogram is also directing this radiation not only at the breast, but at the other organs inside the chest, like the heart and lungs.

A cohort study published in the British Journal of Cancer in 2012 followed more than 500,000 women from 1973 until 2009. The study found that women who had received radiation treatment for breast cancer (high energy x-rays) had a significant increase in heart disease and lung cancer in the decades after their treatment.

The study clearly demonstrates a progressive increase in both risk and mortality from radiation-related heart disease and lung cancer with time (into the third decade) after exposure to radiation.

The study is one of many to raise questions about routine mammograms for women at low risk of breast cancer.

Overdiagnosis

The other issue with mammography is overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis is a concern because mammograms can detect abnormalities that may not be cancer, or cancers that would have regressed on their own but are treated once they are discovered. That means many women are exposed to chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery that may not have been not needed.

An article published in Public Health Research and Practice entitled What Is Overdiagnosis and Why Should We Take It Seriously? offers a very good explanation of what overdiagnosis is and why it is a problem, defining overdiagnosis this way:

“In cancer screening, overdiagnosed cancers are those that did not need to be found because they would not have produced symptoms or led to premature death.”

“Overdiagnosis in cancer screening arises largely from the paradoxical problem that screening is most likely to find the slow-growing or dormant cancers that are least likely to harm us, and less likely to find the aggressive, fast-growing cancers that cause cancer mortality. This central paradox has become clearer over recent decades. The more overdiagnosis is produced by a screening program, the less likely the program is to serve its ultimate goal of reducing illness and premature death from cancer.”

An article published in The Lancet in 2013 argued that two 30- to 35- year old randomized studies underestimated when they concluded that there was a 19 percent rate of overdiagnosis when screening with mammography.

The author, Per-Henrik Zahl, a researcher with the Norwegian Institute of Public Health who has looked at breast cancer overdiagnosis, argues that detection rates and the level of overdiagnosis have increased 100 percent or more as the sensitivity of mammograms has improved.

Zahl notes that when screening was introduced in Sweden and Norway there was a 50 percent increase in invasive breast cancer. The total increase in diagnosis in Norway was 75 percent. He concluded that almost all of the increase in cancer detection through screening was due to lesions that normally go into spontaneous regression.

comparative study published in the journal BMC Women’s Health in 2009 set out to quantify overdiagnosis in the Danish mammography screening program. Denmark is unique as only 20 percent of the population has been offered mammography over an extended period. Incidence rates of carcinoma in situ (stage 0 breast cancer) and invasive breast cancer were collected in areas with and without screening over thirteen years, and twenty years before its introduction. The study found that in the screened women, the overdiagnosis rate was 33 percent.

systematic review published in the British Medical Journal in 2009 tracked the incidence of breast cancer before and after the introduction of mammography screening in specific areas—the United Kingdom; Manitoba, Canada; New South Wales, Australia; Sweden and parts of Norway—both seven years before and seven years after public breast cancer screening programs were implemented. The review found that overdiagnosis was estimated at 52 percent and concluded that one in three breast cancers detected in a population offered screening was overdiagnosed.

As evidence of overdiagnosis has accumulated, it is now recognized as the most serious downside of population-wide breast screening.

What Women Think

One of the main concerns with mammograms is that women may not be warned about the potential risks and all the factors involved in breast cancer screening. A cross-sectional survey of 479 women in the United States, aged 18-97 published in the British Journal of Medicine set out to understand women’s attitudes to and knowledge of false-positive mammography results as well as the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (a type of stage 0 breast cancer) after screening mammography.

Ductal carcinoma in situ is defined as the presence of abnormal cells inside the milk duct in the breast. DCIS is considered an early form of breast cancer. DCIS is non-invasive, meaning it is still isolated and has not spread out of the milk duct and has a low risk of becoming invasive.

The survey concluded that women were aware of false positives, seeming to view them as an acceptable consequence of screening mammography. In contrast, most women were unaware that screening can detect cancers that may never progress (ductal carcinoma in situ) and felt that that information was relevant.

The study also found that only 8 percent of women thought mammography could harm a woman without breast cancer and 94 percent did not realize (doubted) that mammograms could detect cancers that might not progress. Few of the women in the study knew about ductal carcinoma in situ, but 60 percent of the women wanted to take into account the possibility that any cancer detected may not progress.

Another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2013 looked at overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer, and what physicians were telling patients about the risks of screening, specifically the possibility of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Less than 10 percent said they were told about the risks of mammograms by their physicians. Little more than half (51 percent) said they would not agree to screening if it resulted in one overtreated person per one life saved. These numbers imply that millions of Americans might not choose to be screened if they knew the whole story, but unfortunately, 90 percent are not getting that information.

The Cancer Industry Recommendations

In the United States, mammograms are the standard screening used to detect breast cancer, and doctors usually begin speaking to their women patients about mammograms at around age forty.

Both The American College of Radiology and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend women begin annual mammograms at age forty. The American Cancer Society recommends annual screenings begin at 45 (then once every other year after 55), and The US Preventative Services Task Force recommends women begin mammograms every other year at age fifty.

Mammograms are approved by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) which regulates the standards for mammography machines and the people who provide them. The FDA has also released several warnings about using thermography instead of mammograms, reminding the public that mammography is still the most effective primary breast cancer screening test.

Do Regular Mammograms Lead to Better Outcomes?

The question becomes, do regular mammograms lead to better outcomes? Well, it would depend on how you define better outcomes. If we are talking about detecting breast cancer, it seems the answer is most certainly yes. Mammograms seem an excellent tool for detecting breast cancer. But, if we define better outcomes as fewer women dying of breast cancer, then we seem to have entered a different territory.

An article, “Mammograms and Mortality: How Has the Evidence Evolved?” published in 2021 noted that a previous meta-analysis of mammogram studies revealed that mammograms have led to no significant reduction in all-cause mortality (death from any cause) for women of any age group. The article, by Amanda Kowalski, a health economist and the Gail Wilensky Professor of Applied Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan Department of Economics, also notes that some trials even show imprecise increases in all-cause mortality across all age groups or within an age group. These findings were based on eight large randomized controlled trials that combined included over 600,000 women.

A very large Canadian randomized screening trial published in the British Medical Journal followed nearly 90,000 women aged 40-59 over 25 years, who were considered at average risk for breast cancer. One group of women received routine mammograms, and the other did not. The somewhat surprising results were that mortality rates in both groups were almost identical. The overall conclusion of the study was that annual mammography in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer any better than a physical examination. The study also noted that they found the overdiagnosis rate among the mammography participants was 22 percent.

An analysis published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine in 2015 concluded that mammograms have been promoted to the public with three promises that all seem to be wrong. The first is that they save lives, the second is that they save breasts, and the third is that they catch cancer early. The author, Peter C Gøtzsche, formerly with the Nordic Cochrane Center and co-founder of the influential Cochrane Collaboration, states that mammogram screenings do not help women live longer, increase mastectomies, and many cancers are still caught at a very late stage.

It’s a sentiment other researchers have also expressed.

“The time has come to reassess whether universal mammographic screening should be recommended for any age group because the declines in breast cancer mortality can be ascribed mainly to improved treatments and breast cancer awareness; currently, we see that screening has only a minor effect on mortality (if any),” researchers from Nordic Cochrane Centre wrote in the journal Radiology in 2011.

In 2013, the Swiss Medical Board—an independent health technology assessment initiative—was asked to prepare a review of mammography screening. After a panel reviewed the available evidence—and contemplated its implications in detail—they were extremely concerned. The Swiss Medical Board’s report was released on Feb. 2, 2014, and acknowledged that systematic mammography screening might prevent about one death from breast cancer for every one thousand women screened, even though there was no evidence that overall mortality was affected. It also emphasized the harm caused by mammography, specifically false-positive test results and the risk of overdiagnosis. The report cites the following statistics, from a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association:

“For every breast-cancer death prevented in U.S. women over a 10-year course of annual screening beginning at 50 years of age, 490 to 670 women are likely to have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination; 70 to 100, an unnecessary biopsy; and 3 to 14, an overdiagnosed breast cancer that would never have become clinically apparent.”

Based on their findings, the board recommended that no new systematic mammography screening programs be introduced in Switzerland and that a time limit be placed on existing programs in the country, phasing them out entirely.

(On the New England Journal of Medicine’s website you can listen to an interview the journal conducted with Dr. Mette Kalager on the Swiss Board’s recommendation and learn more about why they recommended phasing out routine mammography screening.)

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, thought to be one of the world’s best and least biased research institutions, conducted a systematic review to assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity. The trials they looked at included 600,000 women aged 39-74 years. The conclusions, published in 2013, are as follows:

“If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15 percent and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30 percent, it means that for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings.”

The study’s authors, Peter C Gøtzsche and Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, state that women should be fully informed of both the benefits and harms. They went so far as to write an evidence-based leaflet in several languages to help women understand the risks.

The Mammography Industry-Projected Earnings

What might perhaps be interesting to know is that mammography is a multi-billion dollar industry.

In September 2022, Vantage Market Research released a report that projected earnings for the mammography market would be from US $1.8 billion in 2021 to $3.2 billion by 2028.

Growing markets in Asia will provide most of that expansion. The report attributes the huge growth in the region to the existence of a significant number of mammography companies, and the high adoption rate due to government measures that stimulate the industry and increasing collaborations between the mammography industry and governments in the region.

Final Thoughts

Success when it comes to breast cancer really depends on the outcome we are trying to achieve. If it is early detection, then we seem to be doing a stellar job. But if our goal is lowering mortality rates, we seem to be in a gray zone and possibly moving backwards. With the present technology—and its increasing sensitivity—we seem to have created many more cancer patients, perhaps unnecessarily, and are keeping women in the dark about the dangers.

Michael Baum, a Professor Emeritus of Surgery and a visiting Professor of Medical Humanities at University College London (UCL), is a British surgical oncologist specializing in breast cancer treatment and one of the architects of Britain’s national breast screening program.

Baum went from being one of the most determined supporters of breast cancer screening to one of its most vocal opponents.

In his book, “The History and Mystery of Breast Cancer,” he explains why.

“The largest threat posed by American medicine is that more and more of us are being drawn into the system not because of an epidemic of disease, but because of an epidemic of diagnoses. The real problem with the epidemic of diagnoses is that it leads to an epidemic of treatments. Not all treatments have important benefits, but almost all can have harms.”

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.

Emma Suttie

Emma Suttie D.AC, AP  is an acupuncture physician and founder of Chinese Medicine Living—a website dedicated to sharing how to use traditional wisdom to live a healthy lifestyle in the modern world. She is a lover of the natural world, martial arts, and a good cup of tea.


Meditation is a natural relaxation state of the mind and is considered to be most important mental exercise to practice during our lifetime. Meditation is actually our natural state and our connection to the Divine.

Mindfulness can be practice all the time by simply focusing on the current moment, not yesterday or tomorrow but the present moment.

The proper way to meditate is just start. You will develop a practice over time but start with what works for you. Sitting in a chair or floor with good posture, close your eyes, take 5–10 slow deep breaths, following your breath. Your relaxing your mind so try not to think of anything. Just focus on a point in the front of eyes. You will find your thoughts drifting to problems just bring the focus back to the point in front of the eyes. The time you meditate is up to you.

Make meditation part of your life and you will see the world anew.

FBI Whistleblower; Why the Unvaccinated Are Concerned About Close Contact With COVID-19 Vaccinated; Arizona Attorney General Candidate Sues Over Midterm Election Results

 

Why the Unvaccinated Are Concerned About Close Contact With COVID-19 Vaccinated

Learn more about the shedding of mRNA and spike protein

One of the most common questions I am asked from the unvaccinated stems from concerns over “shedding.” 

Because the mRNA vaccines have been in development by the US Department of Defense DARPA since 2011, one would have expected that all of the necessary preclinical testing would have been completed before Operation Warp Speed was announced.  The 2015 FDA guidance on Gene Product Shedding Studies with gene therapies, which are defined as “all products that exert their effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integration into the host genome and that are administered in the form of nucleic acids, viruses or genetically modified microorganisms”.[i]

By this statement mRNA vaccines are indeed gene therapy products and should have been submitted to these excretion studies by DARPA funded researchers long ago.[ii]  Sadly, these careful development steps were skipped from the beginning in our military-style vaccine development program, and now the public is grappling with the issue of nucleic acid and Spike protein shedding as a potential concern among those who have worked so hard to remain healthy and free of COVID-19 vaccination.

In the most comprehensive paper on shedding thus far, former Inserm researcher Dr. Helene Banoun has published the basis for which there is great likelihood that mRNA either on lipid nanoparticles or within exosomes is circulatory in blood and is secreted in every body secretion that would naturally expect to contain particles of this size.[iii]

Epoch Times Photo

Fertig et al, have shown mRNA is circulatory in blood for at least two weeks with no reduction in concentration out to that time point.[iv] Likewise, Hanna et al, have found mRNA within breast milk.[v] Less data exist on Spike protein shedding but it is not a far stretch to understand this is well within the realm of reality.

The pivotal questions are:

1) for how long is a recently vaccinated person at risk to shed on to others?

2) can shed mRNA be taken up by the recipient and begin to produce Spike protein just like vaccination?

3) can shed Spike protein cause disease as it does in the vaccinated (e.g. myocarditis, blood clots, etc.)?

It’s time for the lapses by DOD BARDA and NIH BARDA, to immediately be corrected by those agencies funding the necessary independent shedding studies to ensure the public safety of those who wisely deferred on COVID-19 vaccination.  This research should preferably be conducted while the current products are paused and taken off to market to protect others at risk.  Until then, we simply cannot answer these questions for those who sacrificed so much to remain “pure-blood.”

Reposted from the author’s Substack


[i] Design and Analysis of Shedding Studies for Virus or Bacteria-Based Gene Therapy and Oncolytic Products Guidance for Industry AUGUST 2015

[ii] Department of Defense Driving Mass Vaccination While FDA and Vaccine Companies are Powerless to Stop It by Dr. Peter McCullough | Nov 8, 2022 | Health, Military, Politics,

[iii] Current state of knowledge on the excretion of mRNA and spike produced by anti-COVID-19 mRNA vaccines; possibility of contamination of the entourage of those vaccinated by these products by Helene Banoun Infectious Diseases Research 2022;3(4):22. https://doi.org/10.53388/IDR20221125022

[iv] Fertig TE, Chitoiu L, Marta DS, Ionescu VS, Cismasiu VB, Radu E, Angheluta G, Dobre M, Serbanescu A, Hinescu ME, Gherghiceanu M. Vaccine mRNA Can Be Detected in Blood at 15 Days Post-Vaccination. Biomedicines. 2022 Jun 28;10(7):1538. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10071538. PMID: 35884842; PMCID: PMC9313234.

[v] Hanna N, Heffes-Doon A, Lin X, et al. Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk. JAMA Pediatr. Published online September 26, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.3581

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.

Dr. Peter A. McCullough

Dr. Peter A. McCullough is a practicing internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist managing the cardiovascular complications of both the viral infection and the injuries developing after the COVID-19 vaccine in Dallas TX, USA. He has dozens of peer-reviewed publications on the infection, multiple US and State Senate testimonies, and has commented extensively on the medical response to the COVID-19 crisis in TheHill, America Out Loud, NewsMax, and on FOX NEWS Channel.
John Leake

John Leake   studied history and philosophy with Roger Scruton at Boston University. He then went to Vienna, Austria on a graduate school scholarship and ended up living in the city for over a decade, working as a freelance writer and translator. He is a true crime writer with a lifelong interest in medical history and forensic medicine.


 Arizona Attorney General Candidate Sues Over Midterm Election Results

By Zachary Stieber
November 23, 2022 Updated: November 23, 2022

A Republican candidate for Arizona’s attorney general position on Nov. 22 sued his opponent and a slew of election officials, including officials in Maricopa County, alleging that widespread “errors and inaccuracies” caused voter disenfranchisement.

Officials in at least 15 counties have “caused the unlawful denial of the franchise to certain qualified electors, erroneously tallied certain ballots, and included for tabulation in the canvass certain illegal votes in connection with the election for the office of Arizona Attorney General,” Abe Hamadeh, the candidate, said in the complaint.

That includes Maricopa County officials improperly disqualifying ballots cast by people who, as a direct result of poll worker errors, were incorrectly listed as voting previously in the midterm election, Hamadeh added.

“Immediate judicial intervention is necessary to secure the accuracy of the results of the November 8, 2022 general election, and to ensure that candidate who received the highest number of lawful votes is declared the next Arizona Attorney General,” the complaint states.

The filing was lodged in Maricopa County court.

The Arizona attorney general race is headed to a recount, according to Katie Hobbs, the state’s secretary of state, due to the slim margin separating Hamadeh from Democrat candidate Kris Mayes.

Mayes is leading by just 510 votes out of more than 2.5 million cast, according to an unofficial tally from Hobbs’s office.

Mayes and Hobbs, who were named as defendants in the new suit, did not respond to requests for comment. A Maricopa County spokesperson did not immediately return an inquiry.

Problems

Maricopa County officials have acknowledged problems with tabulation equipment, saying the problem affected 30 percent of all voting centers in the county and an estimated 17,000 ballots.

On election day the officials said that voters could place their ballots in a secure box to be counted later. Other options included “checking out” of the poll site and casting a ballot at another location, or utilizing an early ballot if one was possessed.

Both of the latter options required poll workers to properly list the voter as checking out, or leaving the site without casting a ballot, but some workers “were unaware of the process,” the new complaint alleges.

“This pervasive and systematic error directly and proximately resulted in three recurring scenarios in which qualified electors were unlawfully and unconstitutionally disenfranchised,” it added.

Hamadeh and the Republican National Committee, which joined in the legal action, say that at least 146 voters who should have been checked out and who later went to another location were required to vote using provisional ballots, which they say will not be counted because the voter was erroneously listed as having already voted.

Epoch Times Photo
An election worker gathers tabulated ballots to be boxed inside the Maricopa County Recorders Office in Phoenix. Arizona, on Nov. 10, 2022. (Matt York/AP Photo)

At least 273 other voters who should have been checked out utilized early ballots but those ballots will not count because of the same issue, the Republicans said.

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Gates, a Republican, failed to outline the steps voters had to take if they left the sites at which there were problems in a widely-viewed Election Day video that featured officials acknowledging for the first time the issues with tabulators, the complaint noted. He did not mention checking out but merely said people could “go to a nearby voting center.”

“Chairman Gates’s instructions foreseeably resulted in the disenfranchisement of a significant number of qualified electors who followed his instructions,” it says. “By inducing voters to leave polling locations and then denying-through a consistent and erroneous practice of failing to properly implement ‘check-out’ procedures-these qualified electors their right to duly cast a ballot for tabulation, the Maricopa County Defendants engaged (through their election boards) in cognizable ‘misconduct,’ and wrongfully excluded valid and legally sufficient votes from the canvass line the race for Arizona Attorney General.”

Other Issues

Other issues include officials allegedly violating the law when they sought to verify early ballot signatures.

Officials must, when receiving a mail-in ballot, compare the signature on the envelope containing the ballot with the signature of the voter on record. If the signatures don’t match, the ballot is invalid unless the voter “cures” the problem within three to five days, depending on the type of election.

A number of the ballot envelopes had mismatched signatures but were still counted because county officials determined the signature matched the signature on a different document other than the registration record, which violates state law, the complaint alleges.

The issue happened across multiple counties, the Republicans say.

They also alleged that in the duplication process—triggered when a ballot is too defective to be read by a tabulator—officials incorrectly transcribed some of the selections in the attorney general race, which led to an inaccurate vote count.

“Arizonans demand answers and deserve transparency about the gross incompetence and mismanagement of the General Election by certain election officials. I will not stop fighting until ALL voters receive justice. See you in court,” Hamadeh said in a statement.

Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, said that the committee was “proud to join in this legal action.”

“Maricopa County’s election failures disenfranchised Arizonans,” she said. “We’re going to court to get the answers voters deserve.”

Zachary Stieber

REPORTER

Who’s Really Being Hospitalized? Nuremburg Code Applies!

Mainstream media is reporting
that severe COVID cases are
mainly among unvaccinated
people, but who is counted
as having COVID, and
who is counted as being
unvaccinated muddy
the waters. (wavebreakmedia/Shutterstock)

Mainstream media is reporting that severe COVID cases are mainly among unvaccinated people, but who is counted as having COVID, and who is counted as being unvaccinated muddy the waters. (wavebreakmedia/Shutterstock

Who’s Really Being Hospitalized?

Breakthrough cases reach majority levels in some jurisdictions but numbers elude CDC
August 30, 2021 Updated: September 1, 2021

“I’m not going to arm wrestle with the administration about where to put you,” Dr. C., a highly skilled gastroenterologist, said gently to my friend who was in bed in a triage room in the ER. “We just want to get you into a bed so we can figure out what’s wrong and get you treated.”

We were at our small town’s hospital. No one was sure why, but my friend had not been able to keep anything more than a handful of raspberries down since a complicated surgery for a chronic health condition three weeks before. Dehydrated and unable to eat, my friend had been violently vomiting after taking just a sip of water or sucking on an ice chip, and had lost nearly twenty-five pounds.

I was by my husband’s side when he had a gallbladder attack so severe that it left his hands shaking. I’ve had three unmedicated childbirths and attended many more, both as a journalist and a patient advocate. Still, I’ve never seen a human in so much pain.

Diagnosed with a Pancreas Disorder, Admitted as a COVID Patient

After a battery of testing, my friend was diagnosed with pancreatitis. But it was easier for the hospital bureaucracy to register the admission as a COVID case.

Let me explain. This patient had none of the classic symptoms of COVID: No shortness of breath, no fever, no chills, no congestion, no loss of sense of smell or taste, no neurological issues. The only COVID symptoms my friend had were nausea and fatigue, which could also be explained by the surgery. However, nearly three weeks earlier, a COVID test had come back positive.

The mainstream media is reporting that severe COVID cases are mainly among unvaccinated people. An Associated Press headline from June 29 reads: “Nearly all COVID deaths in US are now among unvaccinated.” Another, from the same date: “Vast majority of ICU patients with COVID-19 are unvaccinated, ABC News survey finds.”

Is that what’s really going on? It’s certainly not the case in Israel, the first country to fully vaccinate a majority of its citizens against the virus. Now it has one of the highest daily infection rates and the majority of people catching the virus (77 percent to 83 percent, depending on age) are already vaccinated, according to data collected by the Israeli government.

After carefully reviewing the available data, including the safety and efficacy profiles of the mRNA vaccines, my friend had taken a cautious approach. Though a medical doctor who gives vaccines in the office every day, my friend opted to wait and see. According to WebMD, a “huge number” of frontline hospital workers have also chosen not to get the vaccine. Indeed, various news reports, from California to New York, confirm that up to 40 percent of health care workers have decided the risks of the vaccines do not outweigh the benefits.

After admission, I spoke to the nurse on the COVID ward. She was suited up in a plastic yellow disposable gown, teal gloves, and two masks underneath a recirculating personal respiratory system that buzzed so loudly she could barely hear. The nurse told me that she had gotten both vaccines but she was feeling worried: “Two thirds of my patients are fully vaccinated,” she said.

Israel confirmed cases table

 

Data Limitations

How can there be such a disconnect between what the COVID ward nurse told me and the mainstream media reports? For one thing, it is very hard to get any kind of accuracy when it comes to actual numbers. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have publicly acknowledged that they do not have accurate data.

As reported by the Associated Press, “The CDC itself has not estimated what percentage of hospitalizations and deaths are in fully vaccinated people, citing limitations in the data.”

At the same time, data collection is done on a state by state basis. In most states, a person is only considered fully vaccinated fourteen days after they have had the full series of the vaccine.

This means that anyone coming into an American hospital who has only had one dose, or who has had both vaccines but had the second one less than two weeks prior, will likely be counted as “unvaccinated.”

So when the South Carolina’s Department of Health and Environmental Control released a report about COVID severity on July 23, 2021, they reported higher morbidity and mortality rates in the “not fully vaccinated.” Are these people who have had one vaccine and gotten sick, two vaccines and gotten sick, or no vaccines at all? Without more details, it is impossible to know what is really going on.

“We don’t have accurate numbers,” insists Dr. James Neuenschwander, an expert on vaccine safety based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

But what we do know, Neuenschwander says, is that the vaccines are not as effective as public health officials told us they would be. “This is a product that’s not doing what it’s supposed to do. It’s supposed to stop transmission of this virus and it’s not doing that.”

Overcounting COVID

Then there is the problem of attributing severe illness and deaths from other causes to COVID, like in my friend’s case. Health authorities around the world have been doing this since the beginning of the COVID crisis. For example, a young man in Orange County, Florida who died in a motorcycle crash last summer was originally considered a COVID death by state health officials (after Fox News investigation the classification was changed.) And a middle-aged construction worker fell off a ladder in Croatia and was also counted as a death from COVID (whether having COVID played a role in his death is still unclear.)

To muddy the waters further, even people who test negative for COVID are sometimes counted as COVID deaths.

Consider the case of 26-year-old Matthew Irvin, a father of three from Yamhill County, Oregon. As reported by KGW8 News, Irvin went to the ER with stomach pain, nausea, and diarrhea on July 5, 2020. But instead of admitting him to the hospital, the doctors sent him home.

Five days later, on July 10, 2020, Irvin died. Though his COVID test came back negative two days after his death and his family told reporters and public health officials that no one Irvin had been around had any COVID symptoms, the medical examiner allegedly told the family that an autopsy was not necessary, listing his death as a coronavirus case. It took the Oregon Health Authority two and a half months to correct the mistake.

In an even more striking example of overcounting COVID deaths, a nursing home in New Jersey that only has 90 beds was wrongly reported as having 753 deaths from COVID. According to a spokesman, they had fewer than twenty deaths. In other words, the number of deaths was over-reported by 3,700 percent.

Who’s Suffering from Severe COVID, Vaccinated or Unvaccinated?

In countries with the highest numbers of vaccinated individuals, we are also seeing high numbers of infections. Iceland has one of the most vaccinated populations in the world (over 82 percent) and is reporting that 77 percent of new COVID cases are in fully vaccinated Icelanders, according to Ásthildur Knútsdóttir, Director General of the Ministry of Health.

According to news reports, over 85 percent of the Israeli adult population has been vaccinated. But a July report from Israel’s Ministry of Health found that Pfizer’s vaccine is only 39 percent effective. Though Israeli health officials are telling the public that the cases are more mild in vaccinated individuals, this upsurge in COVID cases and deaths is leading Israel’s prime minister to issue new restrictions.

Dr. Peter McCullough, an academic internist and cardiologist in practice in Dallas, Texas, says that a large number of people in the hospitals right now have, indeed, been fully vaccinated. “Fully vaccinated people are being hospitalized, and … 19 percent of them have died,” McCullough says. “This is not a crisis of the unvaccinated. That’s just a talking point. The vaccinated are participating in this.”

Other physicians are seeing the same thing. “In my practice multiple patients who are fully vaccinated have been admitted to local hospitals,” says Dr. Jeffrey I. Barke, a board-certified primary care physician based in Newport Beach, California. Barke believes part of the problem is exaggeration of the efficacy: “If the vaccine works so well, why are we now pushing a booster?”

 

Jennifer Margulis

Jennifer Margulis
Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., is an award-winning journalist and author of Your Baby, Your Way: Taking Charge of Your Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Parenting Decisions for a Happier, Healthier Family. A Fulbright awardee and mother of four, she has worked on a child survival campaign in West Africa, advocated for an end to child slavery in Pakistan on prime-time TV in France, and taught post-colonial literature to non-traditional students in inner-city Atlanta. Learn more about her at JenniferMargulis.net

 

%d bloggers like this: